The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

The "coalition of the willing" seems to be totally breaking apart.

Britain to withdraw troops from Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Britain plans to reduce the size of its military force in Iraq from 9,000 to 3,500 soldiers within 12 months, as part of a phased withdrawal from the war-torn country.

Defence chiefs are planning, on the other hand, to send more troops to Afghanistan next year to support the deployment of Nato's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters, in what they said to be a renewed attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda network, whom they claim are hiding near the country's border with Pakistan, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

The Telegraph report added that senior American and British military figures believe that Britain will be able to start withdrawing its troops by April next year, saying that by that time the U.S.-led occupation forces will have trained members of the Iraqi defence and police forces to handle the country’s security.

In the first stage, Britain will pull its troops back from three of the Army's five military bases in southern Iraq.

News of the British troops’ withdrawal coincides with the announcement made by a senior United States Marine Corps general that Washington would start withdrawing its troops in 12 to 24 months.

Recently, Lt Gen James Conway of the U.S. marines said that the U.S. troops withdrawal within the same time frame as the British was possible as the Iraqis were "starting to take control of their own situation".

UK forces are based in five locations in southern Iraq, including Camp Abu Naji in Al Amarah.

The rest of the 9,000 troops are divided between the three camps in Basra and the logistics base at Shaibah, 25 miles south of the city.

Starting 2006, Camp Abu Naji and the Shaibah logistics base will be the only locations occupied by British troops.

The British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly stated that the British troops will stay in Iraq till members of the Iraqi defence are ready to take control of their country’s security.

About 1,300 troops, will also remain on high readiness in Cyprus.

A senior Army officer said: "Iraq remains a side issue in the war against terrorism although the rise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's organisation has given Islamic militants a new front. The real war against terror still needs to be won in Afghanistan, where the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are still hiding. Their death or capture will be a decisive blow."

"Troop numbers in Iraq are continually kept under review and we will remain in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi authorities to provide security assistance for the Iraqi forces. We are not going to speculate on future troop levels and timescales," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said yesterday.

I seriously doubt that Iraq´s inner security will be up and running at that time as there are immerse problems in finding a coherent approach to the widespread violence and inner policy problems. They are just about to get worse by the minute as several independance movements within Iraq show today.

It´s like the US handing over zones to Iraq forces. It´s just a "retreat" to save own personel and let average Iraqui Joe risk his head for the things others started and failed to finish.

Another spotlight on the Abu Ghraib scandal, which shows that orders indeed came from up above:

Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top

Quote[/b] ]Classified documents show the former US military chief in Iraq personally sanctioned measures banned by the Geneva Conventions. Andrew Buncombe reports from Washington

03 April 2005

America's leading civil liberties group has demanded an investigation into the former US military commander Iraq after a formerly classified memo revealed that he personally sanctioned a series of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The group claims that his directives were directly linked to the sort of abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib.

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez authorised techniques such as the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, stress positions and disorientation. In the documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Gen Sanchez admits that some of the techniques would not be tolerated by other countries.

When he appeared last year before a Congressional committee, Gen Sanchez denied authorising such techniques. He has now been accused of perjury.

The ACLU says the documents reveal that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere was the result of an organised and co-ordinated plan for dealing with prisoners captured during the so-called war on terror that originates at the highest levels of the chain of command. It says that far from being isolated incident, the shocking abuse at Abu Ghraib that was revealed last year was part of a pattern.

"We think that the techniques authorised by Gen Sanchez were certainly responsible for putting into play the sort of abuses that we saw at Abu Ghraib," Amirit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, told The Independent on Sunday. "And it does not just stop with Sanchez. It goes to [Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, who wrote memos authorising these sorts of techniques at Guantanamo Bay."

In the September 2003 memo, Gen Sanchez authorised the use of 29 techniques for interrogating prisoners being held by the US. These included stress positions, "yelling, loud music and light control" as well as the use of muzzled military dogs in order to "exploit Arab fear of dogs". Some of the most notorious photographs to emerge from the Abu Ghraib scandal showed hand-cuffed, naked Iraqi prisoners cowering from snarling dogs.

