How do they survive in Jordan and Syria without jobs?
News:
US forces impose themselves on Iraqis that don’t want them there:
http://www.time.com/time/world/a...l?xid=rss-
world
Yeah, this isn’t the US killing AQ, it’s US forces killing Iraqi villagers. Oh, the bravery!
At the same time, the Americans are trying to negotiate with resistance groups to form fronts against Al Qaeda:
http://www.gulftimes.com/site/to...37&
parent_id=17
There are two observations to make here: (1) The US is rather flexible when deciding who is AQ and who is not and (2) it’s pretty ironic that the under the US Occupation Al Qaeda has made apparently great inroads in a country where it is generally despised, whereas under the evil Baath (whom the US is now begging to pull its fat out of the fire in Iraq) AQ was almost non-existent.
Q&A on talks with the Resistance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...2043345,00.html
“After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S.-led occupation authority stripped thousands of members of Saddam's ruling Baath Party of their jobs. […] Under U.S. pressure, Maliki agreed last year to readdress the issue of former Baathists by early this year.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007...eb-
0327iraq.php
Whew, what a good thing Iraq is sovereign. Imagine if the government there was composed of puppets that were at the beck and call of a foreign power! (On another note, interesting to see that the reviled “dead enders” have suddenly become worthy partners. Nothing like a four year ass-kicking to change stubborn minds, right?)
American politics seem to be moving against the war party:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl...3/24/92416/
6009
“It should surprise no one that the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq four years ago was based upon lies and fabricated evidence. Other wars instigated by the U.S. were begun in the same way, but we never seem to learn the lessons that history could teach us.” – charles sullivan
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m31661&s1=h1
Looks like the Lancet study revealing 665000 Iraqi deaths due to the invasion was all that after all:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m31652&s1=h1
The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt. […] But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".” (Spin that ya warmongers!)
Some people are saying Iraqi deaths have reached 1 million:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/new...-
name_page.html
Major roundup of war news for March 26, 2007-03-27
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m31657&s1=h1
“We (have now been) in Iraq longer than it took us to defeat the Japanese army, some 335,000 Iraqis have been trained and the Prime Minister is saying all they need is a bit more time to get their house in order.”
http://www.guerrillanews.com/
hea...t_against_Japan
How much longer will the suckers continue to believe that victory is around the corner?
I may have posted this before, but it is such a good article:
http://www.economist.com/world/
d...tory_id=8881663
How the Neocons were mugged by reality.
Via IraqSlogger:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7032602196.html
“Sudarsan Raghavan ventures out to Sadr City to check in on the development of the area and samples the political tastes of the locals. Some of it you already know (In Sadr City, the residents really, really, really like Muqtada al-Sadr.)”
Kirkuk is becoming a flashpoint:
http://www.azzaman.com/english/i...7-03-
24kurd.htm
Fuel shortages cripple Mosul:
http://www.azzaman.com/english/i...-03-
26kurd1.htm
Saddam was better: Interviw with Mishan al Juburi:
http://www.iraqslogger.com/
index..._Praises_Saddam
Maury, most Iraqis who are able to travel outside of Iraq have money to spend. But it's a good question. What happens when the money runs out?
dear maury and bridget ,
its me again . sean's friend from bridget's favorite holiday destination ,dubai . lets play game .shall we ? the game is called SCENARIO .Imagine a scenario with bridget being maury's teenage daughter . She is on her way home from college when some men block her way and rape her . Then realising their blunder,they kill her and burn her body . A few kids on the way see this vile act and run away from the scene . Realising that their act of raping and killing has been witnessed by these children,the rapists then chase the kids to their homes ,kill their families and burn their bodies as well . So the crime has been committed and concealed with immaculate accuracy .
Maury is distraught over his daughter who is missing . He files in a missing complaint with the police . Then after 100 days ,one of the men who raped maury's daughter knocks his door and in a contrite tone confesses of having raped and murdered his daughter . He offers to pay maury 5 million dollars just so that maury does not go to the police . The killer is repentant over his act but Muary is ostensibly infuriated and enraged . He tells the killer to shove his money up his butt and threatens to go to the police so that justice is meted out to the criminals whop committed this foul act against his daughter.The killer quickly realising that maury will not shut up even if he pays him 10 million dollars ,quickly changes his tune and being a criminal that he is ,charges at maury . Maury fights back killing him and his other accomplices . The cops then show up at maury's residence and they find 5 dead men at his home and charge Maury with murder .The local papers declare maury to be a homicidal maniac and accuse him of domestic terrorism
Where is the justice here ?
Where is the point here?
An art exhibition on life and death in Iraq:
http://www.afsc.org/eyes/dreams-...-
nightmares.htm
What the organisers of the exhibition think ofUS policy in Iraq:
http://www.afsc.org/news/2006/3-...ars-in-
iraq.htm
Ten reasons why the US must leave Iraq:
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/activis.../10-
reasons.htm
bridget ,,,does the name ABEER HAMZA ring a church bell ?
friend of sean, go out and play in the street somewhere. I have nothing more to say to you.
just do a google search ,bridget ....type in ABEER HAMZA in google search and you can see what i am talking about
i thought you and maury would be interested in knowing about the Arab muslim perspective .So you need to speak to real people living in the middle east who are a bit more familiar with the situation on the ground .
i am an Arab and a muslim from dubai and i happen to be a bit more familiar with the situation because of the fact that dubai happens to be in close proximity .Moreover ,i speak the same language and share the same religion as iraqis ...so dont you think my perspective will be a bit more insightful?
bridget ,just do a google search and type abeer hamza and you will know the entire context of the scenario which i typed above .
Friend of Sean, I've got no doubt as to why Bridget doesn't want to talk about Abeer. Naturally, Iraqis that have been gang-raped and murdered, along with their families by US servicemen are not worthy of mention.
Of course, Bridget will mention that these are just a few bad apples in a whole huge basket of Golden Delicious apples.
Naturally, she won't be happy about hearing THIS either:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...tr=U.S._2594418
"WASHINGTON -- Reports of sexual assaults in the military increased by about 24 percent last year and more than twice as many offenders were punished. There were nearly 3,000 sexual assault reports filed in 2006, compared with almost 2,400 the previous year, a Pentagon report said Wednesday."
That's REPORTED sexual assaults. I'm guessing the few bad apples scenario is more like an orchard full of wormy fruit.
HERE is a very good link on the sort of "free speech" and media freedom the US has brought to Iraq:
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/
ha...000553.php#more
It's by DAHR JAMAIL, so you know it's gonna be good!
Here's a link to the Abeer murder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Abe...er_Qassim_Hamza
Gaith had a very good article concerning the atrocity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...1926954,00.html
bruno, I can speak for myself, thank you very much. I don't need you to do it for me. Particularly when you don't know what you're talking about.
[bridge] "bruno, I can speak for myself, thank you very much. I don't need you to do it for me."
Terribly sorry, Bridget. Perhaps YOU would like to comment on what Friend Of Sean said? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, now.
As you may remember, bruno, I don't pursue conversations that begin with a scenario of my being raped.
So you don't want to talk about Abeer?
That's OK.
But then don't complain when other hypothesise as to what you may or may not think.
Here's some more interesting information regarding the Abeer rape:
"The Sunday Telegraph, a conservative London newspaper, confirms it and warns of more revenge killings to come, quoting one of the family's neighbors: "We went to visit the cousin of the family who lived about half a mile away to tell them the news. He said, 'Please keep it secret and we will take revenge on the Americans the quiet way'."
Saba Shukr, 44, a Sunni sheikh at al-Aziz mosque in Mahmoudiyah, said: "We knew about this crime but the mujahideen brought revenge when they kidnapped two American soldiers in Yusufiyah. They are still waiting to kidnap and kill another eight soldiers, as the price of the death of the girl should be the death of 10 Americans. "I am sure about this. The mujahideen promised us revenge.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
ne...ge_b_24668.html
Summary: Keep your dirty paws off Iraqi women.
"Relatives blamed al Qaeda for the attack.
Dari's dead son, Harith al-Dari, is the nephew of his namesake who leads the Sunni Muslim Scholars' Association, an influential body of hardline clerics. The cleric has spoken out against the anti-Qaeda alliance that includes his own tribe.
Thahir al-Dari is the head of the al-Zobaie tribe, to which Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie belongs. The deputy prime minister was the target of an assassination bid last week."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070...7/wl_nm/
iraq_dc
bruno, if what I think is a matter of such fascination for you, hypothesise away. You will undoubtedly be as wrong about what I think as you are about everything else. Just be honest for once and acknowledge that you are putting words in my mouth.
[bridget] "Just be honest for once and acknowledge that you are putting words in my mouth."
Well, in lieu of a bona fide opinion by yourself, it'll have to do, won't it? And, since I'm most probably right in what I think you'd say, I guess there's nothing more to add.
Unless ... you want to add a comment yourself, that is. 
Jordan has always been a parasite attached to Iraq. These Jordanians and their Palestinian cousins in their disgusting kingdom are still Saddam supporters and they are blind to the fact of how much they have profited from Iraq's misery. Jordan is still occupying a strip of Iraqi land. Jordan remains a true enemy of Iraq and its people, from its "modern and progressive" king on down.
Jordan is an American ally, Dhulfiqar. You can kiss your land goodbye as long as that situation continues.
Why doesn't Jordan turn over Harith al-Dari to Iraqi authorities?
"Al-Dari's ability to unify the Sunni community in a constructive way has certainly been hampered by the arrest warrant and by his own tactics. He has alienated an important tribal constituency—the al-Anbar tribes who are now committed to fighting against al-Qaeda and the insurgents. They have even gone so far as to ask the AMS to remove him as leader. They have even filed a lawsuit against him. In an announcement on al-Iraqiyah, "In the name of the al-Anbar Chieftains Council, we tell Harith al-Dari that if there is a bandit, it is you. If there is a murderer or kidnapper, it is you." While some other Iraqis have rallied around him, he is not in Iraq to lead them and has rejected government participation. His voice is limited by the arrest warrant since this prevents him from returning to Iraq, unless he is willing to face arrest, and by his own refusal to support the government so as to change its policies from within."
http://www.jamestown.org/terrori...p?
issue_id=3957
bridget let me explain to you the context of this discussion . i was just playing out a scenario which is exactly WHAT HAPPENED to an iraqi girl 14 years old who was raped and then her body burnt to cover up the evidence by your soldiers ..
You know what happened next ,the soldiers approached the family members private stephen green and sgt.mencha and they offered them a measly 5000 dollars which is ofcourse a huge sum for iraqis ....
now let me ask both maury and bridget ....imagine it were one of your daughters who was raped and her body burnt and imagine the rapist offering you 1 million dollars just to keep your mouth shut ...WHAT THE FUKK WILL YOUR REACTION BE ,MAURY?
