The Iraq thread 3

[denoir 0]

I don't see how pulling out of Falluja would constitute "do something about Falluja".  

[quicksand 0]

And why are the people who killed them lunatics?They were resistance fighters,they did their job and ran away.

The bodies mutillation,beating and hanging were all done by angry civillians.

Great tactics from US commanders by the way,to back out from every city in Iraq,retreat at their bases and let the Iraqi police take all the heat.The inefficency was first shown when Resistance fighters took over the police station in Fallujah and freed the prisoners.

Now all the city is lost.People are vowing to fight to death if US ever decides to return in the city,and unfortunatly for Bush an increase of US Soldiers casualties is not good for his ellection.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't see how pulling out of Falluja would constitute "do something about Falluja".

Did you read the quote. Plus, higher-ups are going to push them more to do something.

Quote[/b] ]And why are the people who killed them lunatics?They were resistance fighters,they did their job and ran away.

The bodies mutillation,beating and hanging were all done by angry civillians.

One of the men did survive the ambush but was shot in the chest. The gathering Iraqi mob pulled him out the car and beat him to death then cut his head, arm, and leg off while cheering(eyewitness statement, Washington Post newspaper).

Quote[/b] ]People are vowing to fight to death if US ever decides to return in the city,and unfortunatly for Bush an increase of US Soldiers casualties is not good for his ellection.

That city really did not see no "action" during the war. They are cocky.

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]And why are the people who killed them lunatics?They were resistance fighters,they did their job and ran away.

The bodies mutillation,beating and hanging were all done by angry civillians.

One of the men did survive the ambush but was shot in the chest. The gathering Iraqi mob pulled him out the car and beat him to death then cut his head, arm, and leg off while cheering(eyewitness statement, Washington Post newspaper).

Disgusting, I saw a thing like this on the images that were shown but you couldn't tell if the guy was still alive.

This morning I saw a reaction from one of the mothers saying that her son wanted to go to Iraq to help the people who were living there. And look how he ended up like, now people think twice before they going to help the people in Iraq.

BTW: the network I saw these pictures on apoligised for showing them, since there were a lot of angry reactions since they were too shocking.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]This morning I saw a reaction from one of the mothers saying that her son wanted to go to Iraq to help the people who were living there. And look how he ended up like, now people think twice before they going to help the people in Iraq.

People should have thought twice before invading and occupying instead.

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]This morning I saw a reaction from one of the mothers saying that her son wanted to go to Iraq to help the people who were living there. And look how he ended up like, now people think twice before they going to help the people in Iraq.

People should have thought twice before invading and occupying instead.

I was more talking about organisations like Red Cross and all kind of compagnies

[Longinius 1]

Organisations like that always think twice, and probably a couple of times more. Many times they still go in though (probably because they have a genuine interest of actually helping, and help is also needed even if the area is dangerous. Actually, that IS when help is needed).

[Bernadotte 0]

Great tactics from US commanders by the way,to back out from every city in Iraq,retreat at their bases and let the Iraqi police take all the heat.

It really is tragic for the Iraqi police, but that tragedy was born when the administration refused to allow former Iraqi military types into Iraq's new security organisations.  That decision only served to drive huge underground stockpiles of weapons along with some manpower into the hands of militants.

Now that it's become such a mess it may actually be useful for there to be a bit of an overt/covert role reversal.  Let the militants surface in areas where they think they can feel secure.  Let the US deal with them in behind the scenes without TV cameras roling and where the Geneva Convention is seldom applied.  I'm not suggesting that this will solve their problems, but it certainly can't be worse than putting more American boots on the ground.

By the way, I still believe the instability was entirely predictable and continues to serve TBA's economic petro-interests very well.  But it's not time to revisit that debate, just yet.  Let's wait until militancy is more firmly connected to the Syrian, Iranian and perhaps Saudi regimes.

...Or not.  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

lol, remember this one. There was a time when it was shown every day on US TV. But nowadays FOX-news basically never shows it, I wonder why?  