Six weeks after Gen Sanchez issued his memo, a subsequent directive banned the use of dogs and several of the other techniques following concerns raised by military lawyers. The ACLU says that at least 12 of the techniques listed in the memo went beyond the limits for interrogation listed in the US Army's field manual.

"Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," said Ms Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

The Abu Ghraib scandal sent shockwaves around the world and further undermined US credibility in the Arab world. In the immediate aftermath, insurgents who captured and beheaded a US engineer, Nick Berg, said they had done so in retaliation for the abuse at the infamous prison west of Baghdad, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and tortured.

A number of low-ranking reservists have been charged over the abuse. An alleged ringleader, Charles Graner, 36, was convicted last January and sentenced to 10 years in jail. At his trial his lawyer, Guy Womack, claimed his client was being used as a scapegoat. "The government is asking a corporal to take the hit for them," he said. "The chain of command says, 'We didn't know anything about this stuff'. You know that is a lie."

When he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004, Gen Sanchez flatly refused approving such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false. "I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath. The ACLU accuses him of committing perjury and has asked the Attorney General to investigate. In a letter to Alberto Gonzales, the group said: "Gen Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation. This clear breach of the public's trust is also further proof that the American people deserve the appointment of an independent special counsel by the Attorney General."

A number of investigations have been carried out into the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. While some have referred to a break-down in the chain of command, none have placed responsibility with senior officers or politicians.

Kathy Kelley, a spokeswoman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the new documents obtained by the ACLU showed a pattern of abuse by US forces. "It saddens me but I am not shocked," she said.

Gen Sanchez is currently commanding general of the US V Corps based in Germany. He has yet to comment on the release of the memo. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment.

The Pentagon originally refused to release the memo on national security grounds, but passed it to the ACLU after the group challenged it in court. Mr Rumsfeld last week dismissed suggestions that it had been withheld to save the Pentagon's embarrassment.

But the ACLU said the reason for the delay in delivering the more than 1,200 pages of documents in which the memo was contained was "evident in the contents", which included reports of brutal beatings and sworn statements that soldiers were told to "beat the fuck out of" prisoners.

Now it´s time that the US come totally clear about the methology of torture and abuse or they will loose the rest of credibility they still have. People at the top need to be held accountable for what they ordered and tolerated. Even if that means sending them to jail and throwing them out of office.

For the ones who doubt anything, here is the link to the original September memo by Chavez:

Memo by Chavez on torture and abuse

[Jinef 2]

The Americans keep forgetting the golden rule. "Don't get caught".

If you need information to stop your soldiers dying then torture your prisoners, whatever. Just don't get caught!

If you do get caught then the opinion has to change to "Torture is bad mmmkay" and people need to be resigned.

Edit:

To Simba, Hurlo, Denoir, Walker and the other people I have forgotten that keep slamming their head against the 2 year old mentality of the people who inhabit this severely depressing forum. Give up guys. There is light, it's called 'playing OFP in decent amounts and leaving enough time for social interaction with similar minded people". I invite you nice people to the server mentioned in my sig where we can play lovely coops and have fun. As ferretfangs very truly stated, you are wasting valuable life in this forum. You seem intelligent enough people, you may have realised that your posting simply encourages retaliation, like the SAS assasinating terrorists in Northern Ireland, it simply makes more of the little buggers.

I hope Avon Lady doesn't mind me comparing her to a terrorist or anything however it's just an analogy.

A nice quote from one of the people I play with who views this forum in a similiar manner -

(talking about the OFP community as represented here)

"no, they are not like cs-guys, they are worse,they have the same mind and bigotry in their heads but just hide it because of imposed standard by mods"

I think that is quite possible true, up to you decide for yourselves of course.

Adieu Comrades.

[red oct 2]

The Americans keep forgetting the golden rule. "Don't get caught".

If you need information to stop your soldiers dying then torture your prisoners, whatever. Just don't get caught!

If you do get caught then the opinion has to change to "Torture is bad mmmkay" and people need to be resigned.

