The Iraq thread 4

[Bernadotte 0]

Iraq is not yet a democracy. It's still a state reeling from the effects from war. It's future system of government, though likely to be brought about via a democratic election, does not seal Iraq as a democracy.

I agree, but you might be losing sight of how this discussion started, or at least where I entered it.

Al sadr, in his own words wanted a muslim IRaq not just a Iraq.

And what's wrong with that?  

I would not have asked "what's wrong with that" if this comment by Sadr had mentioned anything about Iraq becoming a theocracy or any other form of non-democratic state.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Why is everyone concerned about Iraq becoming a theocracy. Why do you not want them to become a theocracy? Do you want to do something about that?

Honestly, who the hell do you think you are to tell another nation what type of government it should have?

[Ares1978 0]

Why is everyone concerned about Iraq becoming a theocracy. Why do you not want them to become a theocracy? Do you want to do something about that?

Honestly, who the hell do you think you are to tell another nation what type of government it should have?

They say the best way to ruin a conversation is to flash the nazi card..

Who the hell do they think they are ignoring the opinion of the rest of the world?

[Ares1978 0]

I would not have asked "what's wrong with that" if this comment by Sadr had mentioned anything about Iraq becoming a theocracy or any other form of non-democratic state.

Do you really think that he would use the words "islamistic theocracy"?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Why is everyone concerned about Iraq becoming a theocracy. Why do you not want them to become a theocracy? Do you want to do something about that?

Honestly, who the hell do you think you are to tell another nation what type of government it should have?

They say the best way to ruin a conversation is to flash the nazi card..

Who the hell do they think they are ignoring the opinion of the rest of the world?

Nazi card WTF

Explain - what gives you the right to interfere with another nation's sovereignty?

Explain - what world opinion are you talking about?

[Yagyu Retsudo 0]

First, I want you to list as many democracies as you care to that were founded around religion. That way we might be able to avoid any arguments about what defines an existing democracy founded around a religion. Only then can we move on to the question of whether they've lead to extremism or fanaticism.

I think I'll wait for you to list any religiously-based governments that haven't led to fanaticism and extremism first.

Also, please don't confuse a government primarily concered with religion with a government whose members are/ were incidentally religious. In other words, those governments who formed despite their religion.

Quote[/b] ]

I did not say "wrong." Please do not put words in my mouth.

Hence my use of the quotation marks to denote something you implied.

Quote[/b] ]

What I did say was "the Taleban was an Afghan Islamist movement lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion."

Yes, and that is what I have a problem with. You claiming that they have a limited understanding of their own religion implies that you know their own religion better than them; that they are wrong in their interpretation of their religion. That their interpretation is wrong because it is based on limited understanding.

This is an extremely narrow and naive view. You cannot, as I have already said, simply dismiss one interpretation as less valid than another, since religions are all about interpretation. The only way you could settle which is the 'correct' interpretation would be if their god appeared and set everyone straight. Until then*, all interpretations have equal worth (or lack of worth.)

Quote[/b] ]

And according to the article:

"The most influential members, including Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the movement, were simple village ulema—Islamic religious scholars, whose education was extremely limited and did not include exposure to most modern thought in the Islamic community."

Which is not what you said. You said 'limited understanding of their own religion.' Their own religion did not require exposure to modern thought in the Islamic community, they were quite happy with their own interpretation. I doubt you'd criticise the Papacy for its lack of coherence with modern christian thought. (note word coherence.)

*hold your breath if you like

[Bernadotte 0]

I think I'll wait for you to list any religiously-based governments that haven't led to fanaticism and extremism first.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was formed to create a Muslim state independent from India.

Quote[/b] ]Hence my use of the quotation marks to denote something you implied.

Sorry.  I always thought that quotation marks denoted a quotation rather than something implied.

Quote[/b] ]You claiming that they have a limited understanding of their own religion implies that you know their own religion better than them;

No it does not.

Quote[/b] ]that they are wrong in their interpretation of their religion.

No it does not.

Quote[/b] ]That their interpretation is wrong because it is based on limited understanding.

No it does not.

Quote[/b] ]You cannot, as I have already said, simply dismiss one interpretation as less valid than another, since religions are all about interpretation.