A must see 13.MB

Video1

Video2

[Acecombat 0]

The US Is Creating Its Own Gaza

Jonathan Steele, The Guardian

Quote[/b] ]The architecture of the Iraqi town of Fallujah bears little resemblance to the narrow alleys of Gaza’s impoverished refugee camps. Detached two-story homes with palm trees and small shaded gardens behind their sand-colored front walls stand along wide streets, looking as comfortable as suburbs anywhere.

But as residents ushered reporters into their homes a few days ago, shortly before this week’s attack on four American security guards (though mercenaries might be a better term), it was clear that deep communal anger was lurking here, and had reached boiling point. They wanted to show the results of several US incursions over four days and nights last week.

Rockets from helicopter gunships had punctured bedroom walls. Patio floors and front gates were pockmarked by shrapnel. Car doors looked like sieves. In the mayhem 18 Iraqis lay dead. On the American side two Marines were killed. It was the worst period of violence Fallujah has seen during a year of occupation. So this week’s retaliation comes as no surprise. The cycle of violence that US troops unleashed looks and feels increasingly like Palestinian rage in the face of excessive force by an occupying power.

In Fallujah there are tactical differences. Few Iraqis see a need to resort to suicide, nor do they primarily choose to target civilians. The US base three miles from town produces a ready flow of potential military victims, supplemented this week by private contractors working closely with the occupation authorities. Military convoys trundle through or near Fallujah every day. The usual tactic is to ambush them with homemade bombs, followed by grenades and small arms fire when the survivors jump out of their vehicles. Then the resistance runs off into the suburban side-streets.

The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. “The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance,†Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi driver, told me. For Tha’ir Turki and his family the Americans piled insult on injury. They were attending the wake for their father, who had been killed on Thursday, when more grim news arrived. “Don’t go home,†a group of neighbors warned them. “The Americans are there.†The grieving family had to sleep with friends.

“Even if there was some resistance among people here, what have we done? Our women and girls are not part of it,†said Tha’ir Turki, as he showed the chaos the Marines left after sleeping in his house. Cupboards were ransacked, a computer had gone, and empty brown bags which once contained army rations littered every room. He was particularly upset at finding them in his teenage sisters’ bedroom. Little jewelry boxes were scattered across the dresser, their lids off. Women’s clothes had been pulled out of drawers.

Not many of Fallujah’s people are former Baathist loyalists, as the Americans say, nor have the US produced evidence of large numbers of foreign “jihadisâ€. They are ordinary families, driven by nationalist pride, and increasingly by a desire to retaliate when their homes and neighborhoods are violated and their relatives and friends killed.

Source

[Acecombat 0]

One more ...

Jewish Attitudes and the Anglo-American Invasion of Iraq

Neil Berry, Arab News

Quote[/b] ]LONDON, 3 March 2004 — The Jewish columnist Howard Jacobson has fallen prey to morbid thoughts. Writing in The Independent, he disclosed that he and his partner, mindful that their lives might suddenly be extinguished in a terrorist attack, have exchanged farewell letters. A record of mutual devotion, the letters have, it seems, been put away in a safe place. With luck, they will not be read till long after the couple’s natural deaths. But Jacobson no longer takes for granted that he will die a natural death.

With much of the world haunted by the specter of terrorism, there can be few of any creed or class to whom Jacobson’s feelings seem entirely absurd. However, even at the best of times, Jews are perhaps more prone than most to premonitions of doom. The Judaic mindset would be a profoundly anxious one irrespective of the terrible suffering and persecution the Jews have known. But given the increasingly embattled situation of Israel, it is hardly surprising if Jewish fears are now more rampant than at any time since the Nazi Holocaust. Many Jews are terrified that a fresh holocaust is looming and that the final extinction of the Jewish race could be at hand.

This sense of apocalyptic dread undoubtedly played its part in shaping Jewish attitudes to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. It’s true that some British Jews protested against the war, but it is safe to say that they have been far outnumbered by Jews like Jacobson who identified themselves with the pro-war camp while nursing profound suspicions about the war’s opponents. Jacobson himself reserves special scorn for those who talk as though the issue of Iraq and that of Palestine are inextricably enmeshed. He insists — as indeed do great numbers of his co-religionists — that the issues in question are what millions of others cannot begin to see them as being: Wholly separate from each other. Reviling it as a “disgraceâ€, he maintains that the anti-war movement was compromised from the start by the conspicuous presence among its ranks of pro-Palestinian campaigners with an anti-Israel agenda.