Edit:

To Simba, Hurlo, Denoir, Walker and the other people I have forgotten that keep slamming their head against the 2 year old mentality of the people who inhabit this severely depressing forum. Give up guys. There is light, it's called 'playing OFP in decent amounts and leaving enough time for social interaction with similar minded people". I invite you nice people to the server mentioned in my sig where we can play lovely coops and have fun. As ferretfangs very truly stated, you are wasting valuable life in this forum. You seem intelligent enough people, you may have realised that your posting simply encourages retaliation, like the SAS assasinating terrorists in Northern Ireland, it simply makes more of the little buggers.

I hope Avon Lady doesn't mind me comparing her to a terrorist or anything however it's just an analogy.

A nice quote from one of the people I play with who views this forum in a similiar manner -

(talking about the OFP community as represented here)

"no, they are not like cs-guys, they are worse,they have the same mind and bigotry in their heads but just hide it because of imposed standard by mods"

I think that is quite possible true, up to you decide for yourselves of course.

Adieu Comrades.

you brits seem to have forgotten that little rule as well. or were your soldiers just showing that Iraqi a good view when they stuck him on top of that fork lift?

[Jinef 2]

We have idiots in the Military as well, they were purely doing it for revenge in my opinion. It had no strategic value from what I saw.

Medieval revenge values.

However what you don't see is the British squaddies taking a POW into the back of an APC and saying "We are going to rape your daughter if you don't tell us where the MG position is." Hopefully the POW is stupid enough to let his fears be played and they learn where the MG position is - 3 Soldiers saved.

Prisoners and civvies systematically tortured in a prison just for kicks while US soldiers are still getting shot is not useful, it is not providing any info, just sadistic pleasure.

Now some of the European liberals in this thread will think ... what a sicko he actually endorses torture!? Think of the tactical advantages and the mental/physical scarring of a POW vs the life of your soldiers = forget ethics and torture him to a sensible degree before he either tells you info or you move to the next POW.

[walker 0]

Hi Jinef

The problem with that is that you then loose all protection of the Genieva convention for your nation.

It is the military equivalent of saying well everyone else defrauds the insurance companies so I will too.

You also loose the ethical ascendancy if what you are saying is true there is no difference between an alied soldier and Sadam or Bin Laden.

You also loose discipline; oh its OK to torture the enemy, is followed by it is OK to shoot prisoners eventualy followed by kill rape and pillage all in sight. No longer do you have army and soon after that when they come back home to practice those same ethics you have no society. The US lived through that with Vietnam as did the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the Soviet Union it helped wipe out the USSR. Now there is Russia and about 10 other countries and break away republics.

Kind Regards Ian

[theavonlady 2]

The problem with that is that you then loose all protection of the Genieva convention for your nation.

It is the military equivalent of saying well everyone else defrauds the insurance companies so I will too.

And exactly who on the Zarqawi Squad has been adhering to the Geneva convention until now?

[walker 0]

The problem with that is that you then loose all protection of the Genieva convention for your nation.

It is the military equivalent of saying well everyone else defrauds the insurance companies so I will too.

And exactly who on the Zarqawi Squad has been adhering to the Geneva convention until now?

Hi Avon

If you want to lump yourself with the Zarqawi Squad and place yourself in the same ethical league as them it is your choice. I think you should carefully consider whether you want to do that.

How will you then be able to call them terrorist for you would then have just legitimsed them as the same as you.

You will then have few friends even among other terrorists. This is what happened in Algeria. The terrorists killed them selves off.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

If you want to lump yourself with the Zarqawi Squad

Never said such a thing. Keep trying.

Quote[/b] ] and place yourself in the same ethical league as them it is your choice.

But wait! You just said that non-adherants aren't covered by the GC. So are you saying the terrorists in Iraq are or are not adhering to the GC.

Quote[/b] ]I think you should carefully consider whether you want to do that.

I think you should fight fire with fire. These terrorists aren't going to return you any favors.

No. The nonsense that went on at Al Gharab is not part of that fight.

Quote[/b] ]

How will you then be able to call them terrorist for you would then have just legitimsed them as the same as you.

Ah moral equivalence! You've already legitimized Al Quaeda terrorists. They love you.

