The Iraq thread 4

[herman01 0]

The Marines were inside of tent wich obiviously offers no protection from any type of mortars. The Mortars landed close enough that they were coughing from the dust kicked up by them. You can also see the dirt on the floor get sucked out by near by mortar Impact. Its not uncommon for Marines to be live in these GP medium tents all over Iraq while in garrison. Sand Bags are stacked on the sides to offer protection from near misses from mortars and rockets. Most camps also have sand bag bunkers located all over FOBs or camps but they were probably not close enough to these marines. The camera could never do this situation justice and appears that the volley had been going on for a period of time before the camera was turned on. Nothing to do but lay low and hope nothing hits you.

[theavonlady 2]

Powderkeg alert!

Quote[/b] ]Shiite Militias Move Into Oil-Rich Kirkuk, Even as Kurds Dig In Control of Iraqi City Has Long Been in Dispute

By Jonathan Finer

Washington Post Foreign Service

Tuesday, April 25, 2006; Page A16

KIRKUK, Iraq -- Hundreds of Shiite Muslim militiamen have deployed in recent weeks to this restive city -- widely considered the most likely flash point for an Iraqi civil war -- vowing to fight any attempt to shift control over Kirkuk to the Kurdish-governed north, according to U.S. commanders and diplomats, local police and politicians.

Until recently, the presence of the militias here was minimal. U.S. officials have called the Shiite armed groups the deadliest threat to security in much of the country. They have been blamed for hundreds of killings during mounting sectarian violence in central and southern Iraq since the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in February.

The Mahdi Army, led by firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, has sent at least two companies, each with about 120 fighters, according to Thomas Wise, political counselor for the U.S. Embassy's Kirkuk regional office, which has been tracking militia activity. The Badr Organization, the armed wing of Iraq's largest Shiite political party, has also boosted its presence and opened several offices across the region, military officers here said.

<<<SNIP>>>

[Balschoiw 0]

Caught in the act - or another myth busted. It´s incredible what the current administration does to influence it´s own people.

Even making up a superterrorist is on their list.

Feel betrayed:

Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"

Quote[/b] ]Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has been presented both by the Bush administration and the Western media as the mastermind behind the "insurgency" in Iraq, allegedly responsible for the massacres of Iraqi civilians.

Zarqawi is the outside enemy of America. The Bush administration in official statements, including presidential speeches, national security documents, etc. has repeatedly pointed to the need to "go after" Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden.

"You know, I hate to predict violence, but I just understand the nature of the killers. This guy, Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate -- who was in Baghdad, by the way, prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein -- is still at large in Iraq. And as you might remember, part of his operational plan was to sow violence and discord amongst the various groups in Iraq by cold- blooded killing. And we need to help find Zarqawi so that the people of Iraq can have a more bright -- bright future." (George W. Bush, Press Conference, 1 June 2004)

The official mandate of US and British occupation forces is to fight and win the "war on terrorism" on behalf of the Iraqi people. Zarqawi constitutes Washington's justification for the continued military occupation of Iraq, not to mention the brutal siege of densely populated urban areas directed against "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which is said to be led by Zarqawi.

Coalition forces are upheld as playing a "peace keeping role" in consultation with the United Nations. The Western media in chorus has consistently upheld the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". It has not only presented Zarqawi as a brutal terrorist, it has also failed to report on the Pentagon's disinformation campaign, which has been known and documented since 2002.

Pentagon PSYOP Zarqawi Program

In an unusual twist, the Washington Post in a recent article, has acknowledged that the role of Zarqawi had been deliberately "magnified" by the Pentagon with a view to galvanizing public support for the US-UK led "war on terrorism":

"The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and "PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work..." (WP. 10 April 2006)

The military's propaganda program, according to the Washington Post, has "largely been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war." (WP, op cit.)

An internal document produced by U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, states that "the Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date

." (WP, op cit).

The senior commander entrusted with Pentagon's PSYOP operation is General Kimmitt who now occupies the position of senior planner at US Central Command (USCENTCOM), responsible for directing operations in Iraq and the Middle East.

