0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 07:43 pm
Ican, I think for a few days I am going to lay off this Iraq stuff with you. You simply see everything in a light that supports the views you already have and I guess I do as well and that being that case it is useless to continue this back and fourth dialogue endlessly.

Simply stated, I have distrusted the administration from day one and I continue to do so therefore I do not give the administration any benifit of the doubt that I might have another administration and there hasn't been too many reasons to do so either.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 11:51 pm
OCCOM BILL
Re: your five million Iraqi little girls.... here is a link to my post in another thread about the plight of an Afghan girl, and a teaser quote from a Supreme Court Justice.

Afghan girl, given as bride at 9, fights for divorce
Quote:
When asked if he believed that women and men have equal rights, as Afghanistan's constitution states, Munib replied: "It's impossible. We are Muslims, and God has given a place for men and a place for women. We can't change that. Women don't have the same brains like men. They are very forgetful. They can't make big decisions. You should ask your own Western doctors about this. It has been proven that women are not like men."
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 06:53 am
That's a beauty isn't Mesquite? ->Clerics who condone what should be capital offenses. These people don't need freedom to practice this type of barbarism; they need to be saved from it. If that means a holy war is declared by other clerics, in other nations, so be it. Muslim churches need to choose a side and live or die with the consequences: Come out publicly against such atrocities, or be burned to the ground. It is gruesomely wrong to allow generation after generation to be taught by society that this type of behavior is acceptable.

Obviously, barbarism and modern weaponry will never peacefully coexist. Suicide bombings will only increase. Why would anyone fear death, if that were his or her life? We cannot police every household there, anymore than we can here, but we can damn sure police the powers that be. Whether it be tribal, State or spiritual leaders that rule a demographic, someone has to be accountable. Whether that someone is a Mayor, Governor, Priest, Rabbi or Cleric, the equation remains the same: Promote Barbarism = Perish.

This is, IMO, a crucial step in the fight against terrorism. We can't realistically expect suicide bombings to stop at least until it ceases to be better than the alternative (life). The fact that these barbaric customs date back centuries, tells us that they will not change themselves. Societal failure to accept this obvious truth is the reason they've survived this long. The Muslim faith will survive the marginalization of its most extreme factions, just as the Catholic faith has, as humanity continues to evolve. But, centuries of history practically guarantee that the transition won't be peaceful.

Equal human rights for men and women isn't something that should be sacrificed in the name of religious freedom. That's too great of a contradiction. It is slavery in its most base form. It's the reason I keep falling back on the 5 million little girls statistic.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 09:04 am
Raw video from the fighting in Fallujah.

http://www.fallujah.us/

Scary stuff. Makes one glad not to be over there...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 09:46 am
unfortunately it looks like a movie and it does not show the other side or any civilian casualties. Nor does it show civilians being trapped inside Fallujah without any safe water to drink or any medical help. I think the red cross finally managed to to get some aid over there but they did without permission.

(I read it somewhere, will find it later if necessary, hope it is not though as I am tired of searching for acceptable links)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 10:34 am
[My statements are inserted below in this format]

InfraBlue wrote:
In the 9/11 Commission report, notes 2:76 are a reference to chapter 2.5 in which the commission alleges ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, and concessions are made that to that date they had seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship[<<I agree that this is most probably true] --this would include harboring[<<I disagree. It most probably does not include harboring]--nor had they seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States[<<I agree that this is most probably true]. The notes themselves refer to reports that explicitly state that Iraq's ties--this would include harboring[<<I disagree. This most probably does not include harboring]--to al-Qaeda are inconclusive, and to an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information suggesting contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training[<<This most probably does not include harboring], and to two senior Bin Laden associates who further had adamantly denied any such ties[<<This most probably does not include harboring].


www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: 2harbor
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): har·bored; har·bor·ing /-b(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive senses
1 a : to give shelter or refuge to b : to be the home or habitat of <the ledges still harbor rattlesnakes>; broadly : CONTAIN 2
2 : to hold especially persistently in the mind : CHERISH <harbored a grudge>
intransitive senses
1 : to take shelter in or as if in a harbor
2 : LIVE
- har·bor·er /-b&r-&r/ noun


There's nothing in that definition that implies a "collaborative operational relationship." A "collaborative operational relationship" is a relationship wherein the parties to such relationship act in concert to perpetrate their action or actions. Merely providing a group shelter or refuge is not acting in concert with such group to perpetrate their action or actions. If one only willingly and knowingly harbors a murderer, one is not guilty of the act of murder perpetrated by the murderer; one is only guilty of willingly and knowingly harboring a murderer. Furthermore, assuming the Commission believes such relationship includes a harboring relationship leads to the conclusion that the Commission contradicted itself, because it claimed it had some evidence of harboring but not some evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship".[ /B]

[9/11Com, Chapt. 2.5] [emphasis added by me]
Quote:
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


[9-11Com, Chapt. 2.4] [emphasis added by me]
Quote:
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54


[Powell to UN] [emphasis added by me]
Quote:
Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.