I have not dismissed their interpretation.  I have only suggested that their interpretation is not likely to be adopted by those who will rule Iraq.  Please re-read what I said and stop reading into it more answers than the original question called for.  Afterall, the topic is Iraq and not the Taleban's interpretation of Islam.

Quote[/b] ]You said 'limited understanding of their own religion.'  Their own religion did not require exposure to modern thought in the Islamic community, they were quite happy with their own interpretation.

Even if the Taleban view of Islam "did not require exposure to modern thought in the Islamic community" it does not mean that their understanding was not limited.

And I certainly have no doubt that they were quite happy with their own interpretation.  But, what does that have to do with the liklihood of Iraqis adopting that same interpretation?

[turms 0]

A M88 sustaining direct hit to the sidearmor; Here +some fighting in najaf(?)

No idea what happened to the crew, so be advised.

[denoir 0]

Where the hell do they get all the RPG's from?  

And I must say that I'm really amazed at the relatively low US casualties so far. In any short news segment on Iraq fighting, you see a bunch of RPG's being fired in the general direction of the Americans. These insurgents must either be very bad shots or the US armored vehicles really can handle a beating.

[Bernadotte 0]

Where the hell do they get all the RPG's from?  

And I must say that I'm really amazed at the relatively low US casualties so far. In any short news segment on Iraq fighting, you see a bunch of RPG's being fired in the general direction of the Americans. These insurgents must either be very bad shots or the US armored vehicles really can handle a beating.

IIRC, during the 80s, Iraq was spending nearly 20% of it's GDP (not budget) on defense - the highest % in the world at the time.

I read somewhere that when Saddam saw the Americans coming he dispersed and hid huge stockpiles of RPGs, explosives and other conventional weapons stockpiles across the nation.  He also released thousands of desperate prisoners with nothing but the shirts on their backs and promised them a couple hundred dollars if they would turn these weapons against US forces.  Word has it that most were quite inept at handling such weapons and, more often than not, they killed themselves trying to use them.

I'll try to find that article because I think it addressed your questions quite well.

[quicksand 0]

The worst is still to come.Take the Ramadi example in April,a bunch of Saddam loyalists inflicted a dozen of US deaths in just one firefight.They are still keeping a relatively low profile with mostly roadside bomb attacks because frankly survival is vital for them if they are ever to achieve a Vietnam style succes

and they obviously realise Iraq is their country and they are here for the long run unlike US forces that are bined to certain factors.

And until now as worrying as it might seem they have had succes that not even the most anti-US pro Iraqi resistance fanatic would have visioned echoing a possibly carefully draft plan :

*The first step,brokering a deal of convenience between Sunni secular insurgents and islamic fighters under the common goal of driving US forces out of the country.

*Saddam`s capture.Surprising as it might seem it has actually helped fuel hatred against the US occupation with the Shia majority no longer in fear of his return to power allowing them to start sympathising the anti-US resistance.

*The Abu Gharib torturing.A sharp reminder for Iraqis of the difrence between the liberators they hoped and the brutal occupiers they became.

*A colosal victory in Fallujah both moral and strategic after weeks of fierce fighting repelling US forces and basicly winning the battle.

*Creating the ultimate stronghold of resistance without foot of US soldiers in the city,a loyal Fallujah brigade and population that curently serves as a base for planning and attacks.

*Moqtada Al-Sadr who became no less then the face of the entire resistance,a shia that helped paint a unfied Iraqi resistance no longer a bunch of Saddam loose enders and terrorists.

*1000 US deaths mark that is breathing in Bush neck if mediatised as it diserve will most likely raise more doubts and less suport for the war.

Given the US firepower in Iraq,the billions they promised for Iraqis benefit, I come short of imagining how things could go worst right now.

[bn880 5]

Where the hell do they get all the RPG's from?

And I must say that I'm really amazed at the relatively low US casualties so far. In any short news segment on Iraq fighting, you see a bunch of RPG's being fired in the general direction of the Americans. These insurgents must either be very bad shots or the US armored vehicles really can handle a beating.

Okay, conspiracy theory time.

Have you noticed that most US losses that are reported publically are ones you can first find out fast about from insurgent tapes or some media? Do you not think it's possible they do not report some losses when nobody external knows?

Is it not nice to threaten and hold back media in fighting, to be able to lower your loss reports? I wonder if 10 years from now the real numbers of casualties won't come out.