Jacobson has confessed to being gripped by “ancient perturbationsâ€. He is, though, positively restrained in the expression of his views by comparison with the Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips, whose own zeal for the war against Iraq finds vehement, not to say hysterical, expression in the new book, “Authors Take Sides on Iraq and the Gulf Warâ€. In a gathering of British writers’ opinions in which anti-war sentiment bulks large, Phillips stands out for the sheer stridency of her pro-war convictions and the depth of her contempt for those who thought the war a mistake. Indeed, it is her belief that the anti-war feeling in Britain is symptomatic of a decadent culture which has lost the will to defend itself. Another Jewish contributor to the book, the novelist and critic Frederic Raphael, also makes plain his distaste for the anti-war movement.

Nor has Jewish support for the war been confined (as might be expected) to the right. Take the case of the left-wing London pundit Nick Cohen, who made a name for himself as a scourge of Tony Blair and New Labour. Cohen argues that the regime of Saddam Hussein was so iniquitous that by failing to endorse its destruction the left was simply exposing its moral bankruptcy. Even now, despite the disorder and pervasive insecurity of postwar Iraq, he betrays not the least sign of wondering if his ardor for the bombing of Baghdad might have been misplaced; if anything, he has become still more dogmatic in his belief that those who opposed the war were condoning the totalitarian regime at whose hands Iraqi people suffered so grievously. This posture always seemed somewhat anomalous for a political columnist otherwise known for his “progressive†opinions. Though his arguments have to be assessed on their own terms, it hard to quell the suspicion that behind Cohen’s unrepentant self-righteousness over the war — as behind that of Jacobson, Phillips and others — lies a peculiarly Jewish angst, an extreme sensitivity about Israel and the survival of the Jewish people.

What a monumental historic irony it is that Israel, the haven that was going to put an end to Jewish fears, has wrought precisely the opposite effect. The Israel-Palestine conflict now seems more deeply entrenched, more potentially catastrophic, than ever. Could the conflict have been avoided? Jill Hamilton’s illuminating new book “God, Guns and Israel: Britain, the First World War and the Jews in the Holy Land†discusses the origins of Israel and suggests that it might have been — had not the British politicians and Zionists who projected the Jewish homeland been so soaked in the Old Testament and biblical prophecy as to be heedless of the consequences of displacing Palestine’s indigenous Arabs.

Not the least of the reasons why British statesmen like David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour were so ready to sympathize with the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann was their gratitude to Judaism for the gift to humanity of the Bible. Lloyd George’s familiarity with the Old Testament was such that he declared himself better acquainted with the kings of Israel than with those of England. It was thanks in no small measure to his intimacy with the Hebrew scriptures that he made such tireless efforts in the Zionist cause. Indeed, Weizmann regarded Lloyd George, not Balfour (whose famous Declaration committed Britain to Israel’s creation), as the true “author†of the Jewish homeland.

Jill Hamilton’s book provides a group portrait of a generation of nonconformist British Cabinet ministers who were in a sense honorary Jews. Perhaps the chief impression left by it is that but for their fortuitous influence Israel might never have been born in the first place. That it even emerged as a remotely viable political project was something of a fluke, the result of a fleeting set of historical circumstances, involving the moribund British Empire, Old Testament-fixated British politicians and Zionist dreamers. Little wonder if fear of ethnic obliteration is conjoined in the Jewish psyche by an enduring sense of the precariousness of Israel’s very existence.

— Neil Berry is the author of “Articles of Faith: The Story of British Intellectual Journalism.â€

[Bernadotte 0]

What a pathetic article, Acecombat.

Quote[/b] ]...

Many Jews are terrified that a fresh holocaust is looming and that the final extinction of the Jewish race could be at hand.

...

So Judaism is a race, is it?

I didn't think anyone could actually convert to/from another race - not even Michael Jackson.

