The Iraq thread 3

[Balschoiw 0]

A growing percentage of US citizens are on the right track:

One In Two Americans Say Rumsfeld Knew About Iraq Prison Abuse

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AFP) — One in two Americans believe Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was aware of the abuse perpetrated by U.S. soldiers against Iraqi prisoners, according to an opinion poll released.

The Harris Poll showed that 29 percent of the 2,136 adults interviewed between June 10-16 thought Rumsfeld did not know about the abuse before it was reported in the media.

As for President George W. Bush, 47 percent said he was not aware of the abuse, one in three thought he knew, and 22 percent were not sure.

The Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal broke in April with graphic images broadcast around the world of US soldiers physically and sexually humiliating naked Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.

A majority of those questioned -- 77 percent -- said mid-level army officers were aware of the abuse and 62 percent said army generals knew about it. Prison abuse was "very" or "somewhat common," 53 percent said, while 37 percent said they believed it was "somewhat" or "very rare."

The prison abuse scandal has caused "some" or a "great deal" of damage to the US reputation around the world, 79 percent of those interviewed said.

The poll in detail for all who are interested:

The Harris Poll® #48, July 1, 2004

While Israel is already involved in a dubious way:

Endgame in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]...

Israel, Washington's closest ally and at one time the most enthusiastic backer of the Iraq adventure, is now actively working towards the balkanisation of Iraq. The American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who has access to the top echelons of the American and Israeli political establishments, has written that the Israeli government is betting on the creation of an "independent" Kurdistan that will be carved out of northern Iraq. The plan, which is said to have the support of the "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration, is to amalgamate Mosul and Kirkuk into a Kurdish zone. Kirkuk is the country's most important oil centre.

According to reports coming out of northern Iraq, ethnic-cleansing is already under way. Arab residents in many of the smaller towns in the north have been forced out and thousands of them are living in squalid refugee camps. Observers of the Iraqi scene feel that if the Kurdish militias forcibly try to expel non-Kurds from big cities like Kirkuk and Mosul, there will be blood-letting on a massive scale. As of now, Arabs and Turks constitute the majority in the two key oil cities. Hersh quotes former Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak as telling U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney that the only option for the Americans "was choosing the size of your humiliation". A senior foreign diplomat of European origin, who until recently was posted in Amman, told this correspondent that the Israelis had moved into Iraq in a big way, buying up real estate in Kirkuk, Mosul and Baghdad, exploiting their long-standing relationship with the two Kurdish factions, which today have enormous clout in Iraq.

Hersh quotes a senior American intelligence officer as saying that the Israeli priority after June 30 "is to build up Kurdish commando units to balance the Shiite militias - especially those who would be hostile to the kind of order in southern Iraq that Israel would like to see". The Kurdish militias will also be used to fight the Sunni militias, which are even more opposed to Israel than Saddam Hussein was. The Turkish government, which until recently was very close to Israel, is known to be alarmed at the developments in its backyard. The Kurds are claiming large swathes of territory in Turkey, Iran and Syria as part of Kurdistan. Many of Washington's European allies like Germany have warned that the creation of a new state in West Asia will have extremely damaging repercussions in the region and beyond.

Israeli intelligence officers told Hersh that they had trained Kurdish commandos to kill and eliminate the leadership guiding the Iraqi resistance. Israeli intelligence agents are also fomenting trouble in neighbouring Syria and Iran, using northern Iraq as a springboard. Hersh said that some Israeli agents along with Kurdish commandos have crossed the border into Iran to install sensors and other sensitive devices.

and finally an insight view of an exile Iraqi:

America has sown the seeds of civil war in Iraq

Worth a read.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]and finally an insight view of an exile Iraqi:

Quote[/b] ]The US terror tactics in Vietnam (and more recently in Nicaragua and Honduras) are being gradually introduced into Iraq. US assassination squads and Mossad, for example, must be already active in Iraq, following the training of special US forces teams of "hitmen", with the help of Israeli experts, at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Israel several months ago - as reported by the distinguished American journalist Seymour Hirsh, a story which the Pentagon did not deny.

How did he know that...

Quote[/b] ]

Just like Iraq today, South Vietnam was seen by Washington as the line that must be held at all costs. But as the Vietnamese people's rejection of the client regime grew stronger, the US bunkered behind its creation in Saigon, and one million Vietnamese troops backed by half a million US soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of people were arrested and tortured; the total Vietnamese death toll topped 3 million, and 55,000 US soldiers were killed in action.

love this....

But, I do respect his opinion.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]While Israel is already involved in a dubious way:

Food for you....that counter something inside the link....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....9

Quote[/b] ]

Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's new government is considering offering amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who fought the U.S.-led occupation, perhaps even pardoning those who killed Americans.

A spokesman for Allawi said fighting with U.S. troops was "justified" as resistance to occupation.

"If he (a guerrilla) was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified because it was an occupation force," spokesman Georges Sada said. "We will give them freedom."

