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

I was talking about the Shiite's who are now being targeted so heavily by the insurgents since the elections.

But you believe that the insurgents are rewarding the Kurds and not the Shiites (who are the subject in this discussion) because they fought back. Correct?
Incorrect! I used the word, reward sarcastically. I was attempting to discuss only the effectiveness of the Kurds in limiting terrorism among themselves relative to the effectiveness of the other Iraqis in limiting terrorism among themselves.

Did not the Shiite's stage a rebellion as well? I seem to remember something to that effect. If so, your guess as to the reason why the Kurds seem to be left alone might not be accurate.
Shiites did stage a rebellion and Saddam's regime rewarded them by slaughtering thousands of them. So one could conclude in the context of Saddam's regime that the reward for resistance was death. However, I'm not talking about reward for resisting one's government, I'm talking about relative effectiveness of one's government in suppressing terrorists.

What evidence do you have that the Kurds are presently fighting back as opposed to the Shiite's?
The Shiites are fighting back against terrorists, but so far less effectively than the Kurds. My evidence that the Kurds are fighting back against terrorists has been posted in articles here several times in the last few days by others on the right and left. I have not yet encountered any evidence that the Sunnis in the Baghdad area are fighting back at all.

I have no more facts in this situation than you do;

You don't know what their orders were. You don't know what happened exactly. You don't even know if there was a checkpoint at all. The only word you have to go off of is the US military; and you trust them implicitly?

Why? The history of military lies, falsifications, and cover-ups goes back for pretty much the entire history of our military. For some reason, you now believe they aren't capable of such things?

Again, how many times do you people have to be lied to before you wise up?

Cycloptichorn

revel wrote:

I was talking about the Shiite's who are now being targeted so heavily by the insurgents since the elections.

I miss-inferred your emphasis. I thought your emphasis was on your statement: "I find it curious that the Kurds who also participated in the elections are not being targeted as well." So I was addressing why the Kurd's were not being targeted rather than why others were being targeted.

the rest of my comments are in blue

revel wrote:

But you believe that the insurgents are rewarding the Kurds and not the Shiites (who are the subject in this discussion) because they fought back. Correct?
Incorrect! I used the word, reward sarcastically. I was attempting to discuss only the effectiveness of the Kurds in limiting terrorism among themselves relative to the effectiveness of the other Iraqis in limiting terrorism among themselves.

Did not the Shiite's stage a rebellion as well? I seem to remember something to that effect. If so, your guess as to the reason why the Kurds seem to be left alone might not be accurate.
Shiites did stage a rebellion and Saddam's regime rewarded them by slaughtering thousands of them. So one could conclude in the context of Saddam's regime that the reward for resistance was death. However, I'm not talking about reward for resisting one's government, I'm talking about relative effectiveness of one's government in suppressing terrorists.

What evidence do you have that the Kurds are presently fighting back as opposed to the Shiite's?
The Shiites are fighting back against terrorists, but so far less effectively than the Kurds. My evidence that the Kurds are fighting back against terrorists has been posted in articles here several times in the last few days by others on the right and left. I have not yet encountered any evidence that the Sunnis in the Baghdad area are fighting back at all.

What real experience do you have of war or with the U.S. military? I have a great deal of it and believe my ability to understasnd the context in which the soldiers were operating is probably much greater than yours.

Italians kept U.S. forces in dark


By John Phillips
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ROME -- Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts about a cash-for-freedom deal with gunmen holding an Italian hostage for fear that Americans might block the trade, Italian news reports said yesterday.
The decision by operatives of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter Giuliana Sgrena, might have "short-circuited" communications with U.S. forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city's airport, the newspaper La Stampa said.
That would help explain why American troops opened fire on a car whisking the released hostage to a waiting airplane, wounding Miss Sgrena and killing the Italian intelligence operative who had just negotiated her release.

... I have no more facts in this situation than you do; yet you assume that certain things are facts ...

... The history of military lies, falsifications, and cover-ups goes back for pretty much the entire history of our military.

For some reason, you now believe they aren't capable of such things?

Again, how many times do you people have to be lied to before you wise up?

Italy's ransom dilemma
By Irene Peroni
BBC News


A debate is raging in Italy on whether paying ransom money to insurgent groups in Iraq is an acceptable strategy, three days after kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena was released from captivity and her rescuer killed by "friendly fire".


The Italian media have been carrying unconfirmed reports that 6m euros ($7.9m, £4.1m) changed hands to free Ms Sgrena.
The government has not confirmed the claims, but for the first time there has been no official denial either.


When two young Italian aid workers were freed in September 2004, then Foreign Minister Franco Frattini denied that a ransom had been paid.

But MP Giuliano Selva said the denial was "purely official", and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi spoke of a "difficult choice which had to be made".



'Very likely'

The happy ending for several Italian kidnap dramas in Iraq is in stark contrast to the tragic outcome of other similar episodes, including the plight of British-Irish charity worker Margaret Hassan, who had been living and working in Iraq for several decades.

During her captivity, Tony Blair repeated several times that negotiating with the abductors was not an option - in line with the policy of the US, which leads the coalition forces.

The Italian government knows very well that negotiating with the insurgents is against the rules.
But it is equally aware it cannot count on public support if something goes tragically wrong.

Mr Berlusconi took the decision to deploy troops to Iraq at a time when 80% of Italians were against the war.

The public now stands by and large behind Italy's military presence there, mainly because the mission is seen as playing a crucial role in helping the country get back on its feet.

Had Ms Sgrena's captivity ended with her death, and possibly a gruesome video, the opposition, backed by public opinion, would have had a powerful political weapon to call for an immediate withdrawal.

'Hypocritical'

Talking to Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Agriculture Minister Gianni Alemanno said thought it "very likely" that a ransom had been paid, and justified the move.


"It is far preferable to pay a price that is relatively low compared to the value of a human life and to the political price of being blackmailed into pulling out the troops," he said.


But in a comment published by La Repubblica daily newspaper, Giuseppe D'Avanzo called Italy's ransom paying strategy the fruit of a "collective hypocrisy", which, he says, is difficult to "sweep under the carpet".

"We [Italians] are a community which, in times of tragedy, seeks, urges and invokes a bloodless solution, regardless of the material or symbolic price we have to pay," it says.

"These conditions are excellent for those who conduct the blackmail, and politically adventurous for those, like the government, who have to tackle it."


"Maybe, on a day when the country pays due tribute to a generous state official, it is also appropriate for us to feel the responsibility of this collective hypocrisy," he concluded in a reference to secret service agent Nicola Calipari, who died shortly after securing Ms Sgrena's release.

Seems like you are assuming you are more capable than others you disagree with in determining when you are being lied to.

Seems like you are assuming the military almost always lies and did in fact lie this time.

It would be interesting to know if either Cicerone or Cyclo ever served in the military which they claim to know so well.

It would be interesting to knowif either Cicerone or Cyclo ever served in the military which they claim to know so well.

It is well known that ignorance of the subject matter is only rarely an inhibiting factor in the tendencies of some to speak knowingly of things they don't understand at all.