[Jinef 2]

Well walker you need to see the tactical advantage of getting information out of people, the more lives it will save the harder it is to get out of your informant.

About the breakdown of society ... actually you will find the civvy side of UK life a lot more disturbing than the military life. Binge drinking, violence, working class values applied when drunk and the stuff like teenage pregnancy and shit. So it's already a very crap place.

Your saying that if we beat prisoners to get useful info in Iraq then when the soldiers come home to the tranquility and peace of the green and lovely British Isles they then cause trouble?

No more like they go over there and people forget about them, they are given shit rules of engagement, when the Iraqi nasties are cutting off heads for kicks and giggles we are told - no you can't get information to save your troops lives because we are seen as not following the geneva convention.

In the squaddie language - It's fookin shit and if you don't like it you can fuck off.

Offering a different perspective once again.

[Scrub 0]

What's the difference between Al-Zarkawi and someone who tortures (reasonably, not mutilating or anything irreversable)?  In the end, on one route- freedom is achieved, the torture ends, the individual has personal power to affect his/her life.  On the other, personal oppression reigns, torture continues (i.e. whipping, vengance raping, hands/heads cut off, general beatings), and the individual is at the very least chastized into obeying the narrow laws of that society.  Oh yeah, don't forget (albiet on the far end) the death squads to keep dissenters in-line with fear or just saturating the place with their absence.

My $0.02 in this huge moral debt.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

If this thread continues to go down the route of discussing religion it will also be closed.

Baron yes we know your opinion of religion, we've heard it more than enough times in the past, if you continue to flame/flamebait (and I'm talking about the war on terror thread here as well) you'll be post restricted, you know the drill by now, discuss politely without insulting people just because you hold a different opinion or belief with them, if you cannot discuss things politely find another forum, or we'll help you do that.

That's right, I was the one who brought it up... oh wait!! No I wasn't! Yet somehow you ignored that. So its ok for others to INSULT people without religious belief?

Feel free to point out anywhere where I've been rude or deliberately insulted people (bearing in mind that 'mind-virus' is a perfectly reasonable way to describe the way ideas such as religion promulgate through society.)

If anyone finds the simple truth insulting, is that my fault?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

If this thread continues to go down the route of discussing religion it will also be closed.

Baron yes we know your opinion of religion, we've heard it more than enough times in the past, if you continue to flame/flamebait (and I'm talking about the war on terror thread here as well) you'll be post restricted, you know the drill by now, discuss politely without insulting people just because you hold a different opinion or belief with them, if you cannot discuss things politely find another forum, or we'll help you do that.

That's right, I was the one who brought it up... oh wait!! No I wasn't! Yet somehow you ignored that. So its ok for others to INSULT people without religious belief?

Feel free to point out anywhere where I've been rude or deliberately insulted people (bearing in mind that 'mind-virus' is a perfectly reasonable way to describe the way ideas such as religion promulgate through society.)

If anyone finds the simple truth insulting, is that my fault?

Speaking as a member, and not a moderator, I find your views on religion extremely offensive and as a member, I would have RTM'ed you a long time ago.

No one cares if you disagree or not - but you don't just stick to agreeing/disagreeing; you decide that your point of view is universally correct, and that everyone else is a nutcase. That's your line of argument in a nutshell.

You're not debating, you're not considering, you're declaring this over and over and over and over and over again.

Distance yourself from your posts, and go over them again. Don't let your bias read them, read them as an outside observer.

If you can't see where I'm coming from: then too bad for you, you're old enough to know what you're doing and saying.

[Jinef 2]

My own personal opinion on religion:

I do not believe in any religion personally however I accept all religions and do not believe them to be detrimental to individuals. I think they are positive to the average individual and will offer guidance and support.

I hold a more objective view when it comes to religion and violence, it is my strong belief that no religion should allow violence to be commited within it's name. I feel that it can not be used as an excuse or a means and basically people who use it withing the context of violence (The crusades/jihad) should not be accepted by any society.

My own interpretations of the bible and the koran see them as very similar, just the bible was manipulated and interpreted more and more to serve people's new values that civilisation created, nothing is sacred in capitalism.