Sada added that details of an amnesty were still being worked out and a full pardon for insurgents who killed Americans is not a certainty. The main thrust is to "start everything from new" by giving a second chance to rebel fighters who hand in their weapons and swear off the insurgency, he said.

[billybob2002 0]

.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040628fa_fact

The New Yorker article written by SEYMOUR M. HERSH about Israel-Iraq...

edit:replaced the URL with other leftwing propaganda so billybob would be furious.

[Balschoiw 0]

Do your homeworks billybob:

Seymour M. Hersh

He´s a credible and respected and awarded journalist.

So what exactly don´t you believe, doubt or proof different.

Your peek-in-shout-something-and-dissapear tactics don´t work here.

Your quote has no relevance to my post.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do your homeworks billybob:

Seymour M. Hersh

He´s a credible and respected and awarded journalist.

So what exactly don´t you believe, doubt or proof different.

Your peek-in-shout-something-and-dissapear tactics don´t work here.

Your quote has no relevance to my post.

This was inside of the endgame in iraq...the author of the article wrote this not Hersh....

Quote[/b] ]

Allawi is threatening to crack down on the resistance. He is also trying to acquire a Saddam-like image of an authoritarian ruler. In his first press conference after having been anointed to the job, Allawi said that he intended to use extraordinary methods to counter the insurgency. "We will do all we can to strike against enemy forces aiming at harming our country, and we will not stand by with our hands tied," Allawi told the media in Baghdad. He also said that for the foreseeable future, the Iraqi army and security services would be battling insurgents rather than securing the borders of the country. The Americans will continue to have around 150,000 troops in Iraq. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will have more than 1,000 Americans in its pay. They will be the real power behind the scenes after the so-called transfer of sovereignty on June 30. Every Iraqi Ministry will have at least one key American adviser.

I posted something that said Allawi might give amnesty to those people.....

Furthermore, why would I post Hersch's whole article link and not say a thing about it?

[billybob2002 0]

Bals,

The reason I posted the link to Hersch's article was because the author of your article put his spin to it....

Quote[/b] ]Hersh quotes former Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak as telling U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney that the only option for the Americans "was choosing the size of your humiliation".

Quote[/b] ]Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.†The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.†Cheney did not respond to Barak’s assessment. (Cheney’s office declined to comment.)

......

Quote[/b] ]

Hersh said that some Israeli agents along with Kurdish commandos have crossed the border into Iran to install sensors and other sensitive devices.

Quote[/b] ]

Some Israeli operatives have crossed the border into Iran, accompanied by Kurdish commandos, to install sensors and other sensitive devices that primarily target suspected Iranian nuclear facilities.

...........

Quote[/b] ]

The American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who has access to the top echelons of the American and Israeli political establishments, has written that the Israeli government is betting on the creation of an "independent" Kurdistan that will be carved out of northern Iraq. The plan, which is said to have the support of the "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration, is to amalgamate Mosul and Kirkuk into a Kurdish zone. Kirkuk is the country's most important oil centre.

Quote[/b] ]

However, a senior C.I.A. official acknowledged in an interview last week that the Israelis were indeed operating in Kurdistan. He told me that the Israelis felt that they had little choice: “They think they have to be there.†Asked whether the Israelis had sought approval from Washington, the official laughed and said, “Do you know anybody who can tell the Israelis what to do? They’re always going to do what is in their best interest.†The C.I.A. official added that the Israeli presence was widely known in the American intelligence community.

BAH

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An Iraqi militant group claimed on a Web site Saturday it beheaded a captive U.S. Marine, in what would be the fourth decapitation of a foreign hostage in the region since May.

The group, called the Ansar al-Sunna Army, posted a written statement on an Islamic Web site claiming that it had killed Lebanese-born Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, saying he had been lured into a trap involving a love affair with an Arab woman.

AP Wire

[denoir 0]

Psychopats. And bloody idiots too. A semi-popular resistance like the insurgents fighting the occupation leads to questions like "wtf are we doing here". Terrorist acts like this one promptly answers that question. The only thing they are doing is feeding the hawks.

That's why I doubt that the insurgents attacking US troops are the same people that behead hostages. For each beheading there will be stronger support for the troops to stay.

[quicksand 0]

Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue

Quote[/b] ]July 3, 2004 "Los Angeles Times" — The Army's internal study of the war in Iraq criticizes some efforts by its own psychological operations units, but one spur-of-the-moment effort last year produced the most memorable image of the invasion.

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

After the colonel — who was not named in the report — selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

But Marines had draped an American flag over the statue's face.

"God bless them, but we were thinking … that this was just bad news," the member of the psychological unit said. "We didn't want to look like an occupation force, and some of the Iraqis were saying, 'No, we want an Iraqi flag!' "

Someone produced an Iraqi flag, and a sergeant in the psychological operations unit quickly replaced the American flag.

Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the psychological team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children.

This is apauling to the last bit.The images that had been over used to justify this invasion were a hollywoodish act directed by the US military.I can`t belive that I gave them credit they wouldn`t go this far,looks like I was entiry wrong.

Yet I have to wonder why isn`t this in mainstream news,this is as scandalous as the Abu Ghaib findings.

