0
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 06:00 am
Geli writes
Quote:
Is there anything this man will not lie about?

Mcg....paranoid? care to explain?


Bolded sections are mine:

Text of President Bush's speech
Quote:
Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in
sehttp://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/20203.htmcuring and reconstructing that country

Quote:
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0305/doc01.htm

Quote:
The landing came just hours before Bush is to tell the nation that major combat operations in Iraq have ended. The speech will be delivered from the carrier's flight deck at 9 p.m. EDT. (Full story)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/


Now then, Geli, will you admit to the distinguished assembly on this thread that you were more than willing to believe any garbage about the President and repeat it when it is very easily proved to be garbage?

(Edited to add boldface and quote boxes)
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 06:00 am
Well that's true Steve, and also very interesting.

Way back at the beginning of this, the dark chapter of Bush, I thought it likely that some of the contributors on these threads were government plants, so slavishly did they toe the official line and praise the almighty one.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 06:07 am
Of course I am quite convinced that you are an inside staffer of the DNC, McTag. Smile
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 06:29 am
The powerful have always used lies deceipt and fabrications to influence the way people think. The biggest confidence trick of the lot is to get ordinary people to think that the people at the top are playing by the same rules as the rest.

Life is pretty good if you are a prominent figure in the elite. I would suggest that for most people the only compensation for not being in that group is that they imagine such people must be weighed down with the cares of office. But its not like that at all. The ruling elite only allow themselves to be troubled by weighty matters if they want to. Their only real concern is (as ever) maintaining their powerful positions, which they do by playing games with other peoples lives. