The Iraq thread 3

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Who cares what you prefer?

The people here who don´t want to read substenseless crap.

Then close you eyes or report me to a moderator for posting violently pro American propaganda.

Go ahead. Censor me, you big liberal.

[denoir 0]

I don't know if he's average, slightly above or slightly below. What I do know is that most of the rest of you here pretend that these people don't even exist in the first place.

Of course they exist. You can imagine just about any political position and you'll find somebody that supports it. As the polls indicated you had a couple of percentage points who thought that America should own the place in the future as well. People who wanted the coalition to become the new permanent rules of Iraq. But they're not representative. Neither is your dear blogger. And you do indeed have a measure if he is average or not. Compare his position to the results of the polls.

As for you presenting him as representative for the Iraqis can be found in this quote:

Amazing what Iraqis continue to say, in contrast to everyone else.

You don't say "som Iraqis" but "Iraqis" which implies that you are refering to Iraqis in general.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think we need to get back on the point.

The Iraq Abuses were ordered and condoned up through the chain of command. That leads clear to the top.

We already know Donald Rumsfeld went to Abu Ghraib prison while the abuse was going on.

We already know Donald Rumsfeld saw the report on Abu Ghraib prison of the abuse that was was going on in february but claims his reading level is so low he can not read the findings of a report that took me just 10 minutes to read and thouroughly understand.

We already know that generals up the chain of command told soldiers to take orders from the civilian CACI International interigators.

What we dont know is what investigation is going on by police into the CACI International interigators and their aledged rape of a boy. In fact I have not seen a US FBI investigator there. I know US citizens take such child abuse seriously but the investigation does not seem to be taking place.

We still do not know that children held in US millitary Custody are safe from Rape and torture.

We know that the Millitary investigators have stated that the two CACI International empolyees could not be prosecuted by them despite their wish to do so.

What is being done to find out who gave those men their orders to abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

More and more people are wondering if George Bush Jnr. gave these men a get out of Jail free card to go commit child molestation.

Getting seriously p**sed off Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Go ahead. Censor me, you big liberal.

NO. I only urge you to post relevant, representing, authentic news, not some handpicked "serving your favour" comments wich are far from being representative as I already showed you.

You just don´t have a point when you post things like that.

They are just not relevant for a serious discussion.

I know if someone of us had posted something similar like you and made it look like the general Iraqi position like you did you would have fainted with a blue face and you would have taken the same approach that we just took.

Your post with the quotes is neither relevant, not transparent, nor representative.

Reality shows us a different picture. Or did I make up the BBC source and the AP interviews ?

Quote[/b] ]Then close you eyes or report me to a moderator for posting violently pro American propaganda.

Comments like this are unwanted and not asked for. You post that dubious piece not us. If you fail to deliver credible sources get a grip and deliver some.

You should know that anyone get´s ripped apart when he posts things like that and tries to make it look like the general Iraqi position wich is just not true.

I bet you would have been the first one to do so if it was the other way round.

Same with the ICRC case you wanted to build. Now it´s clear that the ICRC urged the coaltion several times about the situation in Iraq´s prisons. But now that you can´t use that for anything anymore you just step over it.

That´s just lame...

[theavonlady 2]

Well, here's one Iraqi who's thinking of moving to America:

   

Quote[/b] ]Iraqi Recounts Hours of Abuse by U.S. Troops

By IAN FISHER

Published: May 5, 2004

AGHDAD, Iraq, May 4 — The shame is so deep that Hayder Sabbar Abd says he feels that he cannot move back to his old neighborhood. He would prefer not even to stay in Iraq. But now the entire world has seen the pictures, which Mr. Abd looked at yet again on Tuesday, pointing out the key figures, starting with three American soldiers wearing big smiles for the camera.

"That is Joiner," he said, pointing to one male soldier in glasses, a black hat and blue rubber gloves. His arms were crossed over a stack of naked and hooded Iraqi prisoners.

"That is Miss Maya," he said, pointing to a young woman's fresh face poking up over the same pile.

He gazed down at another picture. In it, a second female soldier flashed a "thumbs up" and pointed with her other hand at the genitals of a man wearing nothing but a black hood, his fingers laced on top of his head. He did not know her name. But the small scars on the torso left little doubt about the identity of the naked prisoner.

"That is me," he said, and he tapped his own hooded, slightly hunched image.

Mr. Abd, 34, is at the center of an explosive scandal over American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, but he remained calm in a detailed, two-hour account of his time at the fearsome Abu Ghraib prison. He claimed that he was never interrogated, and never charged with a crime. Officials at the prison said Tuesday that they could not comment on his case.

In November, when the abuse took place, few Shiite Muslims like Mr. Abd were carrying out attacks against United States forces. Nearly all the attacks were attributed to forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, mostly Sunni Muslims, and fighters from other Muslim countries.

"The truth is we were not terrorists," he said. "We were not insurgents. We were just ordinary people. And American intelligence knew this."

Mr. Abd spoke with no particular anger at the American occupation, though he has seen it closer than most Iraqis. In six months in prisons run by American soldiers, in fact, he said most of them had treated him well and with respect.

"Most of the time, they wouldn't even say, `Shut up,' " he said.

That changed in November — he does not know the exact date — when punishment for a prisoner fight at Abu Ghraib degenerated into torture. That night, he said, he and six other inmates were beaten, stripped naked (a particularly deep humiliation in the Arab world), forced to pile on top of one another, to straddle one another's backs naked, to simulate oral sex. American guards wrote words like "rapist" on their skin with Magic Marker, he said.

The curiosity, through much of the ordeal, was the camera. It was a detail he mentioned repeatedly as he recalled being forced against a wall and ordered by the Arabic translator to masturbate as he looked at one of the female guards.

"She was laughing, and she put her hands on her breasts," Mr. Abd said. "Of course, I couldn't do it. I told them that I couldn't, so they beat me in the stomach, and I fell to the ground. The translator said, `Do it! Do it! It's better than being beaten.' I said, `How can I do it?' So I put my hand on my penis, just pretending."

All the while, he said, the flash of the camera kept illuminating the dim room that once held prisoners of Mr. Hussein, recording images that have infuriated the Arab world and badly sullied America's image in a country more willing these days to think the worst of its occupiers.

"It was humiliating," Mr. Abd said in Arabic through an interpreter. "We did not think that we would survive. All of us believed we would be killed and not get out alive."

Though the pictures tell their own story, the details of Mr. Abd's account could not be verified. But a military official here said the prisoner number that Mr. Abd gave, 13077, matched that of a former prisoner who submitted a sworn statement alleging abuse by American soldiers. He also said the man's account was consistent with those verified by a military investigator. Several episodes that Mr. Abd recounted also matched, in some detail, testimony given by other American soldiers horrified by what they saw.

But Mr. Abd's account differed in one crucial way from the substance of a report, written by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba and first reported last week by The New Yorker magazine and the CBS News program "60 Minutes II." While the report says the military police in the prison often mistreated prisoners to help military intelligence officers gain information during interrogations, Mr. Abd said his case appeared to be punishment for bad behavior, in this case a jail-yard fight.

Mr. Abd is a slight, bearded man, the father of five children and a Shiite Muslim from the southern city of Nasiriya. He said he had served 18 years in the Iraqi military, for a time in the Republican Guard, Mr. Hussein's elite troops. But he said he had deserted several times and was demoted to the regular army, where he was serving when American troops invaded Iraq last March.

He was arrested in June at a military checkpoint, when he tried to leave the taxi he was riding in. He was taken to a detention center at the Baghdad airport, he said, and then transferred to a big military prison in Um Qasr, near the Kuwaiti border. He said he had stayed for three months and four days.

The treatment in Um Qasr, he said, "was very good," adding: "There was no problem. The American guards were nice and good people."

After the three months, he said, he was transferred to Abu Ghraib, a sprawling prison complex 20 miles west of Baghdad, where Mr. Hussein incarcerated and executed thousands of his opponents.

But after the prison fight, the victim pointed out Mr. Abd and six others to American guards, and at that moment, his time in prison turned.

Mr. Abd said he and the other men had been handcuffed and taken inside the prison to a cellblock called "the hard site," reserved for the most dangerous prisoners. There he saw, for the first time, an American soldier called "Joiner or something." (Mr. Abd does not speak English. The man he pointed out in the picture as Joiner has been identified in other reports as Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., of the 372nd Military Police Company.)

"In my pocket, I had three cigarettes," Mr. Abd said. "Joiner said to me, `Put them in your mouth and smoke all of them. If one falls out of your mouth, I will crush you with my boot.' "

The command came through the translator, an Egyptian known by the prisoners as Abu Hamid. In an area in front of the cells, he said, were "Joiner," the translator and two other male soldiers, one bald and one with reddish hair and complexion. He said there were two women: the one whose name he did not know, and the one with the camera, whom he knew as Miss Maya.

"I had no choice," Mr. Abd said. "I smoked all of them."

The seven men were all placed in hoods, he said, and the beating began. "They beat our heads on the walls and the doors," he said. "I don't really know: I couldn't see." He said his jaw had been broken, badly enough that he still has trouble eating. In all, he said, he believes that he received about 50 blows over about two hours.

"Then the interpreter told us to strip," he said. "We told him: `You are Egyptian, and you are a Muslim. You know that as Muslims we can't do that.' When we refused to take off our clothes, they beat us and tore our clothes off with a blade."

It was at this moment in the interview on Tuesday that several pages of the photographs made public last week were produced — photographs that Mr. Abd first saw when a military investigator came to visit him in January, and which are now broadcast every few minutes on Arab news channels as proof of American brutality. He had been through this before, and he quickly and unemotionally pointed out all his friends — Hussein, Ahmed, Hashim — naked, hooded, twisted around each other.

He also saw himself, as degraded as possible: naked, his hand on his genitals, a female soldier, identified in another report as Pvt. Lynndie England, pointing and smiling with a cigarette in her mouth. Mr. Abd said one of the soldiers had removed his hood, and the translator ordered him to masturbate while looking at Private England. He refused, was beaten, and then did what he could.

Then, he said, his friend Hussein was pushed up toward Mr. Abd's genitals. "They made him sit next to me," he said, adding that he had been re-hooded. "My penis was very close to his mouth. I did not know it was my friend because of the hood."

One of the photographs shows what appears to be this exact scene. In testimony in April, Specialist Matthew Carl Wisdom, a military police officer who witnessed part of the incident, remembered that the naked prisoner on the floor did not have his hood on. Specialist Wisdom's testimony, like Mr. Abd's account, cited seven detainees in the room.

"I thought I should just get out of there," Specialist Wisdom said, according to documents from an April 2 military court hearing. "I didn't think it was right."

Mr. Abd said it was then that the soldiers had begun piling the men on top of one another, and taking lots of pictures. Three or four times, he said, the soldiers made them pile up in pyramids. Twice, he said, the soldiers had made some prisoners kneel on the ground as others straddled their backs. At one point near the end, Mr. Abd said, "Joiner" grabbed the prisoners' hoods as if they were leashes.

"He said, `When I whistle, you bark like dog,' " Mr. Abd said.

Finally, after an ordeal of what Mr. Abd believed to be about four hours, it was over.

The soldiers removed the beds from their cells, he said, and threw cold water on the floor. The prisoners were forced to sleep on the ground with their hoods still on, he said.

"I was so exhausted, I fell asleep," Mr. Abd said. "These were the same walls where Saddam Hussein used to interrogate people. We thought we would be executed."

But the next morning, he said, doctors and dentists arrived to care for their injuries. Beds and pillows were brought back in. They were fed. Everyone was nice, Mr. Abd said. Then at night, the same crew with "Joiner" would return and strip them and handcuff them to the walls.

In sworn testimony, another soldier and a translator said they had seen handcuffing and shackling, as well as the removal of beds and sheets from cells, though it remains unclear if they were referring to Mr. Abd's group.

About 10 days after it started, the nightly abuse ended, for no explained reason. "Joiner" just stopped coming to the cell block, and about a month later, Mr. Abd and two others among the seven were transferred to a civilian Iraqi prison in Baghdad.

Two weeks or so after that, an American military investigator came to visit him. He showed Mr. Abd the pictures and said he needed him to make a statement against the military police who had mistreated him. Mr. Abd trusted him.

"He said, `Don't be afraid. Tell us what happened. We are on your side,' " Mr. Abd remembered. " `Tell us everything they have done.' "

Mr. Abd was released in mid-April. Looking back, the only explanation he can imagine for the mistreatment is that "Joiner" had been drinking.

"Americans did not mistreat me in general," he said. "But these people must be tried."

"I can't tell you my feelings," he said. "The Americans got rid of Saddam Hussein. They told us about democracy and freedom. We are happy about that."

But then he tapped the photos again.

"Then this man did this to the seven of us," he said. "I am asking: Is that democracy? Is that freedom?"

On Tuesday, he said, he would travel, finally, with his family back to his home in Nasiriya, though he said he could not stay. He said he would be too ashamed. He wants the American government to pay compensation. He said he felt he needed to move out of Iraq, and despite it all, he said he would not refuse an offer to move to America.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Go ahead. Censor me, you big liberal.

NO. I only urge you to post relevant, representing, authentic news, not some handpicked "serving your favour" comments wich are far from being representative as I already showed you.

You just don´t have a point when you post things like that.

They are just not relevant for a serious discussion.

I know if someone of us had posted something similar like you and made it look like the general Iraqi position like you did you would have fainted with a blue face and you would have taken the same approach that we just took.

Your post with the quotes is neither relevant, not transparent, nor representative.

Reality shows us a different picture. Or did I make up the BBC source and the AP interviews ?

Quote[/b] ]Then close you eyes or report me to a moderator for posting violently pro American propaganda.

Comments like this are unwanted and not asked for. You post that dubious piece not us. If you fail to deliver credible sources get a grip and deliver some.

You should know that anyone get´s ripped apart when he posts things like that and tries to make it look like the general Iraqi position wich is just not true.

I bet you would have been the first one to do so if it was the other way round.

Same with the ICRC case you wanted to build. Now it´s clear that the ICRC urged the coaltion several times about the situation in Iraq´s prisons. But now that you can´t use that for anything anymore you just step over it.

That´s just lame...

You're full of it today.

I consider Iraqi bloggers opinions just as credible as the Iraqis interviewed on the street by the BBC. You don't? Too bad.

As for the Red Cross, on the contrary! Glad to hear that they did take up the case. Even you have to admit that none of us could find anything about the RC's involvement until they publicly announced it just a few days ago.

But it was you, I recall, that questioned why it should be the RC's business in the first place, to which I replied with the ICRC's mission statement.

You didn't even suggest at the time that maybe the RC was involved without the public being aware of it. You couldn't understand what appeared to be the lack of their involvement at the time any more than I could.

Bicker. Bicker.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, here's one Iraqi who's thinking of moving to America:

Reads different here:

Quote[/b] ]On Tuesday, he said, he would travel, finally, with his family back to his home in Nasiriya, though he said he could not stay. He said he would be too ashamed. He wants the American government to pay compensation. He said he felt he needed to move out of Iraq, and despite it all, he said he would not refuse an offer to move to America.

An offer, that means MONEY from the USA for the cruelties commited to him.

He can´t stay in Iraq anymore because he´s a muslim and he´s ashamed to the bone of what happened to him.

Of course he would accept any kind of compensation that he gets offered by the US. Living conditions aren´t that great in Iraq right now and the ones who are responsible for the torture certainly will "compensate" his pains with some money.

But still he was not asked for being tortured and this put him into his today´s position of shame. If there was no torture he wouldn´t feel forced to leave Iraq.

[denoir 0]

I consider Iraqi bloggers opinions just as credible as the Iraqis interviewed on the street by the BBC.

In the naive case, if you assume that Iraqis writing blogs in English on the Internet don't fall into a specific group.

But that's not the question here. The blogger presented a number of selected quotes and the BBC presented a number of selected quotes. They're not expressing their opinion, but making a slection of other peoples' opinions. And there is the big difference. A well-respected source like the BBC is bound to have less bias when making its selection than a pro-American Iraqi writing a political blog. The BBC at least has the ambition of being objective. The Iraqi blogger does not. He's arguing for his political opinions.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Well, here's one Iraqi who's thinking of moving to America:

Reads different here:

Quote[/b] ]On Tuesday, he said, he would travel, finally, with his family back to his home in Nasiriya, though he said he could not stay. He said he would be too ashamed. He wants the American government to pay compensation. He said he felt he needed to move out of Iraq, and despite it all, he said he would not refuse an offer to move to America.

An offer, that means MONEY from the USA for the cruelties commited to him.

He can´t stay in Iraq anymore because he´s a muslim and he´s ashamed to the bone of what happened to him.

Of course he would accept any kind of compensation that he gets offered by the US. Living conditions aren´t that great in Iraq right now and the ones who are responsible for the torture certainly will "compensate" his pains with some money.

But still he was not asked for being tortured and this put him into his today´s position of shame. If there was no torture he wouldn´t feel forced to leave Iraq.

No arguments. All I said was he's thinking of moving to America, in spite of what Americans did to him, if the opportunity arrises.

He also talks about compensation separately from his plans to leave. That is, he would hope to be monetarily compensated by the US for his suffering.

Contrast this with your post of selected biased quotes of angry Arabs from angry Arab countries. And this comes from one of the tortured men of Abu Ghraib.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I consider Iraqi bloggers opinions just as credible as the Iraqis interviewed on the street by the BBC. You don't? Too bad.

No sorry I fail to see the relevance of the bloggers.

And yes I do trust BBC more than handpicked opinions from a source that can´t be confirmed. I guess everyone with a little conscience on info does so...

Quote[/b] ]As for the Red Cross, on the contrary! Glad to hear that they did take up the case. Even you have to admit that none of us could find anything about the RC's involvement until they publicly announced it just a few days ago.

Thy don´t take up the case. They had a case since august last year. If you read the links I provided you´d know that...

Quote[/b] ]But it was you, I recall, that questioned why it should be the RC's business in the first place, to which I replied with the ICRC's mission statement.

No, no, no. Dont twist it. I didn´t say that it is not htheir business. What I said was :

Quote[/b] ]Oh great now the ICRC is responsible for torture in Iraq. Don´t you see a little flaw in your assumptions ? I doubt that the ICRC was allowed to visit the parts of prisons where torture was used. Don´t you think ?

I suggest you contact the ICRC and investigate.

and

Quote[/b] ]Because they don´t run the prisons in question, I doubt they have access to to the sections in question, the Red Cross had pulled out a lot of it´s personel because of the terrible security situation in Iraq and at last:

They are not torturing, neither are they responsible for the torture.

Got that ?

and

Quote[/b] ] The ICRC is a non-political organizations. Their role is limited. Do you think the ICRC is granted access to regular prisoners if the coaltion does not want that ?

Sure the ICRC is still active in Iraq and I´m happy for that, but their activities are limited because of the terrible security situation. They don´t have full operational strength and can´t access every region of Iraq.

To link the ICRC with the coaltion tortures like you try is completely off.

That´s what I said. Nothing else. Read, then talk.

Amnesia, amnesia...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Contrast this with your post of selected biased quotes of angry Arabs from angry Arab countries

The post is not selected. I posted the whole coverage of the BBC news page.

If it is selective to post an AP news article and an additional BBC news article with correspondant content I guess it´s you who stands a bit isolated with your bloggers quotes that noone can verify and don´t express the public opinion in Iraq obviously.

Make up your mind before you go on a microlevel search for things that fit you.

Again I posted official sources, BBC and AP.

Nothing made up here, neither selective nor incomplete.

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

What I dont see here is any statement from representatives of the Child who was aledgedly raped by the employee of CACI international.

Could you get statement on behalf of him perhaps?

What I dont see is an investigation in to either Mr. Steven Stephanowicz or Mr. John Israel. One of whom is the aledged rapist and child molestor.

Aparently George Bush jnr. gave them a get out of Jail Free Card.

Quote[/b] ]Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

Aparently George Bush Jnr. gave them a Get of Jail Free card that aledgedly covers pedophilia.

Quote[/b] ]She did not specify the accusation facing the contractor, but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens.

Col Morgenthaler said the charges against the six soldiers included "indecent acts, for ordering detainees to publicly masturbate; maltreatment, for non-physical abuse, piling inmates into nude pyramids and taking pictures of them nude; battery, for shoving and stepping on detainees; dereliction of duty; and conspiracy to maltreat detainees".

The US is prepaired to investigate and prosecute the soldiers who were ordered to commit abuse.

What I dont see here is an investigation in to all the people who ordered the abuse according to the investigation.

Quote[/b] ]13. (U) I find that there is sufficient credible information to warrant an Inquiry UP Procedure 15, AR 381-10, US Army Intelligence Activities, be conducted to determine the extent of culpability of MI personnel, assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib (BCCF).  Specifically, I suspect that COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib(BCCF) and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary action as described in the preceding paragraphs as well as the initiation of a Procedure 15 Inquiry to determine the full extent of their culpability.

My use of bold. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001

America must investigate these accusations.

Walker

[Jinef 2]

Heh, this thread really gets on my nerves, people read a little about

Iraq and a few newspaper articles that enforce their propaganda fed opinion and start arguing vehemently.

In case you haven't noticed, people do sick things in war. I view the British military as one of the most capable and expertise militaries in the world. It has a very good track record. However it's job is to kill, please remember that.

People support the war but are suprised by the fact that soldiers beat up Iraqis? Soldiers are stupid cannon fodder, in relation to other assets, their mentality revolves around violence, if you think they are professional killing machines you are wrong, that is an ideal. Soldiers are human, the pshycological impacts of war drive them, combined with peer pressure to do these acts; they have to focus their discontent and hatred which comes from war into people around them, it's natural.

If you think I am wrong then how about this:

When I was doing Royal Air Force escape and evasion training there were soldiers coming after us with dogs and helicopters.

Once they found you, they would tie your boot laces together, kick you in the back, punch you in joints and I was dragged through the forest for about 3 kms. You had a password you had to keep secret, they tried to extract it from you through beating, stress positions (I hated those) and abuse. We would be put in rooms for several hours with white noise and basically they were not very nice, it was not a matter of if you held out, it was how long. These soldiers were a mixture of instructors trained in this, and normal squaddies, this was allowed in a training exercise, it no doubt happens in warzones.

Btw, we should have a vote, who was completely fucking wrong about the whole WMD thing in Iraq? If you read my posts from the first Iraq thread you will find I'm clear.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Jinef-

Quote[/b] ], their mentality revolves around violence, if you think they are professional killing machines you are wrong, that is an ideal.

Oh, to live in a world where all soldiers are professional killing machines! We can but dream!

(yes, yes i get what youre saying really just being an abnoxious hung over person)

Quote[/b] ]Btw, we should have a vote, who was completely fucking wrong about the whole WMD thing in Iraq? If you read my posts from the first Iraq thread you will find I'm clear.

Dont know exactly what you mean by a vote, but for my part i said (and believed) that there were likely to be small residual quantities of WMD but no imminently threatening means of delivering them over long ranges. I considered the possibility that were none at all (as Denoir ventured to suggest) but i thought it likely there were some chemicals or bio cultures left. Dont i feel like a complete fool. Well actually no.

[bn880 5]

Of course I said they would not find any, which was amazing to some people here as usual , but I was almost sure they would have planted some stuff by now to prove they were right. I guess the thing is they don't need to be right on anything (TBA and TBA2), they're doing great, not thrown out of office, not burnt alive, not impeached, not even voted out next time... whoa, some mother** will vote for Bush, that's for sure. I guess when 2 + 2 doesn't add up to 4 for you, well, it must add up to Bush and devils in Iraq.

[SpongeBob 0]

Al-Sadr's Basra Aide Offers Rewards

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....itish_2

Quote[/b] ]BASRA, Iraq - A senior aide of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told worshippers during a Friday sermon in southern Iraq  that anyone capturing a female British soldier can keep her as a slave.

The aide, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, also called on supporters to launch jihad, or holy war, against British troops in this southern city.

He offered money to anyone capturing or killing a member of the Governing Council, the widely unpopular interim administration appointed by the U.S.-led occupation 10 months ago.

Al-Bahadli, al-Sadr's chief representative in southern Iraq, spoke at al-Hawi mosque in central Basra.

It was the first time any anti-occupation activist of note publicly offered financial reward for the killing or capturing of coalition troops.

That offer likely will be viewed by occupation authorities with concern at a time of rising anti-occupation sentiment and continuing fighting between al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia and U.S. forces in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

A wave of kidnappings last month saw scores of foreign nationals snatched by insurgents and shadowy groups across Iraq.

Al-Bahadli kept an assault rifle next to him as he spoke to an estimated 3,000 worshippers, occasionally lifting it as he screamed "jihad!," and "Allahu Akbar!," or "God is greatest!"

He held what he said were documents and photographs of three Iraqi women being raped at British-run prisons in Iraq.

He also accused British forces in Basra of failing to honor agreements not to patrol inside the city and to stop harassing al-Sadr supporters in Basra.

Al-Bahadli said 250,000 dinars — about $350 — will be given to anyone capturing a British soldier and 100,000 dinars — or $150 — to anyone killing one.

He also called on government departments in Basra to display pictures of al-Sadr in their offices.

In Fallujah, a Sunni hotbed of anti-occupation resistance west of Baghdad, an estimated 400 al-Sadr supporters from Najaf, Karbala and Baghdad prayed at one of the city's main Sunni mosques in a symbolic act of solidarity.

Shiites form a majority in Iraq but were oppressed for decades by a Sunni Arab minority until Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s ouster a year ago. Sunnis have been embittered by their loss of power to Shiites in post-Saddam Iraq.

But last month's siege of Fallujah by U.S. Marines and al-Sadr's standoff with the Americans have brought the two sects together, with al-Sadr posters now in Fallujah and Shiites sending relief supplies to the city.

[Scorpio 0]

Typical...

[NavyEEL 0]

I recently had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Kenneth Pollack.  For those of you who don't know, he is a former CIA analyst and a master on Middle Eastern policies and affairs.  He covered 5,000 years of Iraq's history, then discussed with us the current US-Iraq situation.  After hearing him speak and answer some questions, I must say he certainly knows his stuff!

I looked him up online to see if I could find any interesting articles he had written.  I found one that, although a couple months old, is still a very good article.  It kinda sums up the Iraq situation as a whole, and I highly recommend taking a look at it.  Grab a drink because it's rather long, but definitely worth the read!

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm

[denoir 0]

Wow, it starts with bullshit right away,

Quote[/b] ]Let's start with one truth: last March, when the United States and its coalition partners invaded Iraq, the American public and much of the rest of the world believed that after Saddam

"Much of the rest of the world?"... Wow, talk about misconceptions. Interestingly this was basically one of the questions in the media misconceptions survey... I guess he must be a FOX man..

but.. I'll read on...

Edit 1:

Quote[/b] ]In 2002 I wrote a book called Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, in which I argued that because all our other options had failed, the United States would ultimately have to go to war to remove Saddam before he acquired a functioning nuclear weapon.

Well, congratulations on telling us how he was wrong back then. I'm afraid that it doesn't support the case that he's right now..

Quote[/b] ]Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years.

Meh, lame try at covering his ass. Not surprising as it's the US intelligence community that is taking the heat for the lack of WMD.

The BND report was from 1994 and was denounced by the Germans as outdated about the time when the first British Iraq dossier was written ("The Dodgy Dossier").

Quote[/b] ]France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

Yepp, that's exactly what he said and Chirac is nowhere saying that Iraq has WMD. He says that WMD armed countries should be disarmed and that it was good that it was done in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

No one except 80% of the world, the UN inspectors and IAEA inspectors.

Ok, the rest of the text wa fairly readable. The first part though is a typical example of the intelligence community covering its ass by saying "..but everybody believed that". It's not very convincing as the opposite is fairly well documented.

The simple fact is that nobody really knew if Saddam had WMD in spring 2003. That was one of the main reasons why everybody (except from the 'willing few') demanded that the UN inspections should continue. And the more the inspections went on, the more it looked like there weren't going to be any WMD. And that's when the US attacked.

Quote[/b] ]What's more, we should not forget that containment was failing. The shameful performance of the United Nations Security Council members (particularly France and Germany) in 2002-2003 was final proof that containment would not have lasted much longer

Ok, I'm not reading the text anymore. The guy's a moron.

Edit x: Ok, I read it to the end.

I really don't know. Basically he's blaming everybody except the US intelligence community. He seems to have a very schitzofrenic view of the decision to go to war. He seems to be confused to if Iraq was contained or not.