Bruno,
I don't even understand your statement.
"Jordan is an American ally, Dhulfiqar. You can kiss your land goodbye as long as that situation continues."
Seriously, I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.
I will tell you what my reaction would be ,,, i will hunt down the entire pack of wolves one by one and i will kill them and cut off their private parts ...This is exactly what the relatives of abeer did ...I would have done exactly the same ....
Out of the entire pack 2 were caught by the relatives of abeer and they were killed and their private parts cut off and then that video was sent to fox news where the fox news commentator ED Hill proudly proclaimed how these 2 innocent men had their private parts cut off by EYE-RAKI SAVAGES ....WELL DONE FOX NEWS AND ED HILL ,MAKING IRAQIS THE PERPETRATORS HERE WHEN THOSE 2 SOLDIERS WHOSE BODIES WHERE DISMEMBERED WHERE NOTHING BUT WORTHLESS RAPIST SCUM ....
THE SAME FATE BEFELL ON THOSE 4 BLACKWATER MERCENARIES WHO WERE KILLED AND THEN THEIR BODIES BURNT AND HANGED ON THE BRIDGE OF FALLUJAH . THEY DESRVED THEIR FATE ...BLOODY MERCENARIES
IA,
I think many of the refugees just try to live until the money runs out. Unfortunately it is the dire situation of the Iraqi refugees which is why you can Iraqi women selling cigarettes in Amman or see the men selling cheap sunglasses and other random things at night there as well. If you go to Amman it is not hard to find the Iraqi refugees. And while some businessmen (frequently Iraqis from the Diaspora) or Ba'athists (naturally the darlings of the Jordanians) live well in Amman, many do not and the Shi'a face special discrimination.
Yes Dhulfiqar, I've heard the same. I've also heard that Jordanians are pissed at Iraqis because rents and home prices have been rising rapidly. I would have thought they'd be happy because their economy is booming. I guess not.
Bruno, you should quit wasting space and time with all the links. No one acknowledges them, and it makes you look retarded.
If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, people can find their own stories to read.
Thanks,
Hester
"I will tell you what my reaction would be ,,, i will hunt down the entire pack of wolves one by one and i will kill them and cut off their private parts ...This is exactly what the relatives of abeer did ...I would have done exactly the same ...."
So would I.
IA,
It's true. Even though in many cases you will have a big Iraqi family cramming themselves into a two-room apartment. The Jordanians will be evil toward Iraqis regardless of what is happening.
bridget ,if thaz exactly you would do then why the fukk did fox news people label the iraqis who did this "TERRORISTS" ......WHY THE FUKK ARE IRAQIS WHO TARGET THE BAD APPLES IN THE AMERICAN FORCES LABELLED AS TERRORISTS ? ANSWER ME THAT
friend of sean neglects to mention that James Parker, who committed the rape of which he writes, has been sentenced to 90 years. This is a “federal” charge--no parole, and he will do a minimum of 85% of that time even if he gets "time for good behavior" while in prison, in other words, roughly 70 years in prison, minimum. He is 24 now--that's a life sentence for this crime. The others, who were accomplices, or helped him try to cover it up, or just looked the other way afterwards, are still being tried and sentenced for their crimes. While we are punishing those who actually committed the crime, friend of sean is advocating and supporting punishing others instead, punishing people who happen to be Americans, on the grounds that they're Americans too. Iraqi “revenge” is a most ineffective tool to use here, but that don't mean there won't be getting any.
Paul Cortez, one of the other rapists, got 100 years I just now see. He's 24 too--another life sentence to prison. Military prison--not fun.
Maury, I saw a PBS piece a few weeks ago--buses of Iraqi going to Syria, more bus loads of Iraqi, who'd not found jobs and who'd run out of money, going back into Iraq. Not as many going back as coming out, but a lot it looked like. Unhappy people on both buses.
friend_of_sean,
I suggest you contact Fox News, as I have no idea what you are talking about.
bridget ,dont play dumb with me you bloody war slut . You know exactly what i am talking about . I am talking about fox news commentator E.D. Hill condemning iraqis for killing those 2 american rapist soldiers who looked the other way when Abeer was being raped and murdered . The relatives of Abeer avenged her death by killing them and cutting of their private parts and E.D.Hill was outraged and started calling those Iraqis terrorists ....I say fuckk u and fuckk all war sluts like ann coulter ...You have blood on your hands ...all of you ..especially maury
Just did the numbers: 85% of a 90 year sentence is 76+ years in prison, minimum.
By the way, friend_of_sean also leaves out the fact that it was an American soldier who turned the culprits in to face charges on the rape and murder.
lee c ..i dont want that rotten bastard steven green(not paul cotrtez) idling his time in prison ...i want him dead and i want to cut off his dick for raping abeer ...dont worry out of the pack of 7 ,abeer's relatives have already dealt with 2 while 5 are still biding their time . the flight to america doesnt cost much . abeer's relatives are very industrious
"bridget ,dont play dumb with me you bloody war slut"
Yes, my first instincts about where this guy wanted to take this conversation with his rape "scenario" was correct.
Note to self, trust your first instincts.
friend_of_sean,
You have a very dirty mouth!
"i dont want that rotten bastard steven green…idling his time in prison ...i want him dead…"
I suspect you wanted him dead even before the crime, and, if not him specifically, any American "occupier" would do. I suspect this is why you neglected to mention that two of the criminals have already received very long prison terms and the others are still facing charges, and that it was an American soldier who turned them all in to face criminal charges.
I have not condemned the retaliation by her relatives because I do not know if they actually got the right guys. Justice is a little "iffy", in a war zone sometimes, and I've got no particular objection to them handling themselves if they got the right guys, the rapists or murderers themselves, and not somebody else. (I'd have to know more for sure to know that.)
But, you neglected to mention that America was giving these men long prison terms and that an American turned them in. You did that on purpose I think. I would guess your purpose is to justify more of the killings that you already wanted anyway, and this crime is just an excuse for you.
And, by the way, trying to justify killing people on account of what some news reporter or editorial writer said is bullshit itself. If you don't like his words, you use your own words against him; you don't go killing other people.
I see Shafique is back. *sigh*
PeteS,
I left you a comment below.
Jordan has always been a parasite attached to Iraq.
So is Iran. Actually, Iran represents far more danger to Iraq than Jordan does.
The soldiers responsible for the crimes against Abeer should be tried and punished. No doubt about it. The two mutilated soldiers friend_of_sean is talking about were from the same unit, but were not invloved. Also, there were up to five soldiers involved in the crime, but friend_of_sean is calling for the death and mutilation of ten American soldiers in retaliation. It doesn't seem to matter if five of the ten are the actual criminals, because he is OK with five of the ten not being criminals in any case.
In America we punish people for the crimes they committed themselves. friend_of_sean apparently has no problem punishing people for crimes they had nothing to do with. Odd sense of justice.
_
BORED,
In theory, Iran could have something to offer Iraq. Jordan doesn't, hence the term parasite. That said, you are correct, Iran is a major threat to Iraq and Iran is partially at fault for the destruction of Najaf in August 2004. And so are the old Arabist establishment powers of Jordan, KSA, and Egypt. The only neighbor of Iraq that MAY not have played a role in destabilizing the nation thusfar is Kuwait - all of the rest are guilty.
http://www.saudidebate.com/index...=622&
Itemid=121
Hester,
"Bruno, you should quit wasting space and time with all the links. No one acknowledges them, and it makes you look retarded."
"If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, people can find their own stories to read."
I would like to thank Bruno, he saves me so much time by posting links to things I want to read.
Bruno,
Thank you I am very grateful. Keep up the good work and carry on posting links.
Um Ayad: "I would like to thank Bruno, he saves me so much time by posting links to things I want to read."
You could just go to uruknet.info and antiwar.com to save yourself even more time.
_
"You could just go to uruknet.info and antiwar.com to save yourself even more time."
She already knows that. It was a bogus argument she was using there, and she knew that too, but it was the best she's got, so she went with it. bruno is just phishing for an angry response, I think he gets his rocks off on that, and she's hoping it continues. Vive la Résistance and all that stuff.
Wasn't Uruknet the website of the man who holds the world record for rapes of Iraqi women?
"Wasn't Uruknet the website of the man who holds the world record for rapes of Iraqi women?"
Uday
BBC had extensive coverage of and interviews with Iraqis in Jordan last week. Families living there obviously have money to begin with, but they interviewed one couple who have about two months worth of living expenses (already in pretty poor conditions) before they are destitute.
Meanwhile, various Iraqis interviewed allege that the Jordanian authorities round up Iraqis for deportation just as an example to the immigrant population and to keep them "in line". It works - many Iraqis live in abject fear of deportation and live a life in the shadows.
The BBC reporter followed up reports of "white vans" policing Amman, looking for Iraqis to deport. They did spot a couple, but it seems to be at a very low level. They also reported from the border where they claim that no more than 20 to 50 Iraqis are actually bussed back to Iraq each week. Given the numbers immigrating, that's a tiny number, but it's enough to spread fear among the Iraqi diaspora in Jordan.
Another very interesting interview was with a Sunni Baathist general from the Iraqi army. He signed up post-invasion for a job in the new army, and he made a convincing argument that he never had any sectarian intentions, but was first, foremost, and exclusively an "Iraqi" interested in rebuilding the nation. Anyway, he got zapped from the army as part of the purge of Baathists and ended up in Amman.
PeteS: "Anyway, he got zapped from the army as part of the purge of Baathists and ended up in Amman."
Maybe now he can come back? No hard feelings.
_
What is Juan Cole doing for Cinco de Mayo? ¡Arriba! ¡Viva Mexico!
RE: Lee C. ― U.S.A., 03.27.07 - 11:30 am & following.
Our foul & mangy Cercopith lies with a straight snout: both the sentences fix in 9 yrs at most the time for parole!
The simian rapists will be free very soon (even if Bush doesn't pardon them).
"Our foul & mangy Cercopith lies with a straight snout: both the sentences fix in 9 yrs at most the time for parole!"
I saw where a correspondent with the BBC wrote just that (actually, he'd (she? whatever) said it was 10 years). Maybe he's thinking about British Law. The feds abandoned the parole system in 1986. Since this didn't occur in any American state, then no state law would apply, gotta be a federal charge, especially as the offenders were in the Army.
You need to get your snout outta your ass Monkeyboy.
"Here we go; I found it.
"Myth:
Prisoners typically only serve a small portion of their sentences.