I can't believe that the US doesn't have men fighting for them who are "unknown soldiers" too who can die and no one will really miss them.

Interesting eh... but I'm sure it's impossible as some here will speare on.

[Yagyu Retsudo 0]

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was formed to create a Muslim state independent from India.

Also, please don't confuse a government primarily concered with religion with a government whose members are/ were incidentally religious. In other words, those governments who formed despite their religion.

May I again draw your attention to this request.

Pakistan's laws and legal system are based on English common law, for example. They also have universal suffrage to an extent and reserved seats for non-Muslims.

Quote[/b] ]Sorry. I always thought that quotation marks denoted a quotation rather than something implied.

Well, now you know otherwise, sometimes words enclosed 'like so' are used to represent an implied statement.

Quote[/b] ]You claiming that they have a limited understanding of their own religion implies that you know their own religion better than them;

No it does not.

In fact, it does. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is what it implies. 'They don't even understand their own religion.' There is no need to be rude or hostile either, by the way.

Quote[/b] ]You cannot, as I have already said, simply dismiss one interpretation as less valid than another, since religions are all about interpretation.

I have not dismissed their interpretation.

In fact you have. You claim their interpretation is less valid than others because you claim it is based on their lack of understanding.

Quote[/b] ]

I have only suggested that their interpretation is not likely to be adopted by those who will rule Iraq. Please re-read what I said and stop reading into it more answers than the original question called for. Afterall, the topic is Iraq and not the Taleban's interpretation of Islam.

And the original point remains: a strict, taliban-esque interpretation of Shariat law and a government based on such is no less valid than any other interpretation of the Qu'ran, and such a government is quite likely to arise if the main point of the new Iraqi government is Islam, not secular issues. (Such as rebuilding the country and governing itself and its people.)

Quote[/b] ]Even if the Taleban view of Islam "did not require exposure to modern thought in the Islamic community" it does not mean that their understanding was not limited.

Their understanding of their own religion is a lot better than your understanding of their religion, and their interpretation of their religion is not any more 'wrong' than any other.

Quote[/b] ]

And I certainly have no doubt that they were quite happy with their own interpretation. But, what does that have to do with the liklihood of Iraqis adopting that same interpretation?

How did the taliban come into power?

[mr reality 0]

I can't believe that the US doesn't have men fighting for them who are "unknown soldiers" too who can die and no one will really miss them.

This is exactly what is happening..I watched a Tv programme  here in the UK and it was about Iraqis who'd had to leave Iraq because of saddams regime and when he had been "overthrown" they came back and had joined the US army for a weekly wage to fight against the rebels..

[Bernadotte 0]

Yagyu Retsudo the point under discussion was this:

Al sadr, in his own words wanted a muslim IRaq not just a Iraq.

My interpretation of Sadr's term "muslim IRaq" included nations like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.  You disagreed.  To avoid any argument resulting from further misinterpretations of the original premise I asked you to provide an example of a government organised around religion. You refused.

From this I have assumed that, for you, a fundamental misunderstanding in our discussion is a small price to pay for pursuing an argument.  This has become even more apparent when you make comments like:

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is what it implies.

Pulling implications out of my words rather than their meaning will not help either of us reach an understanding of the other's position on the original issue.  So I can only conclude that we are here for very different reasons.

Sorry for butting in, sir, but I have to ask...

Next time, I truly hope you will show up a little closer to the start of the debate and, if not, then at least be a bit more prepared to discuss your interpretation of the premise.

Haveaniceday!!  

[Yagyu Retsudo 0]

Yagyu Retsudo the point under discussion was this:

Al sadr, in his own words wanted a muslim IRaq not just a Iraq.

My interpretation of Sadr's term "muslim IRaq" included nations like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. You disagreed. To avoid any argument resulting from further misinterpretations of the original premise I asked you to provide an example of a government organised around religion. You refused.

I have to disagree. That is what was under discussion previously. The NEW thing under discussion is how some people can decide which interpretations of a religion are less valid than others with exactly the same amount of reasoning/ evidence behind each. The conversation has moved on from the original subject.

And please don't complain about what you see as putting words in peoples mouths then turn round and do the same thing yourself, that is just rude-

"My interpretation of Sadr's term "muslim IRaq" included nations like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. You disagreed."