"In 2003 and 2004, he coordinated public affairs, information operations and psychological operations in Iraq -- though he said in an interview the internal briefing must be mistaken because he did not actually run the psychological operations and could not speak for them. Kimmitt said, "There was clearly an information campaign to raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the Iraqi audience but also with the international audience."

A goal of the campaign was to drive a wedge into the insurgency by emphasizing Zarqawi's terrorist acts and foreign origin, said officers familiar with the program. "Through aggressive Strategic Communications, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi now represents: Terrorism in Iraq/Foreign Fighters in Iraq/Suffering of Iraqi People (Infrastructure Attacks)/Denial of Iraqi Aspirations," the same briefing asserts...

...

It is difficult to determine how much has been spent on the Zarqawi campaign, which began two years ago and is believed to be ongoing. U.S. propaganda efforts in Iraq in 2004 cost $24 million, but that included extensive building of offices and residences for troops involved, as well as radio broadcasts and distribution of thousands of leaflets with Zarqawi's face on them, said the officer speaking on background...

The Zarqawi program at the Pentagon was run concurrently with a related operation "led by the Lincoln Group, a U.S. consulting firm, to place pro-U.S. articles in Iraq newspapers, according to the officer familiar with the program who spoke on background." According to The Washington Post, however, there was no relationship between the Pentagon's PSYOP program and that run by the Lincoln Group on behalf of the Pentagon. (WP, 10 April 2006)

Disinformation and war propaganda are an integral part of military planning. What the Washington Post fails to mention, however, is its own role in sustaining the Zarqawi legend , along with network TV, most of the printed press, and of course CNN and Fox News, not to mention a significant portion of the alternative media. Disinformation regarding the War on terrorism has been fed into the news chain by a limited number of "top feeders":

A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or, put less politely, psychological warfare. ( Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11)

Zarqawi has been identified by the US media as being behind the "insurgency" in Fallujah, Tal Afar and Samara. He was held responsible for the Amman hotel bombings as well as terrorist attacks in several Western capitals.. He is indelibly behind the suicide bomb attacks in Iraq as confirmed by the Washington Post: " The ruling Shiite leadership has Zarqawi squarely in its sights. He has led the suicide bombers whose Shiite victims are now climbing into the thousands." ( 11 December 2005).

The Pentagon's PSYOP is a cover-up for US sponsored atrocities by the US media, which has upheld the "villainize Zarqawi" focus in its news and editorials coverage of the Iraqi resistance movement.

The top U.S. military intelligence officer in Iraq said Abu Musab Zarqawi and his foreign and Iraqi associates have essentially commandeered the insurgency, becoming the dominant opposition force and the greatest immediate threat to U.S. objectives in the country.

"I think what you really have here is an insurgency that's been hijacked by a terrorist campaign," Army Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner said in an interview. "In part, by Zarqawi becoming the face of this thing, he has certainly gotten the funding, the media and, frankly, has allowed other folks to work along in his draft." (WP, 25 September 2005)

Amid the continuing bloodshed in Iraq, there is evidence of fresh thinking. The change is, ironically, brought about by Abu Musab Zarqawi himself, whose indiscriminate terrorism appears to have succeeded in uniting people there against his global jihad ideology. Since the hotel bombings in Zarqawi's native Jordan, more and more Sunni Iraqis and Arabs have condemned the terrorist leader's nightmarish vision for their societies -- one that promises further "catastrophic" suicide attacks. (WP, 4 December 2005)

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is not an option the U.S. administration can or should entertain. It would give Abu Musab Zarqawi and his small band of foreign fighters the opportunity to claim victory and to announce that they have successfully defeated a superpower. This would strengthen al Qaeda's hand across the Middle East and elsewhere, and lead to greater instability throughout the region. (WP, 11 December 2006)

The US media has identified the nature of the insurgency, centering on the key role of Zarqawi and his ties to the former Baathist regime:

"The backbone of the insurgency appears to be an alliance between the die-hard Baathists and the network of terrorists mostly under the command of Abu Musab Zarqawi. It is a partnership of convenience; both groups are fighting the same battle, but for different reasons and with different goals. (WP, 8 May 2005)

Senior officials at the Pentagon and in Iraq say they believe that Mr. Zarqawi and the insurgency's ''center of gravity'' is now in the bends and towns of the Euphrates River valley near the Syrian border.(New York Times, 17 September 2005)

In Fallujah, the siege of the city, which resulted in thousands of civilian deaths was described as a battle against the "Zarqawi network":.