FACT:
This is not true in the federal system…. Parole was abolished in the federal system in 1986. Federal inmates now serve a minimum of 85 percent of their sentences if they behave while in prison." (emphasis added)
(I believe the original law carried the popular title of "Sentencing Reform Act, or something like that, and I'm pretty sure you also have to be a first time offender to get the 15% off for good behavior in prison.)
Suck it up MonkeyBoy.
Bridget,
Why did you post a link to a site about Uday, the rapist? Do we take that to mean if Uday raped Iraqi women that is alright for US troops to rape Iraqi women?
Lee C,
"She already knows that. It was a bogus argument she was using there"
Yes, of course I know about those web sites but there is plenty more out there to read. It was a genuine thank you to bruno when I wrote his links save me time. It was not a "bogus argument". I do not have time to search every web site. Think what you like it really does not bother me.
(Bothered her enough for her to put a paragraph down on the subject.)
Lee C,
No your wrong again. I am not bothered just making it clear as to why I posted that comment to bruno.
Um Ayad: "I do not have time to search every web site. Think what you like it really does not bother me."
On other blogs (baghdadtreasure and twentyfourstepstoliberty), bruno and I and another commentor (annie) have a running argument about selective reality.
My hypothesis is that some people, if they want to believe only one thing, will apply a filter to the news so that articles or stories that "fit" are remembered and those that don't are not. This has been borne out pretty obviously by people like him who choose to pass on only certain stories, while ignoring others.
It took him a while to even acknowledge that the Anbar tribes may be turning on al-Qaeda. Why would such stories be on uruknet.info or antiwar.com, unless they could be spun as some sort of setback for the US, after all?
So I think that is the risk of letting someone like bruno filter your news. You're only gonna get the stories he wants you to see.
Of course, if you happen to be looking to reinforce a similar point of view, that obviously works for you. But you wouldn't be looking to do that, would you?
_
RhusLancia,
Who said I only read bruno's links? As I wrote before there is plenty of other sites out there and most important of all I can get my news from family in Iraq and Jordan but I can't give links to private conversations!!!
"I am not bothered…"
""The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
William Shakespeare ― (Hamlet)
Here are some links. Will not have as much time next week...... going to be busy.
Why George Bush is Insane
By Harold Pinter
"If you are not with us you are against us" President Bush has said. He has also said "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you."
http://www.rense.com/general75/whg.htm
MOSSAD IN IRAQ
I watched this on BBC Newsnight
http://video.google.co.uk/videop...%20in%20Iraq%
3F
Prince Hassan: Neocons and Israel Plan “New 100 Years of War” in the Middle East
"Of course, none of this matters—as we are essentially deaf, dumb, and blind here in America, a condition facilitated by the corporate media—and it appears quite plain we are headed for what Hassan characterizes as a “new 100 years of war,” not simply in the Middle East but across the board."
"But never mind. Former topless model and potential heiress Anna Nicole Smith has died from an overdose of prescription drugs. A TSA baggage screener stole a $100,000 watch from Paris Hilton’s bag. And most important of all, Britney Spears is back in the hospital again, this time with a toothache."
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=813
Um Ayad: "Who said I only read bruno's links?"
I don't know. Not me. But you did say this: "It was a genuine thank you to bruno when I wrote his links save me time."
So that makes you susceptible to his filtering of the news. Savvy?
_
Pete S
Continuing on from our discussion, if that's what it was, in the preceding thread: you said "I would say that "the Iraq failure has not yet been fixed ... There are lots of people queued up to laugh at the failure; not so many rolling their sleeves up to do some fixing."
Isn't that the core question: what does "fixed" mean, can Iraq realistically be "fixed," with the resources available, within any reasonable time frame?
It's not just the security problem, there's so many others. For just one example, something has to be done about getting those refugees back home too, to a liveable situation. Then there's the infrastructure to be rebuilt, the divided communities to be reconciled, proper responsible government to be established, and so on and so on.
Most of the people on this blog, including the author as far as I can see, seem to agree that the current US administration, for three long years, bungled the occupation and "liberation" of Iraq in just about every way they could think of. (You certainly seem to, otherwise what was the point of making your post above.)
I admire your faith in "fixing," but how can you convince me that these same guys are the boys to now put it right?
RhusLancia,
"So that makes you susceptible to his filtering of the news. Savvy?"
Oh Gosh!!! Now I am "susceptible". What ever next? I seemed to have been labelled so many things. You will just have to accept the fact that I think, read, write and say what I like. If you don't like it.....tough!!!
Um Ayad: "You will just have to accept the fact that I think, read, write and say what I like. If you don't like it.....tough!!!"
You read what bruno likes. Bruno likes his news one way, and one way only. Just so you know.
_
@johninnz: Cor. Didn't realise you were fluent in Gibberish!
Nach é col ceathar do theanga dúchais féin? Rugadh tú ón lucht ísealchríoch, b'fhéidir?
(Isn't it a first cousin of your mother tongue? Or were your lot lowlanders?)
@johninnz: I admire your faith in "fixing," but how can you convince me that these same guys are the boys to now put it right?
Why would I try to convince you of something I'm not remotely convinced of myself? So, moving swiftly along, who are the boys to now put it right? Lets hear it so we can move the Yanks out of the way...
"Why did you post a link to a site about Uday, the rapist? Do we take that to mean if Uday raped Iraqi women that is alright for US troops to rape Iraqi women?"
No, of course not. I meant it when I said I'd hunt down anybody who raped my daughter and cut their pivates off. One by one. With a dull and rusty knife.
But I thought a little reminder to all the "news filterers" out there might be in order.
RhusLancia,
"Just so you know."
Thank you for that. Did you really think you need to tell me about Bruno? I have been reading here for a long time and I am quite capable of judging where the people who place comments here are coming from. That also includes you.
Does it bother you that I posted a link about Uday?
Bridget,
"Does it bother you that I posted a link about Uday?"
No, it does not bother me at all. Just found it strange you would post such an old link when people were discussing the rape and killing of Iraqi women by US troops. Of course we must not forget to mention the rape of US female troops by their male colleagues.
Tragic.
sorry if my blog disappoints you. Again, i never wanted it to carry ANY point, let alone a political one 
take care Z.
Back when OIF was new… Back before the insurgency got going strong and it all obviously started going to hell in a handbasket…
Um Ayad and Rachel and bruno and the like, pretty much anybody and everybody who was opposed to the idea that Iraq could be “liberated” and turn out better, they all wanted to talk about all the rapes that never happened.
Then, later, all that talk sorta went away, as OIF sorta obviously went all to hell on its own, partly through the stupidity and stubborness of the clowns then running the show (both American and Iraqi).
Now, with “The Surge” going on, and violence actually down some (no prediction here how long that'll last), suddenly we're all a-twitter over rape again, both real and imagined. Major difference is, after four years in there, there really are some real rapes to decry this time, but the frequency or rarity of those is certainly not my point, so, let's not digress…
I've been wondering if this fairly sudden re-fixation by our enemies on the subject of the “rape of the Iraqi women” is an indication that “The Surge” may actually be going better than I would have expected it to go? I haven't been expecting much, not over summer and into fall, but I'm beginning to wonder if this new focus on the old propaganda point is perhaps a sign that things may be doing better than any expectations I might have held.
"Of course we must not forget to mention the rape of US female troops by their male colleagues."
In a discussion of, how did you put it....the "raping and killing of Iraqi women"?
You see, it all depends on your particular filter, doesn't it?
Christopher Hitchens on Iraqi Kurdistan
What might have been. What I still haven't lost hope might one day be.
Pete S
"So, moving swiftly along, who are the boys to now put it right? Lets hear it so we can move the Yanks out of the way..."
There is no-one, obviously. Before the invasion, some senior US General predicted that about 400,000 troops would be necessary for a successful occupation. Surely that's even more so now, with a highly developed insurgency, and Iraqi "Government" forces half of whom wouldn't be at all averse to a bit of genocide.
Who has half a million spare troops in their back pocket?
China and India, maybe? But what possible reason could there be for them to clean up the Yankees' mess?
(Its just like the first Gulf war. The world would never have got Saddam out of Kuwait without the US in the lead. But no-one is going to rush to join the US in wiping up after itself. And by the look of it the Brits will soon be mostly gone.)
See Lee C's post just above. I read him as saying "Hey, maybe this surge is gonna work after all." Isn't the implication "Because if it doesn't, nuthin' else will."
I'm not being gloomy just for the fun of it, you know. You shoulda heard me cheering for Jessica Lynch back at he start.
But there's only so much bullshit a guy can swallow, and it does leave a nasty aftertaste.
"but I'm beginning to wonder if this new focus on the old propaganda point is perhaps a sign that things may be doing better than any expectations I might have held."
My personal barometer is Riverbend. If she can't find something to squall about, things are going better than I expected.
For Children- A Woman
For Pleasure- A Boy
For Ecstacy- A Goat
Allahu akbar!
"Before the invasion, some senior US General predicted that about 400,000 troops would be necessary for a successful occupation."
You're thinking of Eric Shinseki, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What he said in public was "several hundred thousand". The numbers on the papers he was working on, and with, actually came up to a guesstimate of 285,000. (They moved him right on out for saying that. They canned the guy who said it was gonna cost at least $200 Bn too, and that turned out to be low; way low.)
General Petraeus has said that if “The Surge” doesn't work; it's the entire disaster that comes next; this is pretty much our last shot at it. That was his line going in. He's also reported to have said, to a Republican Senator in private (he will neither confirm nor deny it that I know of), that he went in figuring about a one in four chance it'll work; three to one agin’ it workin’. We can do it, put the insurgency down, but if the Iraqi won't make peace with themselves, it's not gonna matter, ‘cause it's not gonna last. And, he's said, in public, that if he figures it's lost, he's gonna say so--his duty to his troops not to send them into a grinder after he thinks it's lost. I hope he's telling the truth about that.
As to your earlier point: "…but how can you convince me that these same guys are the boys to now put it right?"
Ain't the same “boys”. Perle can't get a hearing in the White House anymore. Wolfowitz works for the U.N. now--gone from the Department of Defense. Rumsfeld's gone. Cheney is only allowed to speak to the true believers anymore, and not get filmed for TV (happens sometimes--ain't supposed to), and it's widely reported his star is much dimmed with Bushie Boy now. Many of the neo-con theoreticians are going on record that they think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld screwed up their plan. And all the old generals that Rumsfeld talked into the first scheme are gone. Bill Kristol, infamous neo-con cheerleader for, and one of the theoreticians of OIF, said on TV, on FOX, I watched him say it, "Win or get out." (05 November 2006).