Does that mean a Jewish man with a Christian wife is in an interracial marriage?

Arab News:  Always ceases to amaze me.  

[miles teg 1]

That article was not originally from that News service, and it did have some crediblity to it. Many of my Jewish friends have very similar views to those talked about in the article.

As for Judaism being a race (actually ethnicity).... it depends which Jewish sect you talk to. It does cause some non-Jews to see them as being arrogant and racist. But there's lots of ethnic groups like that around the world. I have Korean friends for example who will ONLY date and marry other Koreans. They believe to do otherwise is to pollute the bloodline. But fortunately not all Koreans or Jews believe that. But nevertheless that mentality is still there and it can cause problems.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Acecombat 0]

What a pathetic article, Acecombat.

Quote[/b] ]...

Many Jews are terrified that a fresh holocaust is looming and that the final extinction of the Jewish race could be at hand.

...

So Judaism is a race, is it?

I didn't think anyone could actually convert to/from another race - not even Michael Jackson.

Does that mean a Jewish man with a Christian wife is in an interracial marriage?

Arab News:  Always ceases to amaze me.  

The article is pathetic i never said its one of the worlds most intellectual piece of journalism.Just an alternate perspective.

Though it isnt written by ARAB news its written by a british guy.

As Miles said its the mentality thats there its present cant deny that , though i dont believe in it but looks as if some people do.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

What a pathetic article, Acecombat.

Quote[/b] ]...

Many Jews are terrified that a fresh holocaust is looming and that the final extinction of the Jewish race could be at hand.

...

So Judaism is a race, is it?

I didn't think anyone could actually convert to/from another race - not even Michael Jackson.

Does that mean a Jewish man with a Christian wife is in an interracial marriage?

Arab News:  Always ceases to amaze me.  

Some members of your community do in fact believe that it exists such thing as the jewish race. I could provide you with some sources of Hamodia, the ultra orthodox newspaper.

But amongst us...    what a freakin nonesense! However I do believe that due to historical fate and geographical constelation, many jews believe a second holocaust is very likely. And considering the todays power of destruction it could mean such thing as extinction. Whether you use the term "nation" or the silly term "race" doesnt play a role.

Or do you denie that many in Israel do indeed fear for the future of israel, and consequently of the jewish community! Antisemitism is not a term of the past (even though it was made only to describe the feelings against israelis living abroad), I know and I sadly sense that it still exists.

[billybob2002 0]

What about those African Jews?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]So Judaism is a race, is it?

I didn't think anyone could actually convert to/from another race - not even Michael Jackson.

Does that mean a Jewish man with a Christian wife is in an interracial marriage?

You should keep in mind that most people still talk about race when they actually mean ethnic group. The concept of ethnicity has been popularized from  anthropological vocabulary and when you and other use it is no longer precise enough. Thus you could very well use the negative word "race" .

To give you an idea of a better definition is not to look at what "culture consists of" or it's "core material or artefacts" but the borders between the imagined ethnic groups:

Quote[/b] ]Contrary to what is still a widely shared view, I argued that ethnic groups are not groups formed on the basis of shared culture, but rather the formation of groups on the basis of differences of culture. To think of ethnicity in relation to one group and its culture is like trying to clap with one hand. The contrast between "us" and "others" is what is embedded in the organization of ethnicity: an otherness of the others that is explicitly linked to the assertion of cultural differences. So let us start by rethinking culture, the ground from which ethnic groups emerge.

Reference

[denoir 0]

To give you an idea of a vague definition is not to look at what "culture consists of" or it's "core material or artefacts" but the borders between the imagined ethnic groups:

Quote[/b] ]Contrary to what is still a widely shared view, I argued that ethnic groups are not groups formed on the basis of shared culture, but rather the formation of groups on the basis of differences of culture. To think of ethnicity in relation to one group and its culture is like trying to clap with one hand. The contrast between "us" and "others" is what is embedded in the organization of ethnicity: an otherness of the others that is explicitly linked to the assertion of cultural differences. So let us start by rethinking culture, the ground from which ethnic groups emerge.