U.S. forces have conducted four airstrikes on what have been described as targets associated with Zarqawi's network in and around the city. Among them was a housing compound in an agricultural area about 15 miles south of Fallujah where the U.S. military said as many as 90 foreign fighters were meeting. The military said the strike, which occurred on Thursday evening, killed about 60 foreign fighters.

Witnesses and hospital officials disputed the account, saying that about 30 men were killed, many of them Iraqi. They said 15 children and 11 women also died in the attack.

Neither version of the strike could be independently verified.

The following night, the U.S. military said in a statement that it conducted "another successful precision strike" on a meeting of "approximately 10 Zarqawi terrorists" in central Fallujah. "There was no indication that any innocent civilians were in the immediate vicinity of the meeting location," the military said in the statement. (WP, 21 Sept 2004)

Concluding Remarks

If indeed Zarqawi's role was fabricated as part of the Pentagon's PSYOP, what is the accuracy of these media reports?

The internal military documents leaked to Washington Post confirm that the Pentagon is involved in an ongoing propaganda campaign which seeks to provide a face to the enemy. The purpose is to portray the enemy as a terrorist, to mislead public opinion.

Counterterrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The objective is to present the terror groups as "enemies of America." responsible for countless atrocities in Iraq and around the World. The underlying objective is to galvanize public opinion in support of America's Middle East war agenda.

US military-intelligence has created it own terrorist organizations. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations. To reach its foreign policy objectives, the images of terrorism in the Iraqi war theater must remain vivid in the minds of the citizens, who are constantly reminded of the terrorist threat. The Iraqi resistance movement is described as terrorists led by Zarqawi.

The propaganda campaign using the Western media, presents the portraits of the leaders behind the terror network. In other words, at the level of what constitutes an "advertising" campaign, "it gives a face to terror."

The "war on terrorism" rests on the creation of one or more evil bogeymen, the terror leaders, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, et al, whose names and photos are presented ad nauseam in daily news reports. Without Zarqawi and bin Laden, the "war on terrorism" would loose its raison d'ętre. The main casus belli is to wage a " war on terrorism".

The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated.

The suicide attacks in Iraq are indeed real, but who is behind them? There are indications that some of the suicide attacks could have been organized by the US-UK military and intelligence. (See references below pertaining to British Special Forces Soldiers caught Planting Bombs in Basra.)

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

Nice twisting there.

[theavonlady 2]

Bals, you actually believe what you read at Global Research.

Talk about successful PSYOPs!

[Balschoiw 0]

How about looking up the Washington Post article from 10th of April lazy lady ?

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

Avon targetted by Pentagon PSYOPS. Cognitiv abilities affected...

[theavonlady 2]

How about looking up the Washington Post article from 10th of April lazy lady ?  

But I read it already. It's much ado about nothing.

A propaganda campaign during a war?! GASP! Whoever would have imagined!

BTW, do you agree with Col. Harvey's assessment that "The long-term threat is not religious extremists"? Not me!

Otherwise, a truly boring WP article and a truly hysterical article you linked to.

[billybob2002 0]

How about looking up the Washington Post article from 10th of April lazy lady ?  

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

Avon targetted by Pentagon PSYOPS. Cognitiv abilities affected...

The overall conclusion from that "Global Research" article...

Quote[/b] ]The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated.

Nowhere in the Washington Post article said that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated. The WP article is about how Al Qaeda in Iraq role in Iraq might be overstated. The WP article does not conclude that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated. The "Global Research" article is just spin. Let me leave you with this quote from the article....