This is the last gasp; if this don't work, the full mess is on us; Iraq is screwed until the Iraqi figure out how to fix it without any help, or until somebody else decides to help, and we're still looking at al-Qaeda et al. out there. We'll be retreating to a new perimeter position, and rethinking our options, we'll survive, embarrassed, but still strong, to retool, rethink, and Iraq will be screwed, unless somebody else has a better plan. ‘Cause we're pretty much outta options now. This is pretty much it. Bushier Boy and the Boys have run us outta options. (Well, there is one--“go long”; might still work, but I don't think there'll be the political will to try the one last chance. I think they're burning the will to go for that one on trying this one.)
I hope this works, ‘cause I think there's only that one other thing, and I think they're burning that chance on this one, and this one's already “on”, already outta the gate, so I might as well hope like hell it works.
"My personal barometer is Riverbend."
But she also squalls when the old Ba'athi are wounded. (Different squall though; gotta be attuned to the pitch--like I know when my dog's got a real thing thing going on, and it ain't just barking at the random squirrel.)
I take it that you are responding to my post to Pete, Lee C, so maybe I should try responding to your post, to see if I meet with a reasonable reply, or just the usual invective and personal attack.
Ain't the same boys now? Have you left out little Condi - I get the impression that she's been "captured" by the State Department, and is now acting diplomatically rather than with her former belligerence?
But I suspect that the downfall of the top tier of the former "regime," for want of a better word, will have left the second and third etc tiers of "Imperialists" and Bush loyalists still in place in Defence and the Pentagon, still scheming to dominate the Middle East. And the world.
Even if Petraeus decides it isn't working, won't they insist on staying, having invested so much in those bases and that Embassy? So if the surge fails, won't it have to be "go long," not "bug out" to a new perimeter? Is the new perimeter, i.e. a bit of a reversion to isolationism, really an option?
"…so maybe I should try responding to your post, to see if I meet with a reasonable reply, or just the usual invective and personal attack."
Or maybe you should have just thought about things first. You get the treatment from me that you deserve. But, yes, I was prompted by your inquiry to PeteS. He may very well have his own answer though; might be wise to wait on him.
"I get the impression that [Condolezza Rice has] been 'captured' by the State Department, and is now acting diplomatically rather than with her former belligerence?"
Reasonable error, considering that you're a standard provincial kiwi, and interpret our international relations as if there were no internal politics going on, even within the Republican Party. You need better sources.
"But I suspect that the downfall of the top tier of the former "regime," for want of a better word, will have left the second and third etc tiers of "Imperialists" and Bush loyalists still in place in Defence and the Pentagon, still scheming to dominate the Middle East."
"Former 'regime', for want of a better word" to use than the word "regime"
But, you're back to that “Imperialist” nonsense with no apology nor even a second thought about whether you might have that right or wrong. That's part and parcel of who you are, and how you view the world. American Imperialists scheming to dominate the Middle East (and the rest of the entire world). That's all there is that you can see.
You probably ought to figure I'll be back to guttin’ your posts again in fairly short order, on the grounds that you are entirely an ideologue and pretty much a full blown idiot to boot. You're too damn old to learn; might as well just correct ya.
"…won't they insist on staying, having invested so much in those bases and that Embassy?"
The embassy is one building, nothing important and chicken feed for cost compared. The bases weren't figured to be permanent, that story is/was a faerie tale from the beginning, so that's no real loss either, more chicken feed. (You know where our biggest embassy is right now? Bet it occurred to you to even wonder. This is not a matter of any interest to the anti-American crowd, so it's never occurred to you to wonder ‘bout it, ‘cause they never told you this was useful propaganda. Mexico. Not an enemy; not a target either.)
"Is the new perimeter, i.e. a bit of a reversion to isolationism, really an option?"
The new perimeter doesn't have to be isolationist, no need for that, just back from Iraq a bit. (If they go full collapse we may stay in Iraqi Kurdistan and protect their northern border from the Turks and Iranians whilst the Kurds wait out the ensuing full scale, no-holds barred, civil war under the pretense of still being loyal Iraqi, or something like that. But, if Iraq erupts and the Kurds withdraw, they'll never go back.). Probably, means we'll have to put up with shit from the damn Saudi for even longer though.
However, if it weren't for Australia, there's no reason to think that we'd have to include New Zealand within our our defensive perimeter. But the Aussies can't have al-Qaeda as close as you, so they'll have to protect you and we'll have to stand by them, but, if all kiwi thought like you (which is unlikely), I'd vote not otherwise. Let ‘em have your damn ass.
Bridget: "I meant it when I said I'd hunt down anybody who raped my daughter and cut their pivates off. One by one. With a dull and rusty knife."
And if you couldn't get at the guilty, would you settle for the privates of innocents instead? And if you did get the guilty, would you continue cutting off the privates of innocents too? This is justice to Um Ayad.
_
In fairness, I think that was friend_of_sean.
Lee C: "In fairness, I think that was friend_of_sean."
You're absolutely right... Sorry, Um Ayad!
_
News:
Shock and Awe for American foreign policy:
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/t...46&
parent_id=26
“The world’s sole superpower, which dominates the globe through military might, vast wealth, and the respect or fear such titanic strength engenders, may soon face the humiliating fact that its much-vaunted armed forces and state of the art technology were thwarted – even defeated – in Iraq by a few thousand rag-tag mujahideen using small arms and home-made bombs.”
Regional Arab summit shapes up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7032702306.html
Dead-enders, eh?
http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/...ed/
mar28w17.htm
“The bill aims to offer jobs to former regime officials who did not hold high positions, in an effort to reform deeply controversial legislation that saw tens of thousands of army and government officials sacked after the 2003 US-led invasion. The original de-Baathification law and the disbanding of former president Saddam Hussein's sprawling military has been widely recognised as a key American policy mistake that fuelled the deadly Sunni-led insurgency.”
A big battle near Fallujah:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7032701259.html
America’s hidden War Dead:
http://www.newspress.com/Top/
Art...988074586931346
Ya see, mercs and civilians don’t count.
Unbelievably, there seems to be genuine legislative opposition to the Iraq war in the US, as the Senate votes to end the US commitment in 2008. This is the best news I’ve heard in a while:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/lat...-
name_page.html
The bloodshed in Iraq continues:
http://www.hindustantimes.in/
new...08,00050004.htm
The Iraqi cultural heritage is being pillaged:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m31676&s1=h1
“Salon recently uncovered another troubling development in the Army's efforts to shore up troop levels, reporting earlier this month that soldiers from the 3rd Brigade had serious health problems that the soldiers claimed were summarily downgraded by military doctors at Fort Benning in February, apparently so that the Army could send them to Iraq.”
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m31679&s1=h1
(Ah, sending the walking wounded into combat is a sign of impending victory, not desperation!)
It appears that resistance factions deny having any sort of meaningful talks with Khalilzad:
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2007/...-the-americans/
Good ol' Ladybird, always at work ferreting out the interesting news.
Juan Cole is interesting today:
http://www.juancole.com/
"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert put his foot in his mouth by saying that US troops should stay in Iraq, otherwise the resulting chaos might cause the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan to fall. Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel and puts up with Israeli colonization of the West Bank even while condemning it-- i.e. Jordan functions as a de facto ally of Israel. Olmert sees its potential loss as a threat to Israeli security. The Jordanians are hopping mad about Olmert's comments."
Ah well, Lee, promoting a litle civility was worth a try, I guess. Didn't really think it would work. Anyway, I'll take your word for it that those guys who wrote the PNAC documents, all about American hegemony in the New American Century, were only joshing, just some good ole' boys havin' a little fun.
Leaves me puzzled about one thing, though.
Far as I'm aware, every country in the world has a "perimeter," which is its border. (Plus I guess a 200 mile maritime zone in some cases.)
Well not quite every country - there is one that apparently has its "perimeter" thousands of miles away from its borders, in other people's countries.
Just being neighbourly, I guess.
Because that hegemony and PNAC stuff never existed, right. Never was written.
Good, glad you cleared that up.
Because its looking more and more like a New Bloody Chinese Century to me - just been reading Dilip Hiro about China sewing up deals with most of the major oil producing countries, including (gulp) Saudi Arabia.
They seem to be managing this without a perimeter, too.
"Ah well, Lee, promoting a litle civility was worth a try, I guess."
You were civil enough to PeteS. Soon as you addressed me it was all fairly snide and condescending “little Condi” "top, …second and third etc. tiers of 'Imperialists'”, “those bases and that Embassy" (this last after you've previously steadfastly refused to discuss what they mean beyond your bare allegations). Soon as you thought you were going to address an American your tone changed.
Your question to PeteS was fairly reasonable in tone. You got a reply back from me in about the same tone. Soon as you thought you had me paying attention, the sneer was back. And you ain't bright enough to sneer at me, fool. Not to mention that your notion of national league politics wouldn't get ya a seat on the City Council in Atlanta nor Chicago, maybe not even Detroit.
So, you got what ya gave. It'll keep workin’ just like that too.
"[The Chinese] seem to be managing…without a perimeter…"
Contrasted to:
"The world would never have got Saddam out of Kuwait without the US in the lead."
The Chinese didn't even show up for that one. But, that's not so much my point.
You can't figure out a way to be consistent. You have no consistency, other than your firm grip on the standard anti-American platitudes, which you embrace fully including their inconsistencies.
I think it was Hobbes who said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds".
I reckon we can at least figure you to be goblin proof.
But, I'm not sure that's sayin’ much as I don't believe in goblins.