I did nothing of the kind. I would say the Pakistan is an Islamic country, but I totally disagree that it is entirely based around Islam, for the reasons I already stated. It is not a government based on religion.

Quote[/b] ]

From this I have assumed that, for you, a fundamental misunderstanding in our discussion is a small price to pay for pursuing an argument. This has become even more apparent when you make comments like:

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is what it implies.

Pulling implications out of my words rather than their meaning will not help either of us reach an understanding of the other's position on the original issue. So I can only conclude that we are here for very different reasons.

If you want to clear up this misunderstanding, here is what you should do: Stop using language implying that some interpretations of Islam are less valid than others.

Conversely, refusing point blank to retract an obviously erroneous statement, while doing all you can to change the subject and claiming you meant something entirely different but never stating what that might be...... what are your reasons for being here?

Quote[/b] ]

Next time, I truly hope you will show up a little closer to the start of the debate and, if not, then at least be a bit more prepared to discuss your interpretation of the premise.

There really is no need to be so hostile or rude. I'm perfectly willing to discuss things, but you don't seem to be open to discussion at all... the possibility that you might be wrong does not seem to concern you.

[Bernadotte 0]

Okay. Thank you, Yagyu Retsudo. Bye for now.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.vampirebat.com/war/goofy_in_iraq.wmv

(no comment)   Got to have some relax time...

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]MANNHEIM, Germany (CNN) -- U.S. Army Spc. Charles Graner, one of the soldiers charged with abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, lost a legal battle Monday to suppress the photographs that brought attention to the scandal.

Meanwhile, military sources in Germany and the United States said Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, 37, another soldier charged in the scandal, will plead guilty at a pretrial hearing Tuesday to one or two of the charges against him.

Plea bargain negotiations were under way between Frederick's lawyer and prosecutors, the sources said.

Frederick is charged with dereliction of duty by willfully failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment; conspiracy to maltreat detainees; maltreatment of detainees; assault of detainees; and committing indecent acts.

Graner's attorneys argued at a pretrial hearing Monday that investigators obtained two search warrants but executed the first in the middle of the night after Graner had a long, difficult day of work as a guard at the prison. Graner refused to sign the second.

Prosecuting attorney Maj. Michael Holley countered that Graner, a civilian prison guard before his Army Reserve unit was called to Iraq, had the training and experience to respond to the warrant.

"Graner knew exactly what he was doing and consented voluntarily" to the first search, which was conducted January 13, Holley said.

Investigators seized computers and CD-ROMs, and then came back with a second warrant authorizing them to search their contents.

Graner, 35, wearing desert khakis, testified that when investigators arrived with the second warrant, he told them he wanted to talk to an attorney.

"I refused [to sign], not until I saw an attorney," Graner said. He said it had been "extremely stressful" around that time.

The presiding judge, Army Col. James Pohl, questioned whether a second warrant was necessary, noting that once the computers and disks were seized, it only made sense that their contents could be searched.

He also questioned what the defense was trying to suppress because the photographs in question -- several showing Graner -- were readily available and had been made public independent of the specialist's computer.

Pohl denied the defense's motion to suppress the photographs and ordered Graner's next hearing for October 21.

Guy Womack, Graner's civilian attorney, also asked for a change of venue and said after the hearing he believes Pohl will eventually grant one.

"We expect to win that once we can flesh out the witness difficulties we'll have," Womack told reporters after the hearing. Pohl said Monday it was too early to consider the motion.

The proceedings took place in a packed barracks room at an Army post in Mannheim, where the hearings were moved from Baghdad over safety concerns expressed by the defense. An overflow room was also packed.

Graner, identified by prosecutors as a ringleader of the physical abuse and sexual humiliation of prisoners at the Baghdad prison, was the first of four military police officers to face pretrial hearings Monday and Tuesday in Mannheim.

Pohl will also have to decide where the courts-martial will be held -- Iraq, Germany or the United States.

Graner has been charged with assault, mistreatment of prisoners, dereliction of duty, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, adultery and committing indecent acts. He could face more than 24 years in prison if convicted on all charges.

The adultery charge stems from a relationship he had with Pfc. Lynndie England, who is pregnant with his child and charged in the scandal as well. Her own pretrial hearing is taking place in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (Full story)

Abuses, which took place last fall, were exposed in April when a series of photographs of the activities at the prison were made public. By then, an Army investigation had been under way for several months.