He's blaming TBA, he's blaming the UN he's blaming the international community etc etc

[denoir 0]

Instead of reading that text, read this one. It was given by the French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin to the UN before the war. Note how he accurately predicted the situation we have now.

Quote[/b] ]

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary-General,

Ministers

Ambassadors,

I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to express to them again France's confidence and complete support in their mission.

You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:

We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq.

We have an obligation to achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions. Let us be clear: Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.

In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.

The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?

In response to this question, France has two convictions:

-The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;

-The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? That the inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are producing results.

In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:

- In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests;

- In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions;

- In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the

list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.

There we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programs then their elimination.

We all realize that the success of the inspections presupposes that we obtain Iraq's full and complete cooperation. France has consistently demanded this.

Real progress is beginning to be apparent:

- Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;

- It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses;

- A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a long-standing request of the inspectors;

- Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.

France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.

Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.

To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:

- I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;

-Since then we have detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and distributed to Council members.

What is the spirit of these proposals?

-They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations.

-They fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not require a new resolution.

-They must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei:

The latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.

-In their report they have already made useful and operational comments. France has already announced that it had additional resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft.

Now, yes, I do hear the critics:

-There are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot be the least effective. But I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that the inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate but they are there.

-There are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort of delaying tactic to prevent military intervention. That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq. This brings us to the core of the debates. At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility Let us have the courage to see things as they are.

There are two options:

- The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

- Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?

No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?

So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.

Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.

There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections.

Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:

- The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.

- Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

- We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly.

This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together.

That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.

Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:

To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?

How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?

In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.

Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.

In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.

Thank you.

[PiNs_Da_Smoka 0]

al-Sadr militia....scared of a few Strykers?

WMD's.....not mass, but close enough

And to someone who posted about 3,493 pages back about Strykers being at FOB Marez in Mosul, yes, the majority of the Stryker Brigade are in Mosul, thats about all i can say. And it drives me nuts about how much you can find on the internet. How can you "attack and destroy" a militia when its on CNN 2 days before your mission starts!?!?!?  

[denoir 0]

al-Sadr militia....scared of a few Strykers?

al-Sadr's merry men seem much less competent than the resistance in Fallujah so the situation might resolve with less bloodshed...

Quote[/b] ]And it drives me nuts about how much you can find on the internet. How can you "attack and destroy" a militia when its on CNN 2 days before your mission starts!?!?!?  

Yeah, operational security in the information age... This ain't exactly the cold war any more. I can understand how it can create problems.

So how's Iraq - your impression of it? I'm not asking for classified specifics, just coordinates of your position (+-5 m will do fine, WGS84 coordinates if possible), radio frequencies and the positions of your command and control centers sorted by importance

No, but seriously, can you give us your take on the situation?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]BREAKING NEWS

Pfc. Lynndie England, woman shown pointing to naked Iraqi prisoners, charged with conspiring to mistreat prisoners. Details soon.

What exactly that means I guess we have to wait. Slap on the wrist? I'm too lazy and had too much wine to look it up...

[bn880 5]

conspiring? oh boy, this will be pretty, soon I will have to raise my CIA...

[denoir 0]

Here are some more details [bBC]

Female soldier charged with abuse

Quote[/b] ]

The US military has charged a female soldier with abusing Iraqi prisoners, making her the seventh to face charges.

Private Lynndie England, 21, is accused of assaulting the detainees, conspiring with other soldiers to mistreat them and discrediting the armed forces.

Photographs of her smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners have appeared in media outlets around the world.

Six soldiers have already been charged over the alleged abuse. Seven others have been reprimanded.

In one of the photographs, Private England is pictured with a leash tied round the neck of a crumpled Iraqi prisoner.

In another, she is smiling with a cigarette hanging from her lips, pointing a mock gun at the genitals of a naked prisoner in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.

Ms England is said to have joined the army as a reservist after leaving high school. She left for Iraq in February 2003.

She has now been reassigned to a military police unit in the state of North Carolina following her return.

Her family says she is pregnant with the child of Charles Graner, another soldier accused of mistreating Iraqi prisoners

I guess she was doing more in Iraq than mistreating Iraqi prisoners

I bet they will have a bit of difficulty explaining to their kid how mommy met daddy. Family photos anybody?