Quote[/b] ]The suicide attacks in Iraq are indeed real, but who is behind them? There are indications that some of the suicide attacks could have been organized  by the US-UK military and intelligence.

Another crackpot writer.

[EiZei 0]

Zargawi is just one of those guys who get brought up so certain people will start to believe that there is actually some kind of clear goal, some kind of mr. big whose death will mean the death of insurgency. In movies maybe..

[walker 0]

Hi all

On a more sensible matter: Iraq continues to be so dangerous that the US secretary of defense must visit it in secret. Maybe he is afraid the US generals may frag him in his tent

Though being noticeably dropped in it by Condi Rice in this interview must have felt like it.

Quote[/b] ]Rice, Rumsfeld Visit Highlights Tension

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 27, 2006; 11:51 AM

BAGHDAD, April 27--A full 10 seconds of silence passed after a reporter asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld what the intense secrecy and security surrounding their visit to Iraq signified about the stability of the country three years after the U.S.-led invasion. Rice turned to Rumsfeld to provide the answer. Rumsfeld glared at the reporter.

"I guess I don't think it says anything about it," he snapped. He went on to say that President Bush directed him and Rice to go to Iraq to "meet with the new leadership and it happens that they are located here," referring to the heavily-fortified Green Zone where U.S. officials -- and many Iraqi leaders -- live and work.

Rice broke in, calming the tension. "The security situation will continue to take our attention and the attention of the Iraqis," she said, adding that "the terrorists are ultimately going to be defeated by a political process here."

For the second time in a month, Rice traveled here to jawbone Iraqi leaders with a high-powered male counterpart. Last time it was British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The pairing with him was convivial, so filled with easy-going bantering that it was quickly dubbed the "Condi and Jack Show."

This time around, Rice and Rumsfeld often seemed in separate orbits, with little of the warmth of the earlier visit. One purpose of this joint trip was to get the sometimes conflicting military and political operations in sync for the transition to a permanent Iraqi government. But the contrasting styles of the two secretaries were sometimes jarring...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....95.html

Follow link for full story

Condi's treatment of Rumsfeld is showing his increasing isolation after 8 US generals called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign from his post as Secretary of Defense.

Marine Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, 82nd Airborn Maj. Gen. Charles H Swannack Jr. Army General Anthony C. Zinni, Army General Eric Shinseki, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold have all called now called on Rumsfeld to resign in less than a month.

Perhaps some light can be shed on on why the brass think Rumsfeld is causing the US to loose the Iraq war, just the same as it did the Vietnam War, not through loosing any of the battles but a failure of political strategy by looking at this article by Joe Galloway winner of a bronze star for rescuing wounded soldiers in Vietnam who stood on field of Ia Drang with Lt. Gen. (ret) Hal G. Moore with whom he co authored "We Were Soldier"

Quote[/b] ]Rumsfeld's War Games

Joe Galloway | April 26, 2006

Of those generals who have stepped forward to criticize Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his conduct of the Iraq War, none has pointed out the mistakes of a man who admits no error with more specificity than retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper...

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,95496,00.html

Follow link for the full text

Van Ripper lists three points of incompetence from Donald Rumsfeld

Quote[/b] ]...First, he said, if any battalion commander under him had created so "poor a climate of leadership" and the "bullying" that goes on in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld he would order an investigation and relieve that commander.

"Even more than that I focus on (his) incompetence when it comes to preparing American military forces for the future," Van Riper said. "His idea of transformation turns on empty buzz words. There's none of the Scholarship and doctrinal examination that has to go on before you begin changing the force."

Third, he said, under Rumsfeld there's been no oversight of military acquisition.

"Mr. Rumsfeld has failed 360 degrees in the job. He is incompetent," Van Riper concluded. "Any military man who made the mistakes he has made, tactically and strategically, would be relieved on the spot."