Reference

To exemplify the principle quoted: Swedes and Norwegians do not belong to the same ethnic group although we share a similar language, customs, geographical area etc. We are not the same ething group because Norway has unlike Sweden not invaded anybody successfully the last thousand years or so

No, but jokes aside, I agree with you. The right word is "ethnic group". As for 'race', Jews are semites, member of the same group as Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Phoenicians. In the region, I think the only exception are the Iranians (Persians) who are Indo-Europeans. Race might not be the right word here either, but perhaps 'language group' or something similar. Overall 'race' is a very fuzzy and problematic concept very often misused.

From dictionary.com:

Quote[/b] ]The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white†or “European†rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,†a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for 'race', Jews are semites, member of the same group as Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Phoenicians.

So doesnt that means that the term anti-semite when used is describing all aforementioned groups ? How ironic since the same term is used in the very region among members of the same group , labelling each other as anti-themselves

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for 'race', Jews are semites, member of the same group as Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Phoenicians.

So doesnt that means that the term anti-semite when used is describing all aforementioned groups ? How ironic since the same term is used in the very region among members of the same group , labelling each other as anti-themselves    

Yepp. In common language anti-semitism usually refers to the Jewish people. The correct definition however includes all the members of the semitic group, which includes Arabs et al

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Incorrect.

The expression antisemitismus was introduced 1879 by Wilhelm Mar summarising anti jewish actions in central europe against jews LIVING ABROAD (meaning in europe).

http://www.antisemitismus.net/antisem....-01.htm

Now you could argue that israelis and arabs have the same geographical origin, but the term wasnt meant to have that definition!

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ] ......... We are not the same ething group because Norway has unlike Sweden not invaded anybody successfully the last thousand years or so

.......you are forgetting about Benidorm and Rhodes every winter and summer. When we pull back the place is a mess

Quote[/b] ]No, but jokes aside, I agree with you. The right word is "ethnic group". As for 'race', Jews are semites, member of the same group as Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Phoenicians. In the region, I think the only exception are the Iranians (Persians) who are Indo-Europeans.

yep

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

benidorm (spain, right?), yeah been there once for a day cause a friend of mine leaves in a village nearby. Good gracious, that realy is sad place to make you hollidays. You go there you wish to be home again, even if you live usually live in the Gaza zone!  

But offtopic

[brgnorway 0]

benidorm (spain, right?), yeah been there once for a day cause a friend of mine leaves in a village nearby. Good gracious, that realy is sad place to make you hollidays. You go there you wish to be home again, even if you live usually live in the Gaza zone!  

But offtopic

I have to agree with you - but Benidorm was a different place just 15-20 years ago when my family had a house in

Alfaz Del Pi close to Benidorm. I wish it had stayed the same though

[Bernadotte 0]

That article was not originally from that News service, and it did have some crediblity to it.  Many of my Jewish friends have very similar views to those talked about in the article.

Miles Teg, you always do this.  You scrutinise and criticise the use of referenced statistics by others, but then you expect us to accept an informal survey of your friends' opinions as significant.  The article's writer does the same thing by citing the opinions of a few Jewish writers as representing the majority.  Not only is that crappy journalism, but it can be dangerous when presented against an entire group of people.

If I said that most of the Brits I've ever met displayed paedofilic tendancies would you accept that as a safe description of all or even most Brits?  Of course not.  Then why should we accept the dispositions of your (or the writer's) Jewish friends as representative of the whole?

As for Judaism being a race (actually ethnicity).... it depends which Jewish sect you talk to.   It does cause some non-Jews to see them as being arrogant and racist.

What are you saying causes some non-Jews to see them as being arrogant and racist?

But there's lots of ethnic groups like that around the world.  I have Korean friends for example who will ONLY date and marry other Koreans.  They believe to do otherwise is to pollute the bloodline.

So, if I move to Korea, become a Korean citizen, learn the language, adopt their faith and live as other Koreans do would I be able to date the Koreans you've just described?  If your answer depends on whether I have Korean blood then the distinction goes beyond ethnicity, IMO.

My entire point above was that religion and even ethnicity can be changed, but race cannot.