So where as it says in the bible something along the lines of - the woman was created from the rib of Adam and was to submit to him. The interpretation of this 1500 years ago meant that women in societies using the old testament as their religious base were very treated very similar to the women seen today in Islamic nations. They were covered up, they were beaten in public and if seen with a man not their brother or father they were killed.

Now the people following the Koran generally lived in more arid climates and development was slower with a lack of resources. There was very little change in values.

Look at the British Isles 1000 years ago and look at Afghanistan 1000 years ago ... very different in the UK, almost exactly the same in Afghanistan.

So basically religions are fine with me as long as they are not used to manipulate people or justify violence.

I think George Bush is just as bad as extreme Islamic Clerics when he spouts Christian ....... faith in his speeches than when they call upon the lords name when sending children into the fray with TNT strapped to their bodies.

I am quite sure that almost everyone can agree with this opinion on religion, I developed it to be the least controversial and most truthful.

We can agree somwhere Avon

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Speaking as a member, and not a moderator, I find your views on religion extremely offensive and as a member, I would have RTM'ed you a long time ago.

Speaking as a member I find Avon's, and the rest of the overtly religious posters posts EXTREMELY offensive and would have simply applied a fair and balanced ban on discussing religious topics. At all.

What I object to is ...well, what I object to. Overtly religious posts and posts claiming, as fact, that religion is universally good, with nothing to back it up. Opinions are fine when they are stated as opinions - noone can disagree with them.

"No one cares if you disagree or not - but you don't just stick to agreeing/disagreeing; you decide that your point of view is universally correct, and that everyone else is a nutcase. That's your line of argument in a nutshell. "

I'm sorry if you feel that way but that is NOT what I have ever done. Its not my point of view that is always correct - I have been wrong in the past and have admitted as much. What IS crazy is insane things like believing wine turns into blood which tastes like wine but is actually literally turning into the blood of a mythical character. That is just crazy, no two ways about it. Or believing that the earth is flat and that the sun orbits it. Thats not that everyone who disagrees with my point of view is a nutcase - thats that anyone who believes in such lunacy is .. a nutcase.

Quote[/b] ]If you can't see where I'm coming from: then too bad for you, you're old enough to know what you're doing and saying.

Look in the mirror.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

While you bring up some good points I cannot go into them atm as I will be banned (and noone else) if I mention the R word again.

[FerretFangs 0]

Can we PLEASE return to the topic?

[Balschoiw 0]

Man...why can´t we have it like in real life where you just tell someone to shut up when he loops in shit.

I´m so fed of that religious bs Baron spills over the forum whenever he can.

Fanatic nonbeliever. Not better than the fanatic believer.

This is the freakin Iraq thread !

Not Baron religion-hour again and again and again....

Quote[/b] ]What's the difference between Al-Zarkawi and someone who tortures (reasonably, not mutilating or anything irreversable)? In the end, on one route- freedom is achieved, the torture ends, the individual has personal power to affect his/her life.

Reasonably torture ? Do you actually know about longterm effects of torture ? Ask the vietnam veteran round the corner. I guess he will burst in laughter when talking about torture.

Freedom achieved by torture ?

Why should torture end when it turns out to be a big hit ?

And the major percentage, imprisoned in Iraq who were innocent ,teenagers, men who lost their pride and reputation only because they were abused and tortured for what reason again ?

I´m sorry, but your statement is a really stupid one.

What´s next ?

Preemptive executions handled in a reasonably way to achieve freedom ?

And no, average arrested Iraqui Joe had no personal power to affect his/her life when he/she got taken to Abu Ghraib for some nude pictures.

Sorry, but I fail to understand your logic neither can I accept such attitude.

[chaztheducky 0]

now to completely change the topic from what has been said...okay so the first medal of honor for a soldier in the iraq has been presented to the son of Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith. The story is here. Its a brave story so you need to check it out. peace

[FerretFangs 0]

I give thanks for men like Sgt. Smith.

[Placebo 29]

Balschoiw just saved this thread from being closed, if it at any point returns to a religion debate it will be closed for good.