Despite reports indicating the participation of others, so far only seven soldiers have been charged, all of them members of the 372nd Military Police Company, an Army Reserve unit based near Cumberland, Maryland.

"Specialist Graner and the other MPs received [both direct and implied] orders," Womack said. "Many of the orders came from civilian contractors, many of them came from military intelligence officers, [and] some of them may have come from other government agencies, which is a euphemism for the CIA."

Pohl ruled Monday that the defense can have the names of civilian contractors and others working at the prison at the time of the alleged abuse.

Pair of reports

A Pentagon report by U.S. Maj. Gen. George Fay is expected to recommend up to 27 people for referral to authorities for possible additional legal action, including as many as five private contractors, according to a senior Pentagon official familiar with it.

The report was due to be released in July but is now expected to be released Wednesday, the official said. (Full story)

The official also said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq when the abuses took place, will be criticized in the report for failing to oversee the prison system properly and failing to provide enough resources and personnel. Sanchez has since been replaced as commander in Iraq.

Another Pentagon report on problems in the U.S.-run detention system in Iraq that led to the Abu Ghraib scandal is due to be released Tuesday by a four-person advisory panel appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and chaired by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger.

Spc. Megan Ambuhl's hearing was postponed Monday. Her charges include maltreatment of detainees, dereliction of duties, and committing indecent acts with detainees. (Full story)

A hearing is set Tuesday for Sgt. Javal Davis, charged with mistreating and assaulting detainees, dereliction of duty, and making false or deceiving statements to investigators.

Spc. Sabrina Harman is awaiting a court-martial. (Full story)

In May, Spc. Jeremy Sivits was sentenced to a year of confinement, demoted to private and given a bad conduct discharge after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to maltreat subordinates or detainees.

He also admitted dereliction of duty for willfully failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment, and maltreatment of detainees.

The plea bargain allows him to testify against other soldiers involved in the abuse. (Full story)

[billybob2002 0]

Has anybody seen this...

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/255/

Click on watch video.... it's an ambush from the perspective of the attacked....  

Mods: this is a clean video...my word on it..

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]In this video there is a convoy moving down a street someplace in Iraq when they take some mortar and AK-47 fire.

It seems more like a few grenades were tossed at the convoy and that the support vehicles responded with machine gun bursts.

[Balschoiw 0]

Everything is running great in Iraq, according to the US president G.W. Bush:

Bush Optimistic on Progress in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]President Bush, who faces a tough re-election ballot in just 10 weeks, portrayed the ongoing occupation of Iraq in optimistic terms Monday even as the U.S. death toll nears 1,000.

"We're making progress on the ground," Bush said about Iraq, where Marines are engaged in fierce battles with followers of a radical cleric holed up in the holy city of Najaf.

Bush spoke at his Texas ranch after spending more than three hours mapping defense strategy with his top national security advisers.

"We talked about Iraq - the way forward in Iraq, the way to help the Iraqis get to elections" by January, Bush said.

Democrat John Kerry's national security adviser accused the president of not doing enough to make the nation safer, especially in view of recommendations from the bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"It has been nearly three years since the 9/11 attacks yet we are clearly not as safe as we could or should be," Rand Beers said in a statement Monday. "The violence in Iraq is clearly spiraling upward. July was more deadly than June and it looks like August will be an even more deadly month than July. Yet, George Bush remains silent on any plans he has to quell the violence in Iraq and bring our troops home."

Bush told reporters that he and his advisers had also discussed repositioning troops around the world and reforming intelligence.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice were among those who attended. Gen. George Casey, the senior U.S. officer in Iraq, and Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, participated for part of the meeting via a secure video conference.

"We talked about transformation issues," Bush said, standing on a gravel road with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and Rice. "We spent some time talking about the reconfiguration of our forces around the world to better be able to keep the peace."

Bush's fourth annual meeting on defense priorities took place at the ranch, where he is spending a week preparing for next week's Republican National Convention in New York.

Declining to offer any specifics about his nomination acceptance speech, Bush said, "I don't want to give you any tidbits for fear that you may not pay attention when I actually stand up there and deliver it."

Earlier in the day, Bush talked with Russian President Vladimir Putin about rising oil prices, which could dampen U.S. economic growth just before the election.