[Balschoiw 0]

Former Abu Ghraib commander says she met Israeli interrogator in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]LONDON - The American general formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib prison says she has evidence Israelis were involved in interrogating Iraqi detainees at another facility.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was suspended in May over allegations of prisoner abuse, said she met a man claiming to be Israeli during a visit to a Baghdad intelligence center with a senior coalition general.

“I saw an individual there that I hadn’t had the opportunity to meet before, and I asked him what did he do there, was he an interpreter - he was clearly from the Middle East,†Karpinski told British Broadcasting Corp. radio in an interview broadcast on Saturday. “He said, ’Well I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic but I’m not an Arab; I’m from Israel.’

“I was really kind of surprised by that ... He didn’t elaborate any more than to say he was working with them and there were people from lots of different places that were involved in the operation,†Karpinski added.

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refuted the allegations.

“The prime minister’s office declares this evening that there is no basis and no foundation to the reports regarding supposed involvement of Israeli interrogators in investigating Iraqi hostages or prisoners,†it said in a statement. “These reports are vehemently denied.â€

The presence of Israeli forces in Iraq would inflame opinion in the Muslim world, where many compare the abuse of prisoners by US forces to Israel’s treatment of Palestinian detainees.

Until a 1999 ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court, Israeli secret service interrogators were allowed to use “moderate physical pressure†- a euphemism, critics said, for torture.

Among the practices allowed prior to 1999 were sleep deprivation, keeping prisoners in uncomfortable positions for long periods and covering their heads with filthy sacks. Former prisoners say those techniques also were used by US forces in Iraq.

Karpinski was suspended from command of the 800th Military Police Brigade after the publication in April of photos showing soldiers abusing and humiliating naked Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. She has said she did not know about the abuse and is being made a scapegoat in the scandal.

This gets better and better...

If Israel should be involved in the ways I already pointed out, they will have a pretty funny time in the nearest future.

Even turkey is very mad at them right now for their Kurdish sponsoring.

[Leveler 0]

.....

Even turkey is very mad at them right now for their Kurdish sponsoring.

Well it wasnt unexpected. This is a clever move on behalf of the israelis and besides they are the real power in the middle east. One sided alliances can only go that far.

[denoir 0]

Iraq group denies killing abducted U.S. soldier [Reuters]

Quote[/b] ]DUBAI (Reuters) - The Army of Ansar al-Sunna has issued a statement on its Web site denying reports that it had killed a U.S. soldier abducted in Iraq.

"This statement that claimed to be from us has no basis in truth...and we have an official Web site through which we publish statements," the group said, referring to a statement issued on two Islamist Web sites on Saturday in the name of Ansar which said the militant group had beheaded the Lebanese-born soldier.

[Ironsight 1]

Don't know if it's mentioned before:

Quote[/b] ]U.S. Funds for Iraq Are Largely Unspent

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Washington Post Foreign Service

Sunday, July 4, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, July 3 -- The U.S. government has spent 2 percent of an $18.4 billion aid package that Congress approved in October last year after the Bush administration called for a quick infusion of cash into Iraq to finance reconstruction, according to figures released Friday by the White House.

The U.S.-led occupation authorities were much quicker to channel Iraq's own money, expending or earmarking nearly all of $20 billion in a special development fund fed by the country's oil sales, a congressional investigator said.

Only $366 million of the $18.4 billion U.S. aid package had been spent as of June 22, the White House budget office told Congress in a report that offers the first detailed accounting of the massive reconstruction package.

Full article

[denoir 0]

Remarkable. Especially this:

Quote[/b] ]

Fewer than 140 of the 2,300 reconstruction projects that were to be funded with the U.S. aid package are underway, the officials said.

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ft_dc_4

Quote[/b] ]

Rumsfeld 'Can't Imagine' Revived Military Draft

Sun Jul 4, 9:05 AM ET  Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is expressing steadfast opposition to reviving the military draft despite the stress placed on America's all-volunteer force by large-scale operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

"I just can't imagine it," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week when asked under what circumstances it might be necessary to resume the draft.

"As a matter of fact, despite all the talk about the stress on the force, today we still are having very good results with respect to recruiting and retention. And we do not have a problem of attracting and retaining the people we need in the military," Rumsfeld said.

The United States ended the draft in 1973 during the tumult of the Vietnam War era, creating a military whose members signed up willingly.

But recent extraordinary measures by the Pentagon (news - web sites) to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 more in Afghanistan have prompted criticism that the administration is boosting forces by imposing a "back door" draft.

Congress, which must approve a draft, has shown no appetite to revive it during an election year.

Bills introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, a Korean War veteran, in the House of Representatives and Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, a World War II veteran, in the Senate to reinstate the draft have little support.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]If Israel should be involved in the ways I already pointed out, they will have a pretty funny time in the nearest future.

Even turkey is very mad at them right now for their Kurdish sponsoring.

Could be a c...o.....n....t...r....a...c...t...o...r..... Who knows?

[Balschoiw 0]

Do you have any doubt that there are israeli operations in Iraq ?