Because Saddam was informed by us three times that Zarqawi was harbored in Iraq: twice by the "service" and once more by Powell's speech, it's logical to assume Saddam was willingly and knowingly harboring Zarqawi.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 10:54 am
Basically, you disagree with the parts of the report that contradict the case you are trying to make.

We all understand this fact, Icann, you don't need to waste our time or yours repeating it.

Besides, your 'logical' conclusions are not all logical. For example:

'Because Saddam was informed by us three times that Zarqawi was harbored in Iraq: twice by the "service" and once more by Powell's speech, it's logical to assume Saddam was willingly and knowingly harboring Zarqawi. '

Why would Saddam have any reason to believe, or listen, to the US? OR Colin Powell? This does NOT follow logically that he was 'harboring' just because he was ignoring what we told him, surely you don't need me to point that out to you...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 11:46 am
Here's a question - why aren't we being furnished with the figures of civilian casualties from the attack on Fallujah? We know(?) 1200 insurgents were killed (however even this figure went up and down like a yo-yo - 800-1200-2000-down to 1600-back up to 2000-then down to 1200? WTF). We know 38 Americans and 6 Iraqis were whacked. But yet no figure for civilians has been released!. Some American general (or whatever he was) said he felt civilian casulaties were "few". Okay then - if they were so f**king few surely it would be easier to count YOU MUPPET!!!. Anyone else notice this?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 11:49 am
Because they completely fake the civilian casualty figures to suit their needs....

And why wouldn't they? It's not like anyone can go in and call them out on it.

Inflated kill counts, 'no' civilian casualties, winning battles but not seeming to make progress... can anyone think of another guerilla war we were involved in that had some of these features? Hmm?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
We all understand this fact, Ican, you don't need to waste our time or yours repeating it.
Who is this "We all" that let's you speak for them? Rolling Eyes Considering the high levels of paranoia exhibited in many of your assertions, I seriously doubt anyone wants you speaking on their behalf. Also; your inability to understand Ican's points in no way reflects poorly on his ability to make them. I don't always agree with Ican, but can think of few people here who present clearer arguments. Eh, in other words; speak for yourself.

Here's an example of a paranoid-logic-disconnect now.
Gav asks:

gav wrote:
Here's a question - why aren't we being furnished with the figures of civilian casualties from the attack on Fallujah? We know(?)


Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because they completely fake the civilian casualty figures to suit their needs....
Proof? No? Just more anti-American blathering, eh. Big shock.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:08 pm
Bill,

Piss off.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:10 pm
No civilian casualties in Fallujah? Yeah, right.

Quote:
In the rush, [AP photographer] Hussein left behind his camera lens and a satellite telephone for transmitting his images. His lens, marked with the distinctive AP logo, was discovered two days later by U.S. Marines next to a dead man's body in a house in Jolan.
AP colleagues in the Baghdad bureau, who by then had not heard from Hussein in 48 hours, became even more worried.

Hussein moved from house to house -- dodging gunfire -- and reached the river.

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."

"I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards."




http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_escaping_fallujah_1

Want to bet that that family of five was counted as an insurgent by the US? I would...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:16 pm
Cycloptichorn, you need to ease up with the use of facts there pal - otherwise you'll never get a response! Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:17 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Basically, you disagree with the parts of the report that contradict the case you are trying to make.


That's not true. I have assumed that the entire 9-11 Commission Report and the entire Duelfer Reports are the product of expert opinion. Based on that, in the absence of contradictory expert opinion, I bet both reports are entirely true. Furthermore, I infer that those parts of Powell's speech to the UN that are supported by or not disputed by those two reports are also true, because I perceive Powell to likewise be an expert.

When an expert's report says it has no evidence of X, then I bet X isn't true. When an expert's report says it has some evidence of Y, then I bet Y is true. Betting that X is not true and Y is true, I also bet that X does not include Y, since Y can not be true if Y is included in X when X is not true.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why would Saddam have any reason to believe, or listen, to the US? OR Colin Powell? This does NOT follow logically that he was 'harboring' just because he was ignoring what we told him, surely you don't need me to point that out to you...
Oh, yes it does follow! We told Saddam among other things that he has to stop harboring Zarqawi or we will invade Iraq in an attempt to remove Saddam and Zarqawi ourselves. I think that's adequate motive for Saddam to make at least a minimal response equivalent to I didn't know Zarqawi was harbored in Iraq, or I don't have the ability to stop Zarqawi from being harbored in Iraq, if either were true or he thought he could get away with lying about either.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:23 pm
IF Saddam told the US that we were harboring terrorists,

AND we actually do have some in our country,

That does NOT mean that we are complicit in harboring them.

Saddam, as the sovreign ruler of a country(and complete asshole), was not obligated to give a response to anyone for anything. If the US chose not to respond to a similar comment made from, say, France, that does not make us guilty of harboring terrorists. You can use his lack of a response as reasoning for our invasion, if you like; but it does not make him complicit.