Defensive perimeter?? Oh, like the Atlantic Wall? That worked out well for the 3rd Reich, not to mention that little speed bump that the French constructed. How do you build a 'defensive perimeter' when Russia and China insist on selling advanced weapons to our enemies (formerly Iraq and now Iran)? Oh, that's right, the Ruskies and the Chicoms are our friends...name ONE nice/good thing that either one has done for us, besides crush democracy in Russia and steal our nuclear missle technology for Beijing's growing arsenal (the list goes on). After perusing the posts on this blog, I wonder how many of you support or participate in burning dummy soldiers or parading down the lane chanting "F... the troops!" Ignorance truly is a herd mentality. Yes, the war has not gone well. When does it ever? What good does it do NOW to be hyper critical of every action taken by the man to try and right the ship? If the troops that are fighting (and re-enlisting to go back)believe in what they're doing...why don't you? Because you hate Bush and what he has done? Despising Bush and the past is worthless,and does NOTHING constructive. If the West/America runs, then more trouble is sure to come. Have worldwide attacks lessened or intensified since Islamic terrorism began in earnest during the 1970s? We have appeased these guys since Carter bought the freedom of the hostages for 7.9 billion dollars. Who here carries water for the 284 Marines killed by Hezbollah in 1982...who?? Does it take more death and terrorists fallin' out the sky before you wake up and see this conflict for what it is? The USMC fought battles during WW2 and lost more men in two days of combat than have been lost in Iraq (see Tarawa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal). This is a dirty, down in the muck street fight. If someone punches you in the face, do you lower your head so he can get a better angle for the next blow, or do you hit him back? Regardless of all the fancy rhetoric, that is what it boils down to. Bin Laden has stated that he wants a caliphate extending from east to west, ruled by Islamic law. Raise your hand if you want that too (you may lose your ability to smoke dope and bad mouth the govt, truly tragic losses in my opinion). We could have avoided this entire fiasco if we had finished Saddam off in 1991, but the carnage was too much for the civilized world (remember the Highway of Death?) and we didn't close it out. We encouraged mass revolution during the Gulf War, but refused to help the anti-Saddam rebels militarily because of global opinion, and now they don't trust us when we say "one more time." That's what not following through and finishing a fight gets you. Good people fought and died so you could sit home and armchair quarterback from a position of inflated self-importance, so don't waste 230+ years of sacrifice because you wouldn't raise a hand in your own defense (offense is defense...don't you watch Oprah?). Being a quitter means being afraid for the future, waiting for the other shoe to drop...again. An ill wind is blowing across the globe, reeking of 1938...how many Neville Chamberlein clones does it take to fan the stench? The fight has commenced...get to fightin' or get away. And yeah, I shed blood in that sand..and I'd do it again...for America and all it means to me.
Lee C
Obviously it would be too much of a strain on both of us to try to be polite to each other.
Shame, because as far as I can make out we are in total agreement over the ways in which the Bush administration cocked up its Iraq adventure.
But only you are allowed to say so: if I say it, then I'm a leftish Kiwi dotard.
Is this consistent?
Regarding consistency, if you read carefully you'll see that I did say "the New Bloody Chinese Century."
I've no desire at all to see the world dominated by China - wouldn't trust them an inch. But its probably going to be - I'm glad I won't be around to see it.
But I've also no desire to see the world dominated by the likes of the Bush gang, with the greed, dishonesty, arrogance and folly that they have displayed to date.
By exposing the limits of US power with their bungling in Iraq, they have diminished America's standing in the world, which increasingly seems to be looking towards the 'multi-polar' model, having lost faith in the 'sole superpower.' If they had done it properly, you probably could have kept up the bluff for years.
Where we differ is that you probably blame the Republicans, while I don't give a damn about your internal tribal differences. I blame the whole country.
Please try not to froth too much over your reply - makes for a soggy post.
[johninnz] "Where we differ is that you probably blame the Republicans, while I don't give a damn about your internal tribal differences. I blame the whole country. Please try not to froth too much over your reply - makes for a soggy post."
LOL!
reconjohn and the iraqis will shed blood for allah and their country ,if need be their own blood . we will kick the invaders off our land ...
DO U UNDERSTAND??
[reconjohn] “And yeah, I shed blood in that sand..and I'd do it again...for America and all it means to me.”
I hear the Vietcong had a very special treatment for lurps. I hope for your sake the Iraqis don’t think the same way. Now, head off to the de-programming centre, before you hurt somebody with that heavy, dull intellect that you’re swinging there.
[dhulfiqar] “Jordan is still occupying a strip of Iraqi land.”
[bruno] “Jordan is an American ally, Dhulfiqar. You can kiss your land goodbye as long as that situation continues.”
[dhulfiqar] “Seriously, I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.”
Simply that I doubt Jordan will ever return the land you say it occupies while it enjoys the patronage of the US. I may be wrong, though. If you can point me to US pressure on Jordan to return the land you say it occupies, then I’ll retract this statement.
[hester] “Bruno, you should quit wasting space and time with all the links.”
See the little rubber wheel on top of your mouse? Yeah, it’s used for a thing called “scrolling”. I’ll leave it to your imagination as to what you are free to do when you encounter my links.
[um ayad] “Bruno, Thank you I am very grateful. Keep up the good work and carry on posting links.”
Shukran for your kind words. And likewise, shukran for * your * links, I appreciate all the information I can get.
[lee] “bruno is just phishing for an angry response”
Why go to all the trouble of hunting down news for that?
Hello, Lee.
(Boy, watch him blow his stack at this one)
[rhuslancia] “It took him a while to even acknowledge that the Anbar tribes may be turning on al-Qaeda.”
Sorry, munchkin, that’s not what I said at all.
That’s YOUR selective perception of what you WISH I had said.
Actually what I said was that the US could not be trusted to present accurate news, that the US can and does spin the news so as to create as much friction between resistance groups as possible and that even if Iraqi tribes were against Al Qaeda (which is hardly surprising since the vast majority of Iraqis loathe AQ) it did not necessarily mean that they were PRO-US.
In fact today there are various statements by people saying that although they are anti-AQ, it does not mean they are pro-US.
Just one example:
Dozens Die In 2 Truck Bombings In the North
By Karin Brulliard - Washington Post Staff Writer -March 28, 2007; Page A11
West of Baghdad, an insurgent leader whose tribe has criticized the rival Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq was killed in a car bombing, police said. Harith Thahir al-Dari, a commander of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, was entering his home in Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad, when two nearby car bombs exploded, killing him and three family members, police said. In an interview, Dari's father, Thahir Khamees al-Dari, blamed the bombings on al-Qaeda in Iraq. The elder Dari, who is sheik of the large al-Zobaee tribe in Abu Ghraib, vowed to retaliate against the attackers.
[...]
The al-Zobaee tribe has not aligned itself with the Americans, Dari said, nor has the 1920 Revolution Brigades, which has asserted responsibility for attacks on U.S. forces. But both groups are enemies of al-Qaeda in Iraq, he said.” //end
Now, is it any wonder why I like to have the full picture before shooting off half assed and making any wild statements? Is it any wonder that I like to keep people that care as informed as possible?
"would you settle for the privates of innocents instead?"
johninnz and friend_of_sean are the ones who believe in collective guilt, not me.
The Iran-Britain sailors story keeps on running:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/sto...-03-28-08-51-
55
The Iranians better know what they are doing, because even if they are in the right, they are playing with fire.
Iran claims the sailors confessed to illegal entry of iranian waters:
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/f...ion-
$469239.htm
Fried invaders:
http://www.fayobserver.com/artic...ticle?
id=258354
General McCaffery: the US army is in strategic peril:
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/ap...326/1033/
NEWS01
bruno,
"Shukran for your kind words. And likewise, shukran for * your * links, I appreciate all the information I can get."
Ahlan wa-sahlan. Thank you again for the good links posted today.
Lee C,
I have to thank you for correcting RhusLancia. He was definitely out of line and I was quite offended when he wrote:-
"And if you couldn't get at the guilty, would you settle for the privates of innocents instead? And if you did get the guilty, would you continue cutting off the privates of innocents too? This is justice to Um Ayad."
Most definitely not something I would ever write. How ghastly!! I want justice for the innocents. I have written before how I hate torture, killing of innocents, renditioning etc. and I am also against the death penalty. I happen to be a humanitarian. I will continue to campaign against atrocities and the suffering of the innocents.
I will have to take you to task though for your comment :-
"Um Ayad and Rachel and bruno and the like, pretty much anybody and everybody who was opposed to the idea that Iraq could be “liberated” and turn out better, they all wanted to talk about all the rapes that never happened."
I thought you said you had a good memory. I do not remember writing about rape in the past, only very recently due to recent crimes of that nature.
I was never against Iraq being "liberated" that is exactly what I would like to see. A "liberated" Iraq, free from foreign invaders, free from Iranian backed Ayatollahs and yes free from Saddam (but that could have been done differently). I want to see an Iraq running it's own oil industry for the benefit of Iraq's own nationals, an end to wars and sanctions, a secular government, no sharia laws, the return of the rights Iraqi women once used to enjoy, I could go on and on. Yes, I know I am dreaming.... too much outside interference, too many companies seeing money making opportunities and too many people wanting to line their own pockets. I can live in hope!!
It isn't land that "I say" Jordan occupies... it is a fact. Baba Saddam gave the Jordanians Iraqi land. If you are cheerful that the Jordanians can occupy Iraqi land then I guess that's your issue. Don't let me distract you from your necrophilia.
"Lee C
"Obviously it would be too much of a strain on both of us to try to be polite to each other."
No problem for me, simple matter of shifting gears. As you noticed above, I had no problem at all stepping in and dealing with your question without any invective or condescension. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no control over your gear shifter; soon as you thought you had an American on the other end, the automatic sneer was back.
And you got no control over where you go with it either.
It drives you. Example:
“Don't get it, do you Lee?
"I'm not a 'fanatical anti-American.'"
johninnz | 03.26.07 - 7:53 pm |
"I don't give a damn about your internal tribal
differences. I blame the whole country [America]."
johninnz | 03.28.07 - 6:09 am |
Personally, I think the people you need to be talking to and arguing with are folks like that Reconjohn who posted above (timestamp 6:02 am). I'd probably be amused, sittin’ back and watchin’ you two opposing fanatics go at each other.
You, on the other hand, have to approach me, as if I one of his ilk; you “have to”, you have no control, no choice in the matter; it's automatic for you; you see the “U.S.A.” and it snaps on.
This is usually not a real problem me. Luckily for me, fanaticism almost invariably leads to foolishness, so most of you guys are fools in one form or another, and I can “win" most every time. You'll get to your foolishness quick enough, or not quick enough, but you'll get there, and I can be patient if need be.
The few that aren't fools are almost invariably lunatics, and that usually shows up fairly quick, and then I generally leave ‘em alone for the most part. (Grandpa used to say that, "He who pursues madness too closely deserves what he catches".) May poke ‘em once in a while for the fun of watching the rant.
Now, unless you got something else of significance on this topic. I'd reckon it's been fully explored.
"Why go to all the trouble of hunting down news for that?"
Because your posts often get ignored on account of you being too obvious, so you resort to tossing in lots of baited hooks, figuring eventually you'll get a strike on something. And, you don't have enough of your own stuff, so you gotta get editorial help on the internet.
"Hello, Lee."
Yeah, bruno; I saw your post. Shall we all wait for you to declare yourself victorious again. Or, will you just do that now? (Do you do a victory dance for those? Did you find your boot? Can you dance in one boot?)
"I do not remember writing about rape in the past, only very recently due to recent crimes of that nature."