Do you have any doubt, by judging the reports from kurdish area and prisons that there are Israeli forces operating in Iraq ?

Let´s call it blindeye , shall we ?

WMD report shatters Blair's credibility

Quote[/b] ]TONY Blair’s credibility over weapons of mass destruction is set to face its sternest test after his special envoy to Iraq conceded yesterday Saddam Hussein had stockpiled none.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s remarkably frank admission came as speculation mounted that two of Britain’s top spymasters and the government’s most senior law officer will be criticised by an official inquiry into the handling of intelligence on Saddam’s WMD.

The 100-page draft of Lord Butler of Brockwell’s report, according to the Sunday Times, will criticise MI6 after it admitted its intelligence on WMD - at one stage Mr Blair’s basis for the conflict to remove Saddam - was wrong.

Downing Street is braced for a fresh storm of controversy over Iraq as the report raises serious questions about its dossier which included the infamous claim that Saddam could deploy the weapons within 45 minutes.

Sir Jeremy yesterday piled on the pressure for the Prime Minister when he said the "compelling" evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was wrong.

Officially confirmed that the WMD claim, the reason why the coalition went to war, was wrong.

while Bush claims that:

Iraq war made U.S. safer

Quote[/b] ]Defending the war in Iraq, President Bush said on Independence Day that America is safer because Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell.

"Our immediate task in battlefronts like Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere is to capture or kill the terrorists . . . so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush told a cheering crowd outside the West Virginia Capitol. An enthusiastic audience, estimated by state Capitol Police at 6,500 people, waved American flags and chanted, "Four more years."

Regarding Hussein, the deposed Iraqi president, Bush said: "Because we acted, the dictator, the brutal tyrant, is sitting in a prison cell."

Two Bush opponents, taken out of the crowd in restraints by police, said they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing shirts that said they opposed the president. Supporters of Sen. John Kerry, Bush's presumed opponent in November's election, attended a picnic across the street from the Capitol at state Democratic Party headquarters.

...wich is the biggest nonsense I have heard lately. Yeah the war in Iraq made you very much new friends...

and an interesting read for the german speaking people here:

US-Soldaten sollen auch Kinder misshandelt haben

Quote[/b] ]US-Soldaten haben in irakischen Gefängnissen angeblich auch Kinder und Jugendliche misshandelt. Das berichtet das ARD-Magazin "Report Mainz" unter Berufung auf die Aussagen eines Unteroffiziers des US-Militärgeheimdienstes.

Den Informationen zufolge sollen im Gefängnis Abu Ghraib bei Bagdad junge Irakerinnen von US-Soldaten bedrängt und verprügelt worden seien. So hätten Verhörspezialisten ein Mädchen in seiner Zelle bedrängt, zitiert das Magazin den Informanten. Die Militärpolizei sei erst eingeschritten, als die 15- bis 16-Jährige zum Teil entkleidet gewesen sei.

In einem weiteren Fall soll ein 16-jähriger Junge von den Vernehmern mit Wasser überschüttet und durch die Kälte gefahren worden sein. Danach hätten sie ihr Opfer "mit Schlamm beschmiert" und ihn seinem ebenfalls inhaftierten Vater vorgeführt, so der Unteroffizier gegenüber "Report Mainz". Der Vater "weinte und versprach alles zu sagen, was er wusste".

UNICEF und IKRK besorgt

Das UN-Kinderhilfswerk UNICEF und das Internationale Komitee vom Roten Kreuz (IKRK) bestätigten, dass im Irak Minderjährige inhaftiert seien. In einem internen UNICEF-Bericht ist die Rede von einer neuen Haftanstalt für Kinder in Bagdad. Der Zugang sei UNICEF von den US-geführten Truppen bislang verweigert worden.

According to the report US prison guards have abused and tortured inmates in Abu Ghraib and another juvenile prison in Bagdad. UNICEF and ICRC confirm that there is a prison for children that they are not allowed to check by US authorities.

If this turns out to be true it´s a very disgusting way of bringing the youth of a nation to freedom and democracy

[walker 0]

Hi all

In what apears to be the final nail in Donald Rumsfelds plolitical coffin. The general in charge at Abu Ghraib has said there is doccumentry evidence that Donald Rumsfeld ordered the torture at the prison

Quote[/b] ]Rumsfeld gave go-ahead for Abu Ghraib tactics, says general in charge

By Julian Coman in Washington

(Filed: 04/07/2004)

The former head of the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has for the first time accused the American Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, of directly authorising Guantanamo Bay-style interrogation tactics.

Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade, which is at the centre of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, said that documents yet to be released by the Pentagon would show that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved the introduction of harsher conditions of detention in Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....id=9866

What angers me most is that the aledged rape of a child by one of the US contract interigators has still not been investigated.

After more than nine months since the crime one is left with the conclusion that child molestors had a get out of jail free card from TBA.

It begs the question:

Is George Bush Jnr. the pedophiles friend?