Ibid

But it is this insight into the psychology of Donald Rumsfeld  and his complete failure to understand the basics of strategy and the basic teachings of everyone from SunTzu to Clausewitz that a plan is not a script that is most telling:

Quote[/b] ]...One event that shocked Van Riper occurred in 2002 when he was asked, as he had been before, to play the commander of an enemy Red Force in a huge $250 million three-week war game titled Millennium Challenge 2002. It was widely advertised as the best kind of such exercises -- a free-play unscripted test of some of the Pentagon's and Rumsfeld's fondest ideas and theories.

Though fictional names were applied, it involved a crisis moving toward war in the Persian Gulf and in actuality was a barely veiled test of an invasion of Iran.

In the computer-controlled game, a flotilla of Navy warships and Marine amphibious warfare ships steamed into the Persian Gulf for what Van Riper assumed would be a pre-emptive strike against the country he was defending.

Van Riper resolved to strike first and unconventionally using fast patrol boats and converted pleasure boats fitted with ship-to-ship missiles as well as first generation shore-launched anti-ship cruise missiles. He packed small boats and small propeller aircraft with explosives for one mass wave of suicide attacks against the Blue fleet. Last, the general shut down all radio traffic and sent commands by motorcycle messengers, beyond the reach of the code-breakers.

At the appointed hour he sent hundreds of missiles screaming into the fleet, and dozens of kamikaze boats and planes plunging into the Navy ships in a simultaneous sneak attack that overwhelmed the Navy's much-vaunted defenses based on its Aegis cruisers and their radar controlled Gatling guns.

When the figurative smoke cleared it was found that the Red Forces had sunk 16 Navy ships, including an aircraft carrier. Thousands of Marines and sailors were dead.

The referees stopped the game, which is normal when a victory is won so early. Van Riper assumed that the Blue Force would draw new, better plans and the free play war games would resume.

Instead he learned that the war game was now following a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory: He was ordered to turn on all his anti-aircraft radar so it could be destroyed and he was told his forces would not be allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.

The Pentagon has never explained. It classified Van Riper's 21-page report criticizing the results and conduct of the rest of the exercise, along with the report of another DOD observer. Pentagon officials have not released Joint Forces Command's own report on the exercise.

Van Riper walked out and didn't come back. He was furious that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise meant to end in an overwhelming American victory...

Ibid

It becomes obvious Rumsfeld is a cheat

Now we can all say oh well it is fun just game; the real war was not like that; Sadam was not that bright; what the heck we got away with it anyway; but that is not the point, we look like we are about to enter another war with Iran and the man in charge of the plans cheats.

Would you want your lawyer to have cheated at the bar exam? Or the pilot of your plane faked his pilots certificate? How about your doctor cheating his doctors exam?

Now we find the man making plans for us to go to war cheats at planning them.

This is after all what the Generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are talking about.

It is perhaps why the senate Senate Armed Services Committee is considering calling for the Generals to give testimony on Rumsfeld:

Quote[/b] ]Senate Panel Considers Hearing on Rumsfeld

By Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 26, 2006; Page A04

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, underscoring lawmakers' concerns about the Iraq war's progress, said yesterday that he may invite testimony from retired generals who have called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said he will confer with colleagues before deciding whether to schedule a hearing that would feature defenders of Rumsfeld as well as retired officers who have stirred debate in recent days by saying the secretary should step down. "I commit to making a decision on this request in the near future," Warner said in a statement, adding that the panel has a busy schedule...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....94.html

Follow link for full story

If we are planning another war and various indications point to it. We need professionals who do not cheat doing the planning.

Rumsfeld must go.

Kind Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]A propaganda campaign during a war?! GASP! Whoever would have imagined!

Wait a second. Weren´t you and billybob among those people who were 200 percent sure that Iraq had WMD´s and weren´t you the ones who had a big laughter at the ones who said that Iraq has no WMD´s ? Talking about PSYOPS you know...

You´re both the perfect example for working PSYOPS.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]A propaganda campaign during a war?! GASP! Whoever would have imagined!

Wait a second. Weren´t you and billybob among those people who were 200 percent sure that Iraq had WMD´s and weren´t you the ones who had a big laughter at the ones who said that Iraq has no WMD´s ?