"He said he recognizes that ... he doesn't need to be causing conditions such that it hurts consuming nations," Bush said. "He's wise about that. But we've got a lot of countries beginning to use more energy and we haven't done a good job of increasing supply."

Bush has been watching the Olympics on television. He split his favorite parts of the Summer Games into two parts: foreign and domestic.

"I liked the - let's see - Iraqi soccer," Bush said. "I liked seeing the Afghan woman carrying the flag coming in.

"I loved our gymnasts. I have been watching the swimming. I have seen a lot."

Bush dispelled rumors that he was going to Athens to see the competition in person.

"Athens, Texas?" Bush joked when a reporter questioned him about a possible trip to Greece.

"Oh, the Olympics," he continued. "No, I'm not."

Nice interpretation of reality...unfortunally the picture in Iraq looks very different, but hey....who cares, it´s election time. Let´s tell the people what they want to hear...

Oh, and while we are at "great". Let´s talk about the great work of official US investigators on Abu Ghraib, shall we ?

Army judge in Abu Ghraib hearings warns U.S. to speed up investigations

Quote[/b] ]MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) - A military judge in the alleged prisoner abuse case surrounding Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison demanded Monday that prosecutors speed up the investigation, and one of the accused soldiers said he would plead guilty to some charges.

Judge Col. James Pohl, warned that further delays could derail the case against at least one of the accused soldiers and expressed displeasure after being told a lone army criminal investigator was reviewing thousands of pages of records contained in a secret computer server at Abu Ghraib.

Turning to the military prosecutor, Pohl said he wanted a report on the computer server inquiry available by Dec. 1. But he then added that he would "seriously revisit" a defence motion to dismiss the case against Specialist Charles Graner if there was no sign of progress.

"The government has to figure out what they want to do with the prosecution of this case," the judge said testily.

Staff Sgt. Ivan (Chip) Frederick of the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company said in a statement given to The Associated Press in Hagerstown, Md., that he accepted responsibility for his actions and that he broke the law.

He did not specify the charges to which he will plead guilty. He is charged with maltreating detainees, conspiracy to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty and wrongfully committing an indecent act.

He has a pretrial hearing scheduled for Tuesday in Mannheim.

Graner, alleged in previous testimony to have been the ringleader in the abuse at Abu Ghraib, had his case heard for several hours Monday -the first of four U.S. soldiers facing hearings at a U.S. military base in Mannheim this week.

Pohl, the judge, issued a Sept. 10 target for the government to complete three investigative reports so they can be used as evidence.

The three reports include one conducted by U.S. army Maj.-Gen. George Fay that examined the role of military intelligence, including the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, the unit that was in control of interrogations at Abu Ghraib. That report had been expected to be finished in July.

The U.S. navy's inspector general is due to report on practices at detention centres in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. A Pentagon-appointed panel led by former Defence Secretary James Schlesinger is due to review previous reports and suggest further areas that should be investigated.

Pohl is holding preliminary hearings at Mannheim before returning the proceedings to Baghdad.

Pohl rejected a defence request to bar anything found on Graner's laptop as evidence, after the defence suggested Graner had been too tired to make a clear decision about his rights when he allowed investigators to take the laptop and CDs from his quarters at the prison in January.

But the judge said the point could be revisited later once it became clear what exactly was on the computer. He granted a motion to suppress a statement by Graner that "everything you want is in my computer."

Wearing desert fatigues, Graner, 35, appeared calm and listened intently to the proceedings. When he testified, he said he had little choice but to agree when investigators confronted him with the search request in the middle of the night Jan. 14.

Army investigating agent Manora Iem testified that Graner appeared to understand his rights.

When computer specialists looked at the laptop and 11 CDs found in the search, they discovered "numerous, dozens of pictures related to the investigation," another investigating agent, Tyler Pieron, testified.

Graner's civilian lawyer, Guy Womack, maintained his client was simply doing what he was ordered by superiors.

The Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April when photographs of hooded and naked prisoners were made public, touching off furious international criticism.

Graner of Unionstown, Pa., became known worldwide from the picture of him posing for the camera with his thumbs up behind a pile of naked prisoners.

He has been accused of jumping on prisoners as they lay on the ground, stomping on the hands and bare feet of several prisoners and punching an inmate in the temple so hard he lost consciousness.