A still fuming walker

[mr_rOk 0]

There's all this talk about islamic websites...does anyone have some links...I wanna check'em out a little, crash their system or something similar, surprised no one came up with that before, we should shut them down, there's no message from all sorts of Liberation armies I want to hear, neither do I want them having the satisfaction of a mission well done.

And I'm not talking about Islamic sites in general, I'm talking about the ones that show decapitations and other crap in the name of "Islam".

A little bit of good medieval torture would do them just fine.

[Balschoiw 0]

I´d say you better read the board rules before your account gets hacked by the mods and they send you on a medieval torture banlist

Quote[/b] ]The Rules of Contents regulate the substance of what is posted. They are in place to ensure that topics that are posted do not offend and bother people or violate the law.

[mr_rOk 0]

Hey who's violating.

Intent isn't action!

I just told what I feel is the right thing, if they wanna ban me, they can, I take full responsability for my actions(things I post).

And not like we have a huge population on the forum who find this out of order! I bet if they knew how they'd do it already.

Do you like to see masked men decapitating people?

Probably not, unless you have a distorted mind, which I would presume you don't

[denoir 0]

US Military in Crisis [CounterPunch]

Quite an interesting read. The resource is very left-wing and the author has obviously made up his mind about Bush and the war. It has however some very interesting testimonials from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote[/b] ]

US Military in Crisis

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

Here is an item about the situation in Iraq from the New York Times on June 1, 2004. "After a loose power line on a side street [in Baghdad] began making noises that sounded like gunshots, one soldier fired a burst from his M-16 down the street, sending dozens of bystanders behind him racing for cover."

That sentence was buried in a piece by Edward Wong in Baghdad, assisted by "an Iraqi employee of the New York Times [who] contributed reporting from Najaf", and very good journalism it is, too. Mr Wong and his understandably anonymous colleague in Najaf tell it like it is, and we should all hope their reportage continues.

But one of the main points, missed by many who have never had military experience, is that a US soldier, with no threat whatever to his safety, fired his rifle along a street. He did not actually aim his weapon at anyone, because nobody had shot at him. There was a noise : a crack-crack-crack, that sounded something like small arms' fire. It wasn't. But he sprayed unaimed automatic fire along a street in a city : Brrrrrrrrrrrrpppp; just like that.

Long long ago, the automatic reaction by a soldier to being fired at was "Down. Crawl. Observe. Sights. Fire." Please let me explain.

When you heard the crack-thump of a bullet, or the bang of a grenade, or any disquieting loud noise that indicated that nasty people might be intent on making your life unpleasant or terminal, the first thing you were trained to do was GET DOWN. That makes sense, because whatever is on the ground beneath your feet offers at least some protection. You present a target that is a foot high rather than six-feet high, for a start. And that is where the second imperative comes in : CRAWL.

You crawled because the enemy knew where you were. He must have known that, because he saw you and fired at you. Therefore it made sense to remove your body from the spot in which he last saw it. But then you must reply to the fire directed upon you. So : OBSERVE.

Don't let's be silly about this : you don't poke your head above a wall. You find a position from which you can observe the enemy without being fired at again by the same hopeful foe. You observe where the enemy is in order to kill him. Then there is SIGHTS. In the olden days this meant that a soldier, having identified the target at which to return fire, would estimate the distance between him and the enemy, then set the sights on his weapon to that range before firing aimed shots at the enemy.

'FIRE!' was the last of the quintet of commandments. It didn't take long to return fire. Say a milli-second to get DOWN. A minute, perhaps, to CRAWL to see where the enemy was located. A further moment (for a properly-trained soldier) to OBSERVE. An instant to set SIGHTS. And then the identified enemy was DEAD.

But nowadays, when some electrical wiring goes snap-crackle-pop, it seems there is no question of a soldier getting down or observing or doing anything else, really, except loosing off his automatic weapon down a street in which there is no enemy.

We don't know if any Iraqi civilians were killed during this ill-disciplined yippee shoot, because, obviously, Mr Wong wasn't going to stick around to find out. And the mouthpiece in Iraq, Brigadier General Kimmit, couldn't tell us, because his pronouncements have all the integrity and credibility of an FBI fingerprint investigation. But say there had been an official Kimmitt public relations report about the soldier who fired at random down the Baghdad Street, and it revealed that there had been Iraqis killed. It is quite certain that the news item, a tiny one of course, would have stated as absolute truth that five or a dozen or whatever Iraqis had been "killed in crossfire". And most people would have believed it. The brief Reuters report of June 7 describing a roadside bombing sums it up : "[after the bomb went off] US soldiers opened fire on suspects fleeing the scene, wounding them, the spokeswoman said". "Suspects", indeed. If these Iraqis had known the bomb was there they would have made themselves scarce before the explosion. Of course they were fleeing : they were bystanders who were scared witless, and, as it proved, rightly so. But they are only ragheads, after all, in the eyes of bubba-land.