Yes. The UN pretty much said the same thing. As did Clinton, Albright and Kerry, too.

I was also one of the ones who said in the day or 2 after 9/11 (and stopped saying it as it was taken as an insult by many of my fellow American citizens) that US intel stinks.

That it did - and it still does. That has nothing to do with PSYOPS.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The UN pretty much said the same thing.

Source pls.

Quote[/b] ]As did Clinton, Albright and Kerry, too.

Fine and dandy. Did they make up evidence that got powerpointed at the UN and afterwards started a war ?

Quote[/b] ]That has nothing to do with PSYOPS.

Of course it has. The whole WMD shit was nothing than a PSYOP, as was the 30 minute claim and lots of other things we got served by the US authorities at that time and still get served by people like Rumsfeld who now says that the war in Iraq is the only way to keep Iran down. Hello ?

PSYOPS do have their place in wars, but those ops should be directed against the enemy, right ? Do you think it´s a good approach to lie to your own people, people who send their relatives to a war, for reasons that have been made up ?

Don´t you think there is a limit for PSYOPS ? Or is it ok to manipulate your own people that way just to get some support for a war ? Reminds me a bit of Hitler´s methods. He also claimed that Poland has attacked germany. Just another PSYOP, you know...

[Ares1978 0]

Don´t you think there is a limit for PSYOPS ? Or is it ok to manipulate your own people that way just to get some support for a war ?

I just want to point one thing out: Ok or not, they are doing it. The real question is what the people should do about it.

Manipulating your own people into supporting your actions is nothing new, it's as older than warfare and it has been done by every commander in history, not just the hitlers.

[Balschoiw 0]

It´s one thing to grasp for some support and another to make the whole deal up and lead your country to war for something that has never been there and continue and extend that propaganda and influence on people just to keep the president and his fellows in office and to upcover the previous lies.

You should expect something different from the self-entitled leading democracy on this planet. I don´t know if betraying people into a war is a very democratic gesture.

[EiZei 0]

You should expect something different from the self-entitled leading democracy on this planet. I don´t know if betraying people into a war is a very democratic gesture.

At least it means you have to pretend that you actually care about public opinion.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don´t know if betraying people into a war is a very democratic gesture.

US is a strange place. Leaders and US ppl that love their country says it's the most free country in the world. Others say it's the democratic state with least democracy...

Quote[/b] ]The UN pretty much said the same thing.

Umm...actually, unless UN lied at the time before US attack Iraq, it was US that said there were WMD there (no shit, eh?), and UN said there was no/not enough/not good enough proof for going in, and therefor they didn't support USA's decision on attacking the country...

Iraq is just a heap of BS. The annoying part is that USA goes around making a big fucking mess, and then they start whining about other countries better do their part and send in troops and all that kind of shit. Worst part is that other state leaders actually got their mouth so long up in mr. Bush's ass that they're doing whatever he says. At most they dare to say "I object" before doing exactly what Bush wants. IIRC most of the norwegian citizens were against sending troops to Afghanistan...but hey, who cares about the people when you can listen to Bush...It's a fucking laugh that USA goes into Iraq making a big mess, then they expect the rest of the world to help cleaning up the mess many of the were against making in the first place...

[Scrub 0]

A good example of why I don't read this thread very often.  People -politicians and forum go'ers- speak with utter certainty about something hazy to say the least, and time makes liars out of some (yes me included as much as I try to avoid it), and makes some politicians oughtright scammers.  And the reminder that some of our leaders, those that ought to be the most honorable, most respectable of our societies, are actually nothing more than players bugs me to a very base level.  To hell with them first, "Truth In Politics" should be an international law, accountability and transparency.

I know, I'm dreaming..  But any investigation or discussion for that matter is complete bullshit as there's only speculation and misinformation available to 'the masses'.

Oh, well, it's pointless anyway. Cya in another 6-8 months..  

Only this probably will be called the 'Iran' thread then.  