Additionally, he faces adultery charges for having sex with Pte. 1st Class Lynndie England, who is now pregnant with his child and is facing a pretrial hearing on Abu Ghraib-related charges at Fort Bragg, N.C. Adultery is a crime under the U.S. military code.

Graner risks the harshest sentence of the four who have hearings this week: up to 24 1/2 years in prison, forfeiture of pay, reduction of rank and a dishonourable discharge.

The four soldiers are among seven charged with abuse at Abu Ghraib. One of the seven, Specialist Jeremy Sivits, pleaded guilty May 19 and was sentenced to a year in prison. All were in Iraq as members of the 372nd Military Police Company, a reserve unit based in Cresaptown, Md.

Another lame election joke by the TBA. What are they waiting for ? Everyone knoiws that noone was guilty but those few soldiers, right ?

Ultimate justice !

[DracoPaladore 0]

Has anybody seen this...

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/255/

Click on watch video.... it's an ambush from the perspective of the attacked....  

Mods: this is a clean video...my word on it..

God I hate Winamp. Damn thing can't seem to paly its own Winamp Media files.

[quicksand 0]

Iraqi cleric slams media coverage on war

Quote[/b] ]

TThe secretary-general of al-Irshad and al-Fatwa Association in Iraq has accused world media of colluding with US-led occupation forces in imposing a media blackout on Iraqi resistance operations.

Shaikh Mahdi al-Sumaidaie accused the media of deliberately distorting the "honourable" image of Iraqi resistance, and sticking to the information and figures provided by the US authorities.

"I call on world media to stop twisting the news, and portraying Iraqi resistance actions as the mere killing of Iraqi citizens," he told Aljazeera.net.

"If media provides one hour of honest coverage to what the Iraqi resistance are doing on a daily basis, I bet you the mothers and sisters of US soldiers in Iraq will pour into the streets of America screaming at Bush to pull the troops from Iraq," he said.

He accused the US and its "traitor agents" of planning attacks against Iraqis and their religious sites, stressing that Iraqi resistance fighters attack only foreign military in the country.

Witness

Umar Zeidan, an Iraqi journalist and editorial secretary of the Iraqi newspaper al-Basaer said there is a media blackout on armed operations aginst US-led occupation forces in Iraq.

"It is something all armies do in war time. You do not want the enemy to know about your actual loss, and whether he was successful in the attack he carried out on your troops or not."

Lt-Colonel TV Johnson, a Marines Public Affairs officer

"Apart from the fact that I am an editorial secretary of a newspaper, I am a citizen of al-Ramadi city, known for constant attacks on US forces, and I have witnessed many attacks on US soldiers and installations.

"For example early in this month, I witnessed an attack on a US check point at al-Ramadi's eastern entry. There were at least 20 either killed or wounded, but the news reported only two casualties," Zeidan told Aljazeera.net.

He accused some media organisations of word manipulation to hide the truth that they were created to reveal.

"Usually we use of the word "casualties" at the beginning of an incident when the situation is not clear.

"But after we get enough information we say a number of dead and a number of wounded, and sometimes we should elaborate how serious the wounds are, but with US forces in Iraq it is always casualties and the number always less than the truth," he said.

Tactical

Aljazeera.net spoke to Lieutenant Colonel TV Johnson, the Public Affairs officer of the First Marines Expeditionary Force who said the amount of information given to the media is based on tactical necessities.

"It is something all armies do in war time. You do not want the enemy to know about your actual loss, and whether he was successful in the attack he carried out on your troops or not," he said.

Forget about the Iraqi cleric,read the bold-ed quote at the end and talk about feeding conspiracy theories,Jhonson who is a public affairs officer for a Marine unit acnkowledged in his own words that the US is hiding the real amount of casualties in Iraq.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]In this video there is a convoy moving down a street someplace in Iraq when they take some mortar and AK-47 fire.

It seems more like a few grenades were tossed at the convoy and that the support vehicles responded with machine gun bursts.

Exactly.

1) That was no mortar. Mortars are far louder and make much more damage. My bet would be on something like a 40mm grenade.

2) It's not AK-47 and it is being fired from something that moving along with the vehicle with the camera. Would be interesting to know at what exactly they were firing.

Interesting video though.

Interesting

Edit: After watching it again, I think what we hear is an M16 being fired. It is anyhow some weapon that has a three shot burst mode, which rules out the AK in any way.