Well, see, there we have it. My memory is better than yours. Been a long time ago, but I remember; you were workin’ from some reports faked up by some Turkish, vaguely Islamist sources (or, that's how I judged their slant anyway). Maybe that'll “refresh” your recollection, as the lawyers like to call it. Maybe not, but I remember.
"Baba Saddam gave the Jordanians Iraqi land."
You give it away, it ain't yours anymore. You may just have to accept that “Baba Saddam” had the “legal authority” to do that, and you may just have to accept that one day, call it the past, and go on to other things.
...I'm beginning to wonder if this new focus on the old propaganda point is perhaps a sign that things may be doing better than any expectations I might have held. Lee C
Well, I don't know if things are going better than expectations or not, but I do tend to agree that there is a tone of desparation in our adversaries actions and comments.
Lee C.,
"You give it away, it ain't yours anymore. You may just have to accept that “Baba Saddam” had the “legal authority” to do that, and you may just have to accept that one day, call it the past, and go on to other things."
Saddam's "odious debts" are being forgiven as it is recognized that his sins were not those of the Iraqi people. His gift of Iraqi land should be treated as such.
If we want to talk about legal authority, does this mean that Saddam had legal authority to murder thousands of Iraqi civilians? And did he have legal authority if he assumed power in an illegal manner and maintained power in an illegal manner?
As for the past being the past, the Palestinians and Arab powers rejected the UN Partition Plan that the Jews accepted and then lost badly in 1948 and 1967. Should they just accept that the past is the past and that they had their changes and lost?
"If you are cheerful that the Jordanians can occupy Iraqi land then I guess that's your issue."
Read again. Never have I slanted one way or the other on the issue, Dhulfiqar. Honestly: it's the first I hear of it.
[lee] "Yeah, bruno; I saw your post. Shall we all wait for you to declare yourself victorious again."
What, are you thalking about this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6514669/
#348737
There isn't any need for formal celebrations. I think its quite evident who has the upper hand.
It's OK, you can keep the boots. After where they've been, I'm not sure I want them anymore.
"If we want to talk about legal authority, does this mean that Saddam had legal authority to murder thousands of Iraqi civilians?"
Nope that's pretty much considered “over the line” by everybody; they even have specific category for how come that is over the line. They call them "Crimes Against Humanity”, and whoever catches him and convicts him can hang him for it (although the majority of nations don't go for the hangin’ ‘im part).
And I didn't ask you to accept the proposition that maybe it belongs to Jordan now. Nobody's getting killed over just now, so it'll keep. Maybe the Jordanians can be convinced to just do the right thing one day, and all you'll need to do is ask, especially if Iraq becomes prosperous and strong. Meantime, it was just a thought for you to maybe think about.
Lee C,
"Maybe that'll “refresh” your recollection"
No, it did not refresh my recollection at all.
But I remember when you wrote:-
"Yeah ya did. I have an excellent memory. You did not go so far as to claim to be "on the dole" as I believe they say it in Britain, but you did claim to be partially disabled by it.( I believe it was a claim of fibromyalgia, but my memory doesn't go quite that precise, so I'm just going to go with "I believe" there.)"
My reply was:-
"Thank you for that. I did not know what Fibromyalgia was I had to look it up. You learn something new every day"
Never been on the "dole". I do not suffer from "Fibromyalgia". I am not disabled.... But do have some health problems.
Your memory is not as "precise" as you think. Better to stick with "I believe".
"What, are you thalking about this:"
Nope, I's talkin’ ‘bout this. I recognized this as a desperation move, a pretence, to get away with your ego intact. That other thing still don't make no damn sense whatever.
Claiming to be partially disabled is not the same thing as claiming to be “on the dole”. I never suggested the second, which is the one you denied.
Lee,
Thanks for the explanation.
I just hate Jordan and how they have acted toward Iraq and Iraqis. Sometimes I think that whoever created Iraq gave it so many resources and so much beauty as a sick joke, with the following punchline:
"And now I will give you all of these lovely 'neighbors' and invaders."
"And now I will give you all of these lovely 'neighbors' and invaders."
Every rose has its thorns.
Here's a nice piece of news. Let's hope they stay caught this time.
Lee C,
I never suggested the second, which is the one you denied.
Read it again. I denied both.
This is one of my favourite programmes in the UK. Bremner, Bird and Fortune. They have had many good shows in the past too. Like to share this one with you.
Political satire from Bird and Fortune "Washington Diplomat"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5...h?
v=5BiQGaE5j2k
Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq
"RIYADH -- Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, slammed Wednesday the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh."
"Arab leaders have kicked off the two-day summit in the Saudi capital aiming to revive a dormant plan for peace with Israel and launch a diplomatic offensive to resolve the Middle East conflict."
"In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said.
"He also said that Arab nations, which are planning to revive a five-year-old Middle East peace plan at the summit, would not allow any foreign force to decide the future of the region."
"In the past, Saudi leaders including foreign minister Prince Saud Al Faisal have often criticized US policy in Iraq but have never described its presence there as "illegitimate."
http://www.metimes.com/storyview...28-083228-
3225r
So we should listen to the King of Saudi Arabia? Is this based on:
* the fact that he has respect for human rights?
* the fact that he especially has respect for women's rights?
* the fact that he was democratically elected?
* the fact that he is best friends with the "occupier"?
* the fact that his people (Wahhabis) have a record of destroying Islamic holy sites?
"Read it again. I denied both."
Yeah, yeah, ambiguous enough though; whether “not disabled” meant not “partially disabled” seemed unclear, and your "health problems” you'd identified as chronic, which, under some people's definitions can get ya to “partially disabled”, depending on the extent of the problems, and who was doing the defining, and you're now carryin’ on about semantics and definitions, and I really never did care about those, and thought that was where you were going and didn't want to go there last time. So, you pick whatever term you want to apply to it, and I'll use that. The original point was that depleted uranium, while poisonous, of course, is similarly poisonous to lead shot and titanium shot, which Saddam. They're all poisonous heavy metals if ingested, and depleted uranium is not significantly more poisonous than either of the munitions metals Saddam used (if actually more poisonous; I'm not sure of the exact ranking, but there is no significant difference in toxicity). You just blame depleted uranium because we used it and Saddam didn't and so you get a blame for us that you can pretend to be clean of as “an Iraqi”, and that's bullshit off the git.
But, I'll be happy to use whatever term for your condition you want used--get away from that vagueness (and you were always vague about it; fine by me as I don't much intend to pry), and we can get back to the real point.
By the way, somebody oughta tell King Abdullah ‘bout the UN resolutions “legitimizing” the "occupation” doncha reckon? Then we can figure out how it is that after all this crap we hear ‘bout UN resolutions they suddenly don't matter much. That piece of gymnastics ought to be fun to watch.
"So we should listen to the King of Saudi Arabia?"
He does shed a mean crocodile tear, though. Gotta give him that.
Dhulfiqar's friends along with the Iraqi police went on a rampage and slaughtered as many as 60 Iraqi Sunni males overnight in Tala'far in revenge for a truck bombing the day before. They broke into Sunni houses and took the males out and shot them in the head.
And Dhulfiqar wants us to support the Shi'ite "democratically-elected Iraqi government." Wallah we will fight it to the death.
Sounds like friend_of_sean justice to me, not Dhulfiqar justice.
This AP article says that many of the policemen who were involved have been arrested by the army, the rest of the local police have been confined to their bases, and the army has moved in to secure the area.
Bridget, So? Does that mean all is well and dandy now and we should go back to support the Shi'ite "democratically-elected Iraqi government"?
Anonymous (at least pick a random name!), can you justify your claim that I support the crimes that occurred in Tal Afar? If not, then stop talking nonsense.
Anonymous: "Bridget, So? Does that mean all is well and dandy now and we should go back to support the Shi'ite "democratically-elected Iraqi government"?"
Well the government did act quickly to contain an eruption of friend_of_sean justice. Would the other side do that?
_
Well, you say you support the criminal warlords who lead those gangs (called the Iraqi police and army), and you think Maliki is a pan Iraqi leader. That's not much of a difference.
RhusLancia, do you think Maliki will reward them as he rewarded the rapists?
What you call "the government" is a joke. I pity Americans who think Iraq has a government that actually controls anything.
Anonymous, again, let's hear some substantiation for your statements... which warlords to I support now? It's "almost the same" as what you said before? You are running in circles here.
Anonymous: "RhusLancia, do you think Maliki will reward them as he rewarded the rapists?"
Reward the Iraqi Army, who stopped the killings and took control? Sure, why wouldn't he?
_
"Bridget, So? Does that mean all is well and dandy now and we should go back to support the Shi'ite "democratically-elected Iraqi government"?"
Well and dandy, no. I didn't say that. Just maybe not quite as awful as you portray.
Dhulfiqar, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I have seen you on more than one occasion praising Maliki and the government that has been elected by what you call the majority of Iraqis (Shia and Kurds) over and over again. You can't admit that the "government" has a huge role in fueling the sectarian violence that is taking place in Iraq today.
What is not quite as awful, Bridget? Iraqi policemen trained by Americans breaking into civilian homes and randomly slaughtering and executing up to 60 people, just for being Sunni is not so awful? Can you tell me how that is different from the ethnic and sectarian cleansing by Saddam's troops that you supposedly came to end? What is so hard for you to understand? How many family members of those killed are going to join the insurgency now?
“What is not quite as awful, Bridget? Iraqi policemen trained by Americans breaking into civilian homes and randomly slaughtering and executing up to 60 people…”
Just so I'm clear on this one… Did you throw that “…trained by Americans…” part in there because you're accusing us of having trained them in the peculiar art of “random slaughter”. Are you suggesting Iraqi have to be "trained" to do that by outsiders?
And, if that's not your point, then what the hell is the point that got you to make sure you mentioned Americans in that sentence?
Obviously, I hope, there should have been a question mark after "random slaughter", reading like this:
"Did you throw that ‘…trained by Americans…’ part in there because you're accusing us of having trained them in the peculiar art of ‘random slaughter’?
The point is that Americans empowered, trained and armed those militias that are running around slaughtering civilians. Do you have a comprehension problem, Lee? Americans recruited and built a Shi'ite police and army to subdue a Sunni population, as in other parts of Iraq? Again, is that hard to get into your thick head?
Lee C. has adequately addressed the "trained by Americans" red herring. As for the rest, much of this thread has been devoted to the theme of "collective guilt", and I have made my opinion on the subject quite clear. If you think I find anything "hard to understand", you ar mistaken. I understand perfectly well that there is no difference between what Saddam did and what was done to those innocents. What I have not done, and what is apparently eating at you, is assigned collective guilt to the Americans and/or the Iraqi government when I know very little about the facts of what happened.