As for Powell, his speech to the UN was so full of holes it is amazing that anyone would attempt to hold it up as proof of anything.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:27 pm
gav wrote:
Cycloptichorn, you need to ease up with the use of facts there pal - otherwise you'll never get a response! Laughing
A response to what? No one claimed there was no civilian casualties. That's part of the delusion so he can then assume we're lying about the count... which, as of yet, accurate or no, has yet to be provided either. Rolling Eyes I'm sure he's glad to know you got his back on his unsupported America bashing, though.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:29 pm
There is a large difference between what America stands for and what America does. As long as that difference exists, and especially when the two are getting farther and farther apart, I will continue to comment upon said fact.

You can call it whatever you like in your attempt to marginalize me, ridicule me, or whatever it is that you like to do. I don't mind.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:38 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is a large difference between what America stands for and what America does. As long as that difference exists, and especially when the two are getting farther and farther apart, I will continue to comment upon said fact.
Facts can usually be proven in some way, shape or form. The crap your spouting is unsubstantiated opinion.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You can call it whatever you like in your attempt to marginalize me, ridicule me, or whatever it is that you like to do. I don't mind.
If you keep bashing my country with unsubstantiated BS and calling it fact, I'll keep calling you on it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:49 pm
Fortunately, my sense of self-worth has nothing to do with your fevered, cheese-head view of reality, Bill, in which America is the great and mighty champion of the Free and this is evident in our actions daily.

Nice talking to ya, though.

Now, if we can put the insipidly childish sniping aside for a minute, we can go.... BACK TO THE TOPIC!

Quote:
Fallujah left crushed and charred

16.11.2004
By MICHAEL GEORGY and KIM SENGUPTA
After six days of intense combat against the Fallujah insurgents, United States warplanes, tanks and mortars have left a shattered landscape of gutted buildings, crushed cars and charred bodies.

A drive through the city shows a picture of utter destruction, with concrete houses flattened, mosques in ruins, telegraph poles down, power and phone lines hanging slack and rubble and human remains littering the empty streets.

The north-west Jolan district, once an insurgent stronghold, is a ghost town, the only sound the rumbling of tank tracks.

US Marines, accompanied by a Reuters correspondent, pointed their assault rifles down abandoned streets, past Fallujah's simple amusement park, now deserted. Four bloated and burned bodies lay on the main street, not far from US tanks and soldiers. The stench of the remains hung heavy in the air, mixing with the dust.

Another body lay stretched out on the next block, its head blown off.

Some bodies were so mutilated it was impossible to tell if they were civilians or militants, male or female.

Fallujah, regarded as a place with an independent streak where citizens even defied the former leader Saddam Hussein at times, seemed lifeless. The minarets of the city's dozens of mosques stood silent, no longer broadcasting the call to holy war.

Restaurant signs were covered in soot. Pavements were crushed by 60-tonne Abrams tanks, and rows of crumbling buildings stood on both sides of deserted streets.

Upmarket homes with garages looked as if they had been abandoned for years. Cars lay crushed in the middle of the street. Two Iraqis in one street desperately trying to salvage some of their smashed belongings were the only signs of life.

While US soldiers walked through neighbourhoods, their allies in the Iraqi forces casually moved along dusty streets past wires hanging down from gutted buildings. As a small convoy of Humvees moved back to position on the edge of the Jolan district, a rocket landed in the sand about 30m away, a reminder that militants were still out there somewhere, even if the city that harboured them has fallen.

Residents long without electricity or water had abandoned their homes and congregated in the centre of the city as the US forces advanced from all sides.

There was no sign of the guerrillas who had scribbled graffiti along the walls of the park, encouraging Fallujah's 300,000 residents to join a holy war against US-led troops. "Long live the mujahedin," read the graffiti.


Yeah, no civilian casualties there. Strangely enough, we didn't capture any leaders of the insurgency, didn't kill a significant percentage of the insurgency's fighters, and the car bombings and other attacks certainly haven't let up in the slightest. So what exactly did we do?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because they completely fake the civilian casualty figures to suit their needs...


OK, let's for the sake of discussion assume that Iraqi civilian casualties caused by our troops and not by the insurgents themselves have been, and will continue to be, 100 times our own.

What do you recommend the president do about it?

Shall he order the removal of our troops from Iraq?

Shall he ignore any future Iraqi civilian deaths caused by Iraqi insurgents?

Shall he order our troops not to attempt removal of Iraqi insurgents?

Shall he order our troops not to attempt removal of Iraqi insurgents except when those insurgents are a safe distance from Iraqi civilians?

Shall he order Iraqi cirtizens to be removed a safe distance from Iraqi insurgents before these insurgents are attacked by us?

Shall he treat the al Qaeda and other terrorist deadly threats and perpetrations on Americans as mere anoyances to be tolerated like our thousands of annual national automobile traffic deaths?

Shall he turn his attention away from Iraq and toward domestic bathrooms in order to improve the safety of domestic bathrooms?

Shall he continue attempting to help the Iraqi people build their own democracy?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 09:05:57