Here is a first-hand account of a similar and even more bizarre incident, by a US Civil Affairs officer, Captain Oscar Estrada, that appeared in the Washington Post on June 6 : "A unit ahead of us had reported taking fire and we rushed to the scene. Other patrols and M1 tanks soon arrived and we sat and waited, pointing our weapons into a date palm grove to the north. A small column of Humvees moved down a dirt road toward the grove, and all hell broke loose. I never heard a shot fired from the grove, but someone did, and then everyone was firing. "Hey, what the hell are we shooting at?" I screamed at my buddy as I continued to squeeze off rounds from my M-16. "I'm not sure! By that shack. You?" "I'm just shooting where everybody else is shooting." But everybody else was shooting all over the place. Small puffs of white erupted in front of us as our own soldiers lobbed grenades at the grove but came up short; tracers from .50-caliber machine guns flew past us, and the smell of cordite filled the air. Then, as suddenly as it had started, the tumult ended. We sat in silence and listened to the crackling radios as a patrol dismounted from a couple of armored Humvees and began to search among the trees.

[Then came the radio transmissions.] "Dagger, this is Bravo 6. Do you have anything, over?" "Roger. We're going to need a terp [interpreter]. We have a guy here who's pretty upset. I think we killed his cow, over." "Upset how, over?" "He can't talk; I think he's in shock. He looks scared, over." "He should be scared. He's the enemy." "Uhm, ahh, Roger , 6 . . . he's not armed and looks like a farmer or something." "He was in the grove that we took fire from ; he's a [expletive] bad guy!" "Roger"."

That is straight from the horse's mouth. You now doubt that the US Army indulges in deceit and deliberate lies? This is all horribly reminiscent of Vietnam, where the only good Viet was a dead Viet. The free-fire zone still exists in some military minds, and it now has its being in Iraqi date palm groves rather than Vietnamese paddy fields. Otherwise not much has changed, except that there are no body counts. Dead Iraqis don't count ; literally and figuratively.

There are many more examples of deception. It isn't just the attempts to cover up widespread torture and murder of prisoners that are despicable. Here is the official US Army citation concerning the award of a posthumous and hysterically-publicized bravery decoration to an American soldier who was killed in Afghanistan on April 22.

"Through the firing [soldier X's] voice was heard issuing fire commands to take the fight to the enemy on the dominating high ground . . . Only after his team engaged the well-armed enemy did it appear their fires diminished. As a result of his leadership and his team's efforts, the platoon trail section was able to maneuver through the ambush to positions of safety without a single casualty."

But here is what really happened, according to a reliable source, an Afghan, who was reported by CBS News on May 29 as saying that "two groups of soldiers had drifted some distance apart during the operation in the remote Spera district of Khost province. 'Suddenly the sound of a mine explosion was heard somewhere between the two groups and the Americans in one group started firing,' the official said, citing an account given to him by an Afghan fighter who was part of that group . . . 'Nobody knew what it was . . . or what was going on, or if enemy forces were firing. The situation was very confusing,' the official said. 'As the result of this firing, that American was killed and three Afghan soldiers were injured. It was a misunderstanding and afterwards they realized that it was a mine that had exploded and there were no enemy forces'."

In other words, there was a monster stuff-up. And this sort of thing is far from unknown in battle : tragic disasters occur frequently. But what is astonishing and unforgivable is the deliberate, systematic, official, Bush-government-approved lying about what happened at the time.

It is evil and dishonorable that the account of the death of this young man was a Pentagon machine fabrication. The gallantry citation was a downright lie, forged for public relations' purposes because soldier X had a national image. It has now been admitted (sort of) that it was a lie by the head of US Special Forces.

Please reflect on this part of the official handout that described outstanding bravery on the part of soldier X : "As a result of his leadership and his team's efforts, the platoon trail section was able to maneuver through the ambush to positions of safety without a single casualty." This did not take place. It is falsehood. A disgusting piece of deceit. But it was declared to the world by American officers. What has happened, for heaven's sake, to truth and honor in the US military? How can it be possible that US officers can tell lies? The West Point Honor Code, after all, is "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do", and this carries on into commissioned life where it is even more important, because officers command troops who expect them to set an example of rectitude and honor.

Let me tell you something personal : in my study, nestling among lots of mementos, surrounded by thousands of books, I have a mounted photograph, two and a half feet by one foot eight, of a parade at West Point. It was taken when the son of close friends (he is former US Army ; we served together) graduated a few years ago. My wife and I were there as guests of our chums, and we had a wonderful few days. Nobody can claim for an instant that I do not admire and respect what The Point should stand for. Not even the Bubba-Love-Bush team. I don't need lessons in military ethos from wild-eyed warniks. But I fear that, given the pigswill-filthy atmosphere and culture of the Rumsfeld Pentagon, there are some military officers who have been sucked in to the lie-machine.

There was grudging admission that a lie had been told concerning the circumstances in which Private X died in Afghanistan when Lt-Gen Kensinger, the head of Special Forces, who refused to take questions after reading out his statement, conceded that "While there was no one specific finding of fault, the investigation results indicate that X probably died as a result of friendly fire while his unit was engaged in combat with enemy forces". Kensinger said the alleged firefight took place in "very severe and constricted terrain with impaired light" with "10 to 12 enemy combatants firing on U.S. forces." Note the use of the word 'probably'. The man cannot even bring himself to be forthright in his admission that X was without any doubt killed by his fellow-soldiers. The Afghan witness states there were no enemy atall.