IF, and I do realize that that's a big IF, the AP report is correct, then the Iraqi government behaved, in this particular situation anyway, in a way that a proper government should be expected to behave. That is a good thing, if indeed that is what happened.
"Do you have a comprehension problem, Lee? *** Again, is that hard to get into your thick head?"
No, to both questions. But your original wording was capable of a different interpretation, as you seemed to be then concentrating on “random slaught” and “executions” part of things then, and I wanted to make sure I was clear on what your point really was.
So, the real point was this then: "Americans recruited and built a Shi'ite police and army to subdue a Sunni population…"
And the you figure it must have been obvious that the Sunni population was going to have to be subdued, because why? Are the Sunni not going to be peaceful under any circumstances? No political solutions here?
Anonymous:
"Dhulfiqar, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I have seen you on more than one occasion praising Maliki and the government that has been elected by what you call the majority of Iraqis (Shia and Kurds) over and over again."
OK, I am correcting you. You are wrong. I did not use those words.
And the Shi'a are the majority (with or without the Kurdish Sunnis). That is a fact.
"You can't admit that the "government" has a huge role in fueling the sectarian violence that is taking place in Iraq today."
Also incorrect. You should stop making things up.
And, by the way, somebody, probably within the next couple of weeks, is fairly likely to raise hell with me again for talking about the “Shia/Sunni” thing, when ya'll keep brining it up too.
Aren't there entire Sunni majority provinces that aren't touchde by the "Shi'ite police and army" who are allegedly subduing the Sunna?
Lee C.,
That is correct. Sectarianism (Sunna vs. Shi'a issues) in Iraq were brought to Iraq in 2003 by the US. There were never any sectarian issues within Iraq or anywhere else in the Islamic world prior to 2003.
Anonymous, where is your outrage over the massive truck bombings in Tal Afar that triggered the rampage?
"There were never any sectarian issues within Iraq or anywhere else in the Islamic world prior to 2003."
I'll be sure to make note of that.
Thanks Lee.
I am outraged, but one does not follow the other. Terrorists have been blowing up trucks all over the country, targeting all Iraqi communities. The Iraqi government, on the other hand, only seeks to take revenge from the Sunni population, which it accuses of harboring terrorists. Shia clerics and politicians routinely refer to Sunnis as nawaseb and takfiris, which are historical derogatory sectarian terms, inviting and condoning attacks agains them like what happened in Tala'far. Why else do you think Zeyad's family is being bombed with mortars from Sadr City every day?
Also, Bridget, it was not the Iraqi government that acted in Tala'far. It's far out of their area of control. It was local US and Iraqi army commanders wiht tribal leaders, who are being accused by the very same Shia militias and police of facilitating the bombings against the Shia in Tala'far and of siding with insurgents. Just go read the Sadrist and Badrist websites and see what they are saying. It was US troops who arrested the 18 policemen, not the government. Maliki's government would have probably rewarded them if it had the chance.
I'll look for the video in which Muqtada Sadr is openly asking his followers to go join the police and fight "takfiris" in Tala'far and post it for you here.
"It was local US and Iraqi army commanders wiht tribal leaders"
Well then, perhaps there's hope for the American trained Iraqi army.
That video would be interesting, although I don't doubt the truth of what you are saying.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M...h?
v=MpTjJs7n0Rw
If you don't understand what is being said, Sadr is asking someone to call up their parliament member and an official at the interior ministry so they can give uniforms to the Mahdi army to go to Tala'far and fight the takfiris. In the second part, he is meeting with an official from the ministry and is telling him to give uniforms to the Mahdi army for 3 months until they "liberate" Tala'far.
I wonder if Americans have seen this video. It's not the kind of video that you would see MEMRI translating.
No, I don't understand what is being said, but I'm sure your translation is accurate. Do you have any idea when the video was made? It sure makes it look as though Sadr is directly responsible for what just happened in Tal Afar.
Unfortunately the video is undated. But I'm guessing it was after Maliki took control because Sadr asks his aide to call "Falah" who is a Sadrist member of parliament. But still, the "pan Iraqi" PM Maliki insists on issueing arrest warrants only for Sunni members of parliament, while leaving criminal warlords like those at large. The sectarianism of the Iraqi government never fails to disgust.
Maybe Zeyad can translate the video, since I found it on his you tube favorites page.
Okay, this time I'm a little confused here. We have an Anonymous poster telling us about how the Americans “trained” a sectarian Shia Army and Police force, “to subdue the Sunni”.
Then, later, we have an Anonymous poster telling us all about how the Mahdi Army sneaked uniforms for themselves, and they are the ones behind this. (And, obviously, we didn't train up the Mahdi Army; they don't like us; we don't like them; Sadr keeps saying bad things about us.)
So, quaere then: Do we have two different Anonymous posters carrying on conversation about this one same subject:?
Or, is this one fella, telling two different stories, and just going with whichever one strikes his fancy at the moment, as the needs of conversation and the mood stikes him?
What do we got here?
Was the highest-ranking government official arrested in the last year a Sunni or a Shi'ite?
And some sources say that the Iraqi army was responsible for arresting the Shi'ite sectarian criminals in Tel Afer:
http://peyamner.com/default.aspx...px?l=2&
id=10648
عراقية - اعتقال العشرات من عناصر الشرطة المنتمين الى الطائفة الشيعية في تلعفر
Pna- ايمان كوران – الموصل: قال اللواء خوشيد الدوسكي قائد الفرقة الثالثة في تلعفر انهم اعتقلوا العشرات من عناصر الشرطة المنتمين الى الطائفة الشيعية في مدينة تلعفر بعد الاعتداءات التي تعرضت لها مواطنون من الطائفة السنية في
المدينة بعد انفجار مساء امس الذي اسفر عن مقتل العشرات من المدنيين.
واضاف دوسكي في تصريح ادلى به لوكالة انباء بيامنير الكردية عصر اليوم الاربعاء : قامت قوات الجيش باعتقال العشرات من عناصر الشرطة الشعية بعد ان حاولوا قتل المواطنين السنة في مدينة تلعفر صياح اليوم.
واشار الى ان القضاء مازال يشهد توترا امنيا من قبل الطائفتين الشيعية والنسية في المدينة.
Lee, there was no sneaking around. As you can see in the video, Sadr is "ordering" a parliament member and interior ministry officials to hand over uniforms for the Mahdi army to go fight Sunnis in Tala'far. You can't absolve the US from responsibility since they set up that ministry in the first place. If they know about what is going on here, then it is a tragedy, and if they don't, it's an even worse one.
Dhulfiqar, did the Iraqi government arrest any Shi'ite officials? The answer: no. They only issue arrest warrants for Sunni officials(some of who I won't claim are innocent either), but when one of their own warlords are caught red handed and arrested by Americans they start screaming about "sovereignty." Pathetic and clear double standards, if you ask me, but oh yes Maliki is a "pan Iraqi" leader.
"Dhulfiqar, did the Iraqi government arrest any Shi'ite officials? The answer: no."
Is Hakim al-Zamili a Shi'ite Sadrist or a Sunni? PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Shukran!
Dhulfiqar, WHO arrested Zamili? Was it the Iraqi government? NO. The Iraqi government strongly condemned that arrest or are you intentionally blind? Shukran.
Rats, missed again...
Alleged Attempt on Sadr’s Life
From iraqslogger.
Moqtada sucks, but at this point (unlike 2003), killing him might do more harm than good.
Anonymous:
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index...aqi_Vice-
Minist
"The leader of the Coalition forces, General George Casey, said that Hakim `Abbas al-Zamili’s arrest was done with the approval of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Casey added that Al-Zamili’s arrest at the ministry of health was executed by Iraqi, not American, forces; and that the arrest was prompted by a demand from the Iraqi government."
Please provide me any statement from a government spokesperson or PM Maliki or anyone outside of the Sadr "movement" condemning the arrest of Zamili. Shukran.
Azad, I hope it was the Iraqi army and not US forces. It would be a hopeful sign.
What is the rest of that you're saying there?
The Arabic part is from the Peyamner News Agency (PNA). It says that the forces of Commander Doski (دوسكي Kurdish name) of the Iraqi Army Second Division arrested a number of Iraqi Police in Tel Afer for their roles in attacks against Sunni civilians.
Isn't that always what US spokesmen say? That they have permission from the Iraqi government? Why did US troops have to conduct the arrest? And why did they have to use the Iraqi "special forces" unit that is under direct US command, not the Iraqi army or police?
But here is an official statement for you by the Health minister who stated that Maliki was not informed about the arrest, in addition to both the defense and interior ministries who officially denied any involvement at the time: http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/...ws/
8_02_12.html
Even the British said they had Maliki's approval when they razed down the Major Crimes Unit in Basrah a few weeks ago.
Why did US troops have to conduct the arrest?
So, what, Anonymous? Are you suggesting that the United States cannot withdraw because we are the only ones in Iraq that are capable of arresting criminals?
Anonymous,
You gotta listen.
"But here is an official statement for you by the Health minister who stated that Maliki was not informed about the arrest, in addition to both the defense and interior ministries who officially denied any involvement at the time"
And I said:
"Please provide me any statement from a government spokesperson or PM Maliki or anyone outside of the Sadr "movement" condemning the arrest of Zamili."
The Health Minister is a Sadrist. So you haven't adequately addressed my request. Shukran.
"in addition to both the defense and interior ministries who officially denied any involvement at the time."
Shukran.
Let's see the statements from the Defense and Interior Ministries condemning the arrest. Shukran.
Lynnette, it shows that even the US does not trust the current Iraqi government. Don't they routinely raid residence of Iraqi officials? Dhulfiqar was arguing that Maliki is a "pan Iraqi" leader who is working for the interest of all Iraqis. I merely want to point out to him that Maliki is a sectarian scumbag and that he only focuses on Sunni criminals, while being blinded to atrocities committed by his Shi'ite allies. He can't accept that.
Anonymous keeps talking and putting words in my mouth but cannot substantiate one bit of his own nonsense. 3ajeeb.
Are you denying that you described Maliki as a "pan Iraqi" leader working for the interest of all Iraqis?
"As you can see in the video…"
The video tells me nothing. I don't speak Arabic. I can't tell what they're saying.
"You can't absolve the US from responsibility…"
I rather think I can absolve the US from responsibility, at least the US is absolved of responsibility to you. I asked you above if the Sunni were committed to violence. I asked if there was any political solution. You walked right on by the question; you will not discuss the possibility of a political solution.
I must conclude that you are committed to violence. That is the solution that you have chosen. That is the solution you will, that and no other; you will discuss no other.