[quicksand 0]

Assault on Abu Ghraib May Signal New Tactics

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, April 4 — Insurgent groups led by foreigners and Iraqis asserted Monday that guerrilla leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's organization was responsible for a major assault on Abu Ghraib prison Saturday that U.S. officers called one of the most sophisticated attacks of the insurgency.

Rocket barrages forced Marine guards to abandon a prison watchtower at the height of the precision-timed offensive, which employed mortars, rockets, ground assaults and a car bomb, a U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, said Monday.

U.S. rapid-response troops, backed by Apache helicopters and artillery, fired small arms and grenades to help the guards drive attackers back from prison walls, Rudisill said. The battle wounded 44 American troops and 13 of the more than 3,000 detainees held at the prison.

"It was one of the more concerted attacks that we've seen," said Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman.

Asked if there had been any other insurgent attack that surpassed it, Boylan said, "Not that I'm aware of."

In an interview, Iraqi insurgent leaders said the assault was carried out by Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq. The claim was also made in the name of the group on a radical Islamic Web site. The group's numerous attacks had until now largely involved suicide bombings, car bombings and kidnappings rather than direct confrontations with U.S. forces.

U.S. authorities said they had not yet determined the veracity of the claims. Boylan said it was "too early to say whether this is a new trend or a new strategy'' for the insurgency, which in March inflicted fewer casualties on U.S. forces than in any month since February 2004.

Insurgent commanders said Monday that the prison assault represented a shift in tactics and that more attacks on U.S. installations would follow.

"These operations will be different from the old ones, the car bombs, the IEDs,'' said Abu Jalal, a top commander in the extremist group Mohammed's Army, using the common abbreviation for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs. Mohammed's Army is one of dozens of home-grown armed groups believed to be fighting the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

"We are going to use the same method that they used when they attacked Iraq," said Abu Jalal, who uses a nom de guerre and described himself as a former general in the Iraqi military during Saddam Hussein's rule.

"The old military officers know very well that the attacks on the bases of the enemy army weaken the morale of the soldiers and frighten them. The soldier feels safe when he goes back to his base. If he is attacked in the place that feels safe, that place is really hell," Abu Jalal said.

If Zarqawi was behind the attack, it was unclear where or when his movement acquired the tactical expertise to directly confront U.S. Marines. Abu Jalal denied that former military officers in Mohammed's Army had served as advisers, saying, "It was 100 percent Zarqawi." The statement on the radical Web site said "sources with the enemy" had helped provide information to plot the attack.

Abu Jalal said the attack had been launched to free a commander of Zarqawi's group and associates held at Abu Ghraib.

The prison complex at Abu Ghraib, about 20 miles west of Baghdad, became notorious for torture under Hussein. After the U.S. invasion toppled Hussein, Abu Ghraib was taken over by the U.S. military and became the focus of widely publicized abuses of detainees by American forces.

U.S. officials decided this year to eventually close the prison, in part because it is located in an area heavily populated by insurgents and their supporters.

The raid Saturday was launched at dusk and appeared to involve at least 40 to 50 men, U.S. officers said.

The insurgents opened the attack with barrages of 81mm and 120mm mortar rounds, followed by rocket-propelled grenades, the U.S. military said. Arab media reports said some of the projectiles landed inside the prison, causing the injuries among detainees.

At least one rocket-propelled grenade hit a corner watchtower, wounding Marine guards inside. The explosion forced the guard team to abandon the tower, Rudisill said. The heaviest damage was caused by a mortar round that destroyed a refrigerator truck, he said.

Ground fighters among the insurgents advanced only after the mortar and rocket assault had ended and attacked the prison from two directions simultaneously. The smaller of the thrusts was apparently a feint to divert attention from the main attack, Rudisill said, who cited both tactics as evidence of sophisticated planning.

Arab media said the attackers withdrew under covering fire. The U.S. military reported one rebel killed and dozens wounded. Authorities declined to say whether any insurgents had been captured.

Rudisill said the prison's walls were not breached and that no inmates escaped. U.S. forces were able to blow up a vehicle bomb before it reached the prison walls, he said.