Little wonder Kensinger refused to be questioned by journalists, even little poodle ones, lying on their backs wanting their tummies rubbed, because there are lots of points to be raised. Here are some:

How many enemy were killed/wounded/captured in this alleged firefight? Why not allow some of the US soldiers involved in the incident to give their on-the-spot version of events? Are you saying that the Afghan soldier who gave a first-hand account of the blue-on-blue killing was telling lies? Was there explosion of a mine or some other device? [There are millions, literally millions, of unexploded mines in Afghanistan. Many are accidentally and fatally detonated by animals, or children herding animals, or women fetching firewood or water, or farmers cultivating their fields . I know this from first-hand experience in Afghanistan.]

More questions : The discredited citation for bravery on the part of soldier X said the enemy were "well-armed". What were they armed with, and what enemy weapons were captured? Why, if there was such a force of "well-armed" enemy, was not air support called in? It is demanded in every other engagement, no matter how tiny. So why not this one? You say the incident took place in "very severe and constricted terrain". Is this not exactly the terrain in which your own Special Forces are trained to operate without shooting each other? And, General Kensinger : why do you refuse to answer questions? There is no question of National Security being involved. There are no secrets affecting the security of the country in this tale of incompetence and deceit.

There are no answers to the questions that should be posed to the head of Special Forces, to which X belonged. Or at least none that would not severely embarrass the military system, which is why Kensinger refused to allow questions to be asked. He seems to be a moral coward. He might be physically robust and even brave ; but why is he frightened of questions?

The incident of lying about how Private X died is on the Must Be Forgotten list. It will never be referred to again by the Pentagon or any official agency, and nothing will ever be done about the dishonor in the command structure that permitted the lies to be told. That would not be in the patriotic style of "Support Our President and Our Military" as the Bush election slogan has it.

Even if the US Military tells flagrant, scandalous, five-star, large-pack, Olympic-style, award-winning damnable lies, there can be no criticism by any US media outlet that doesn't want to lose every advertiser who pays for its existence.

There is not an editor in mainstream US media who would dare touch such a story of gross and explicit dishonor. Nor will anyone in Congress, because almost every member of that august body is terrified of appearing unpatriotic, which they would be accused of being if they demanded a proper investigation into this shameful episode of deliberate, stage-managed, official deceit.

There isn't a hope of investigative journalism or Congressional inquiry. That's the way things go in the US of Bush these days. Just like the Kama Ado incident. Ever heard of Kama Ado? It is (or was) a hamlet in Afghanistan that was completely destroyed by B-52 bombing which killed over 100 villagers in the process. And the Pentagon denies the atrocity ever happened.

Here's the LA Times report : "Defense Department officials Saturday denied involvement in the casualties. 'We've checked the imagery, and the closest airstrikes were 20 miles from Kama Ado,' Defense Department spokesman Jim Turner said, referring to one village reportedly damaged in bomb strikes. It's a false story'."

You won't find the true story anywhere in US mainstream media, but this is from Britain's staunchly independent 'Independent', which doesn't have to take orders from Big Media moguls or be blindly 'patriotic' : "[there were reports that] American B-52s had unloaded dozens of bombs that killed 115 men, women, and children in a village called Kama Ado. Then the Pentagon's spokesman told the world : It just didn't happen. He explained that the U.S. was meticulous in selecting only military targets associated with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. These Alice-in-Wonderland denials prompted our man on the spot, Richard Lloyd Parry, to write the following: 'So God knows what kind of a magic looking-glass I stepped through yesterday, as I traveled to Kama Ado. >From the moment I woke up, I was confronted with the wreckage and innocent victims of high-altitude, hi-tech, thousand-pound nothings'." (See <www.google.com> and type in Kama Ado Independent to read the full account that is published on many sites.)

"False Story"? The only thing false about the story was the Pentagon's instant, deceitful denial. But nothing happened about this slaughter. The US media did not follow it up. Neither did the nation's timid legislators. Nobody was disciplined for ordering the bombing strike that killed 115 villagers. But the message for the world is : the US military can kill with impunity.

It doesn't matter to the Pentagon (or anyone in the Bush administration) that a hundred Afghan villagers were killed by B-52 bombs. Rumsfeld's personally selected sycophants consider them to be only ragheads whose lives are worth nothing. It is not surprising that so much of the world detests the US of Bush. The ordinary people of Afghanistan don't know any ordinary Americans (real people, that is, as distinct from Bill and Blondie Bubba), so can't possibly relate to the feelings of those truly patriotic Americans who despair about what the Bush machine is doing in their name. They just hate and distrust all Americans, and now, by association, all westerners ; even those who are trying to help them.