[deanosbeano 0]

personally i come to this thread alot, i love to be able to see both sides of an argument, ok like most things in life the opinions in here are not gained thru peoles own life experience ,but through the media , word of mouth , internet etc. but here its condensed and much more "black and white", the other week i watched two videos, the official media version of 9/11 and the conspiracy version,i didnt watch them to gain an opinion myself, but to understand why ,peoples comments on each "side" where affected.thats why i like it here when people not only post there opinion on a topic, but also ,post the particular article that has lead them to form that opinion. there is a third type ,that simply post an opinion , i like to copy snipits from there posts into google and see if there quoting someone else .

anywy keep up the debate , i think you all make sense .

maybe i dont lol

[kakagoegie 0]

A new video from a somewhat clumsy Zarqawi has been released: click

What got me thinking was the kind of weapons Zarqawi was using. I saw a M16, a M16/M203 and a M249. I was wondering how he got these weapons. Does this mean some of the iraqi insurgents have completely overrun US infantry units, and have enough time to take their weapons.

If you use a road bomb or a sniper, you won't be in the position to take the enemy weapons.

So how could he have gotten those weapons, that's what I'm wondering.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]So how could he have gotten those weapons, that's what I'm wondering.

Insurgents are said to have infiltrated almost every executive branch of the Iraq. This includes police and army.

Additionally there are ~2400 killed US soldiers.

Maybe they were able to grab weapons from them or some support convois that have been attacked.

[*Pete* 0]

hey guys....i think it is a fake video to make him look stupid, look at the video, notice that he doesnt have a clock in the "stupid" video, but he has one in the "tough guy" video...

the same kind of "stupid terrorist" videos were made showing the al-queda training camp soldiers running into eachother and acting very comical and stupid.

of course, its just a clock, but why would he take it off for the first shooting only to put it on again later...there are also other but much smaller clues that seem to point out that it is a fake.

edit: also the terrain doesnt look like it is the same, small bushes vs no bushes, im convinced that it is a fake.

[harley 3 1185 0]

If the Army/Defence Department thought it was so important, I'm sure that they would have arranged a bigger showing than a Major-General in Iraq. It's the kind of thing which of any true significance would have been shown at a briefing in Washington, D.C.

Sounds to me as if someone just slung it into a to-show pile rather than it being a conscientious attempt at propaganda.

[kakagoegie 0]

Insurgents are said to have infiltrated almost every executive branch of the Iraq. This includes police and army.

Are the Iraqi armed forces armed with US army weapons? I thought they were only armed with AKs etc.

Additionally there are ~2400 killed US soldiers.

Maybe they were able to grab weapons from them or some support convois that have been attacked.

That could be possible. But does that mean that they completely captured/destroyed US convoys? When you blow up one truck, you won't come rushing in to get a weapon from a dead guy while the rest of the convoy is shooting at you? Have there been cases where Iraqi insurgents captured US soldiers, a convoy or a HMMWV which got lost?

I remember a story about a US soldier who is still MIA in iraq.

edit: POW/MIA in iraq

So, it seems that there are still a few US soldiers MIA in iraq. I've looked through it and it seems that they are all pilots or from a group of soldiers which got attacked by armed iraqis who said they were gonna surrender. It sais that since that incident nobody has seen anything from the 8 soldiers which ran for cover (11 other soldiers were killed in that incident).

[Nemesis6 0]

I remember when the left celebrated that the death count in Iraq had passed 2000, arguments were put forth that over 2000 troops had actually not died from fighting. There are many causes of death, a major one being accidents.

[Akira 0]

I remember when the left celebrated that the death count in Iraq had passed 2000, arguments were put forth that over 2000 troops had actually not died from fighting. There are many causes of death, a major one being accidents.

Yeah. "Celebrated." There was a block party and a keg and some good ol' fashion BBQ. I know I personally shot off some fireworks.

Course wasn't as big of a cream-fest like the Right had when 9-11 happened and they saw their opportunity to implement policies that they had only previously dreamed of in their wildest wet dreams.