You have already decided what you want to do and who you want to blame for the things you do. Yes, indeed, we are certainly absolved of any responsibility to you for the things you are choosing.
You have chosen to prefer war, and to blame the war you prefer on those who are asking you if there is any way to avoid the war and to make peace politically.
To hell with that. I reject that completely. We don't owe you anything; we will not bare the blame for you and the choices you make.
No Lee, you have one Anonymous poster and if you don't recognise him then you really are as thick as two bricks.
"No Lee, you have one Anonymous poster and if you don't recognise him then you really are as thick as two bricks."
I was aware of that. It was a mechanism to point out that his stories are inconsistent, and we're well past that point with his tacit admission above to the singularity of authorship, where he attempted to integrate the two stories into a general “theory” in which he blames the United States for the fact that he has chosen to prefer a violent solution to the disputes among the Iraqi.
You are way behind the curve. Either catch up or shut up. I don't need be nagged at by you just 'cause you're dimwitted and three steps behind. And I have absolutely no intention of wasting further time and effort dragging your dim wit up to speed. Either catch up or shut up. But, pick one and do it quietly!
Uninformed comment here on the events in Tal Afar. Looking to be corrected or further informed.
From a bit of Googling, what I can make out is:
1) There was a terrorist truck bombing in Tal Afar, targetting Shia civilians. Actual organisation responsible not identified, but pretty obvious.
2) Iraqi police and 'militia' went on a retaliatory rampage, targetting Sunni civilian males at random. Police aren't meant to do that.
3) Iraqi Army (General Al Kouri?) stepped in, has arrested or detained some Tal Afar police.
4) I saw no mention of any US Army involvement, either directly or in an advisory capacity.
See, here's where I'm so sceptical about the likelihood of the "surge" succeeding. You got two groups clearly in the wrong - the terrorists and the enraged police. Until after the politicians have stepped in, there's no way of knowing what will result from the Army arrests - the police could well end up being released.
And if the US forces had been involved, and that happened, they would be blamed by just about everyone.
And various pundits have told us for some time of the danger of the US forces having to get in the middle between the different sides in a civil war - or more accurately a civil disaster. They don't have to just get between the good guys and the bad guys, they have to keep apart the really bad guys, the not so bad guys, and the sometimes good guys - meanwhile trying not to harm or upset the sea of innocents all around the players.
Impossible job? Trying to herd cats?
Not your responsibility, Lee?
Well, I guess only in the sense that you should have made sure you knew how to herd cats before you let them out of their cages.
So, lets blame the cats.
You are way behind the curve. Either catch up or shut up. I don't need be nagged at by you just 'cause you're dimwitted and three steps behind. And I have absolutely no intention of wasting further time and effort dragging your dim wit up to speed. Either catch up or shut up. But, pick one and do it quietly!
Lee C. ― U.S.A. | 03.28.07 - 6:56 pm | #
Well since you are so far ahead of the curve why don't you tell us who the Anonymous poster is.
"Well since you are so far ahead of the curve why don't you tell us who the Anonymous poster is."
Because: "I have absolutely no intention of wasting further time and effort dragging your dim wit up to speed."
Quietly, bitch.
"Not your responsibility, Lee?"
No responsibility to the fella decides he wants to be a feral cat. Maybe some responsiblity to the threatened bird, but no responsibility to the feral cat now on the loose. I hope adoption of your imagery helps with your apparent reading comprehension problem.
Can't say that I'm all that impressed with nzjohn. When a man wimpers off into the sunset self righteously declaring his intention never to post again; demanding that all the Rubins of the world should be forever banned; yet now exposes himself to be someone lacking in a committment to his word, I'm wondering if these leecey exchanges are really worth the damage you've done to whatever integrity you might have previously thought you had?
But Lee, the birds wouldn't be so threatened now if you had been more careful about letting the cats out of their cages in the first place.
I was using responsibility in the sense of "responsible for something," not "responsible to someone."
That was obvious in context.
John
Well, Rubin was indeed banned, wasn't he?
Lee isn't a mad fanatic - just rather irritable.
Plus I'm trapped indoors by the rain - can't do any work.
May as well just annoy Lee.
I'll give you this, John, you dislike everybody equally.
"That was obvious in context."
Apparently you missed my context, in spite of the bold faced type. I have no clue whether your failure to comprehend is you being intentionally dense, or whether you're just having yourself an Alzheimer's evening, and I really don't give a damn. But, you can take up a place next to Suz if you don't straighten up. If you simply can't restrain yourself, I have my track ball at the ready for scroll duty. Works sorta like turning down the volume on your microphone. You keep putting effort into it and wondering the damn thing is on.
That's your warning. Get relevant or get quiet or get ignored. The last one I can enforce, and will.
Madam, are you addressing him or me?
Or both of us?
Sire, I am addressing John with a capital J. He of the stilted syntax.
johninnz: "Looking to be corrected or further informed.
From a bit of Googling, what I can make out is:
1) There was a terrorist truck bombing in Tal Afar, targetting Shia civilians. Actual organisation responsible not identified, but pretty obvious."
al-Queda claimed responsibility for the attack.
_
Bush quotes Iraq the Model as proof of progress in Iraq:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...5aturIA6b6s0NUE
LOL. Maybe someone should show Bush other blogs. ITM is probably in the 1% minority of Iraqi bloggers who say things are improving in Iraq.
"Bush quotes Iraq the Model as proof of progress in Iraq:"
Actually, Bush was quoting their editorial from 5 March ‘07 in the Wall Street Journal. (If you're not familiar with the WSJ editorial policy regarding foreign affairs, think “FOXNEWS” in print format.) I was relieved to discover that. I had a brief shiver run down my spine at the thought that Bush might have his staffers desperate enough to try finding him encouragement among the comments of typos-r-us and bg and marine dad and that crowd.
Anonymous,
You either choose not to listen or you are just kind of slow. You said:
"Dhulfiqar was arguing that Maliki is a "pan Iraqi" leader who is working for the interest of all Iraqis."
I deny that. I also deny a lot of the other words you are putting in my mouth. And, as with so many of your other statements, you REFUSE to substantiate what you say.
Bridget, have you ever seen anyone use up more words explaining how he's not going to take whatever someone said to be worthy of comment? As in: "If you simply can't restrain yourself, I have my track ball at the ready for scroll duty. Works sorta like turning down the volume on your microphone". Over the course of the last few weeks, leecey has posted enough words about his scroll duty to persuade some that his higher standards have turned somewhat pathologic if not repetitively unconvincing. Never was so much said about ones fixation over not being prepared to say anything!!
And what is stilted syntax and why would I be the last to know??
I had a brief shiver run down my spine at the thought that Bush might have his staffers desperate enough to try finding him encouragement among the comments of typos-r-us and bg and marine dad and that crowd.
it must be a lucrative job to post all that pro war bullshit, suck the occupier's dick and then get mentioned by bush. i heard it pays well.
far more lucrative than spending your entire day abusing people at Zeyad's, right Lee C.?
Maybe you should swap blogs and then you might actually have something to show for all the crap you write.
"Over the course of the last few weeks, leecey has posted enough words about his scroll duty…"
First time in many, many months that I've mentioned potentially or actually or theoretically or whatever, first mention of scrolling somebody (johninnz has been remarkably dense). You're pretty much clueless.
"…and why would I be the last to know??"
Repeat: You're pretty much clueless.
(And, before you just insist on insisting that I have indeed threatened to scroll somebody--here's the response. Put up or shut up--find the link or know you've called on that one already, before you even got the bluster and bluff off of your keyboard.)
so many words, so little meaning.
And what would you have had to say this morning in kiwiland Suz, if I hadn't been here for you to pester. You've had no other subject as of yet. I've given meaning to your sorry, stupid Suz morning.
Khwan,
Where did you hear that? And how much does it pay?
Suz, indeed, Lee's expressions over finding people irrelevant has already reinforced his status and claim to irrelevance.
Wait for it. Now's the time he starts getting confused and ultimately turns the sorryfull irrelevance into something worthy of pity! Although some might suggest he's already established himself as being someone worthy of pity. Now and yet once again he'll devote twenty lines explaining as to how hes not prepared to respond to all of that because its unworthy of comment!!
"And what is stilted syntax and why would I be the last to know??"
God grant me the serenity, and where is PeteS to join me in this absolute jewel of a quote. ROTFLMAO
correction....join me in CHERISHING this absolute jewel of a quote. I just have to repeat it.
"And what is stilted syntax and why would I be the last to know??"
dhulfiqar, i also heard those bloggers work for the cia. what i don't understand is why other bloggers, like zeyad, aren't doing it. it could help him stay in america after he finishes school if he wants.
"And what is stilted syntax and why would I be the last to know??"
And then more at 8:59 pm. Fella's just awash in it.
I remember somebody on Angry Arab calling Zeyad a paid propagandist once. They don't call him that anymore.
High! Interesting site you have here. I like it!
You are wellcome at my drug search engine:
http://pharma.my-place.us/ - viagra
http://zithromax.my-place.us/ - zithromax
Have a nice day!
Hi folks,
Sorry for having "disappeared" for so long. ...work. Yeah anyway!
So now ret. Gen Barry McCaffrey, former Kuwait war US veteran, is giving advices on the situation in Iraq. Well Gee thanks general!
I'm surprised that Zeyad has put this man's declarations on his blog without presenting this man's bloody past first. Because isn't that the same Barry MacCaffrey who has committed war crimes against Iraqi POWs in 1991 after the cease-fire? The story was put to light by Seimour Hirsch in "the Nation." According to the latter, it seems that McCaffrey mowed the POWs down with heavy machine-guns while other American soldiers pretended they tried to "warn" him of the POWs!!! Well anyway, the man was a fox & he escaped conviction. He even got himself a purple heart or something!!!
I suppose the Iraqi justice & the Iraqi descendants of the POWs still have their word to say in this episode.
So thanks again to the Gen. But i could have preferred that he presents his apologies first to the families of the victims he slayed in cold blood. & also declare himself available for any summoning to appear before an Iraqi court of justice to answer for any charges that would be put to him for the crimes he committed.
War crimes do NOT fall with time. & we Iraqis, r judging Iraqi criminals of war now. So why shouldn't it be the same here for this one also?
---
Ooops Sorry. I should have put the above comment in the other thread. I will do it now. my mistake.
---
evden eve nakliyat
Maury
they are allowed to work in syria and Syria but not in jordan . talk about a friendly jordan .
I want to commend you on this website, I think it is fantastic and please continue to add important stories like the ones you already have.
Visit: http://www.iraqnewsworld.com
for all Iraq News and Analysis
Commenting by HaloScan