What the Bush government should have done after its B-52s destroyed Kama Ado and slaughtered its inhabitants was to instantly and publicly apologize for the killings and pay what is called 'blood money' to survivors. The tribal elders (such as were left alive) would naturally prefer the execution of those who had murdered their people, but would settle for the usual cash alternative, which would have cost the Pentagon peanuts. This is a regional custom that is apparently unknown by the people who are making and carrying out US military policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The dedicated State Department professionals know all about this sort of thing, but they are regarded with official Pentagon contempt. Their advice is not sought; and, if offered, is ignored. The result is absolute loathing of America.

There are many hundreds of stories about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that have appeared in US newspapers courtesy of "senior officials who wish to remain anonymous". Of course they want to remain anonymous. The Borgias sought anonymity when they spread poison, too. And reporters and editors scoop it all up and tell us all about it. (Gary Trudeau's Roland Hedley lives ; but he has help from editors.) There was a splendid headline last week in a British tabloid about Bush going to the Vatican : "Pope Meets Dope". But so far as the US media's reporting about Iraq and Afghanistan is concerned, a similarly slick headline might be : "Dope Deceives Dupes".

Remember the Jessica Lynch affair? The Pentagon system lied from beginning to end about that one, too. On April 3 last year the Washington Post dupes' headline was "She Was Fighting to the Death". The report, a Front Page item, no less, was based on the usual scurvy "unnamed military sources" and retailed the fantasy that Lynch "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds," and the fatuous claim that she was stabbed by Iraqi soldiers while she was helpless following the attack on the convoy in which she was traveling. On April 2 Associated Press carried a report quoting "officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity" who declared that she suffered "at least one gunshot wound". The New York Times quoted "an Army official" who stated that Lynch had been shot "multiple times". Garbage. The whole lot of it was hogwash. Reporters were being told deliberate lies by these people.

What has happened to integrity and honesty in the military? After all, even Rumsfeld's civilian mind-benders in the Pentagon couldn't have made it all up by themselves. Here is an extract from a CNN interview with Jessica Lynch on November 6 last year. "[she said] 'I did not shoot ; not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees ; that's the last thing I remember.' Initial reports also suggested that Miss Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She says that again was untrue ; there was no mistreatment, 'no one beat me, no one slapped me, no one, nothing . . . mean, I actually had one nurse, that she would sing to me.' She said she was grateful to the American special forces team which rescued her but, asked whether the Pentagon's subsequent portrayal of her rescue bothered her, she said: 'Yes, it does. They used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong'." But what about the Pentagon's phrases "Fighting to the death" and "She did not want to be taken alive".

Just who invented these emotional phrases? Who told the lies? Who ordered the lies to be told? Who, finally, is responsible for the lies having been told? Why did the US Army permit these lies to be told? Remember the West Point code of honor is not just that there is zero tolerance for those who "lie, cheat or steal" but that officers must not "tolerate those who do".

OK, so Roland Hedley might thrive and have his being in Bubba-land, and there are some journalist dummies, like Judith Miller of the New York Times, who believe everything they are told by "an Army official" and other nebulous characters. They are to be more pitied than criticized, but it is not unreasonable to expect to be given all the news that's fit to print by realistic reporters and hands-on editors.

Finding and reporting information in Iraq is difficult, however, given the aggressive attitude of the US military to western correspondents. Here is an excerpt from a piece on June 7 by reporter Christopher Albritton, trying to convey the events of the day near the scene of an explosion : ". . . where was the attack?" I pressed. 'I said go away,' he [the US soldier] growled. "Can I speak to your commanding officer? Where is he?" 'He said get the fuck out of here!', a second soldier screamed, and both soldiers pointed their weapons at me. There are few things more threatening than seeing scared and pissed-off American soldiers pointing weapons at you. I quickly retreated and returned to the car, shaken by the Americans' hostility . . ."

OK ; so the soldiers were scared. But pointing their loaded weapons at a person who obviously presented no threat to them is indicative of a breakdown in discipline. There is no need whatever to point a loaded weapon at an unarmed reporter, even if he is asking to speak with your commanding officer. The worrying thing is that this attitude is condoned by those in higher authority. Soldiers don't publicly menace unarmed civilians unless they are certain they can do that without fear of reprimand.

The main reason the US of Bush has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the aggressive attitude of its troops has totally alienated even those who would have been its friends. The smash, crash, bash routine of ill-disciplined, thieving, gung-ho troops when searching houses has created countless resistance fighters whose families have been beaten and humiliated. The lies told at all levels by representatives of the Pentagon have emphasized the conviction round the world that Bush Washington cannot be trusted.

The US Military is in crisis, from top to bottom. But the responsibility lies entirely at the top. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith must go. Only then can the cleansing begin.

Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached through his website www.briancloughley.com

[svendejong 0]

I dont like to see the beheading of people, thats why I dont ask for the url's to websites that show these things.

Furthermore I dont think asking for medieval torture will raise the level of the 'debate' thats going on here.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Down. Crawl. Observe. Sights. Fire."

Those were the times....

I`ve read that article a while ago and been reading articles from Counterpunch for some time(posted some on this forum), fact is I like their "peppared" style of reporting filled with notions otherwise never approached.