Rudisill said he believed there was no evidence that a tractor-mounted bomb that exploded near Abu Ghraib on Monday was meant for the prison, saying the explosion was too far away for prison guards to see.

Special correspondent Naseer Nouri contributed to this report.

U.S., Iraqi Troops Battle Dozens of Insurgents

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi forces battled dozens of insurgents in a remote area east of Baghdad and three soldiers, two American and one Iraqi, were killed in the fighting, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.

Among all this hell this war is geting a certain comic value.Victory against insurgents is signaled at the slightest oportunity.

-The fact that they only killed dozens and not hundreads during the ellections and stopped only the entire Sunni community to vote prooves that they are loosing this war.  

-Attacks have dropped for one full week from 500 to 300,the insurgents are clearly running out of steam.

-March was the least deadliest month since last February,the insurgents are finished.Please disregard the hundreads of deadly attacks on Iraqi security forces that occoured instead and the fact that the dealdiest month in the entire war was preceded by relative calm.

In any case,I actually belive that there are considerable chances for the insurgency to fall in the not to distant future. But for that event,Iraqis and the world most be prepared for serious violence outbreakes,comparable to nothing we seen before.

When they will see they have nothing more to loose,they will probably start one final offensive,get out in the streets of the city they control(Ramadi,Al Quaim) and pick a fight with any enemy they see in sight.They already prooved that even with a fraction of their man power they can hold at bay for some time tens of thousands of Marines sieging Fallujah and inflict notable casualties.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]They already prooved that even with a fraction of their man power they can hold at bay for some time tens of thousands of Marines sieging Fallujah and inflict notable casualties.

Are you telling a joke? Didn't you even care that a single NG unit were able to defeat, without support, attacking insurgents who ambushed them and outnumber them? Anyway, the casualties of Fallujah battle were far light compared to other taken of cities throughout history. The Marines and co wanted to be methodically and keep the casaulties down has with other countries militaries want to in the same situation. Also, the insugent casualties are not in the "dozens" but is unknown. If you go by reports, it was way more than "dozens" (AP reported 80 something in the first two or so days). Plus, they bagged that guy you lauded around a few months ago. Anyway, it was not the insurgents that stopped them from voting but was the leaders of the community that wanted them not to. Also, those same people who asked for that request now want a piece of the political pie. And, those religious Sunni clerics want the Sunnis to help the Iraqi police and military out now.

[chaztheducky 0]

it's a damn good thing that they are too. we (amercians) cant stay in iraq forever. (even though it is quite fun to play in the big sand box )

jk

[SpongeBob 0]

I'm looking for a 2nd source on this:

Quote[/b] ]304 U.S. soldiers ordered killed by Pentagon in Iraq

TEHRAN (MNA) : About 304 recalcitrant U.S. soldiers have been killed by the Pentagon's special team, intelligence sources in Iraq have revealed.

The sources quoted high-ranking U.S. officers as saying that since the U.S. occupation of Iraq in March 2003 more than 304 U.S. military forces have been executed in spurious clashes at the behest of army commanders and with the knowledge of the Pentagon.

The bodies of these soldiers have been sent to their families and announced as forces who have been killed in the fight against terrorists, the Mehr News Agency correspondent in southern Iran has learnt.

The soldiers ordered killed were mainly among those who suffered mental disorders and protested against the massacre of Iraqi civilians and asked "Who were they fighting for".

Reports say the number of soldiers who have injured or maimed themselves to flee from the scene of war in Iraq are on the rise, and new revelations show that this number has exceeded to 2,100 over the past two years.

The U.S. Army medical dispensary announced four months ago that more than 6,000 soldiers serving in Iraq suffer from severe mental problems. The reports have also revealed that some of these soldiers tend to kill innocent Iraqi civilians without any particular reason in order to reduce their mental pains.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Descrip....Num=018

Sad part is, we'll never know the true number. This is more information that the Amerikkkan BushReich controled media doesn't want you to know about.  Thank allah for the internet and new services like the Mehr News Agency.

[Ironsight 1]

I'm looking for a 2nd source on this

You'll never find it

Quote[/b] ]www.tehrantimes.com

The ayatollah propaganda machine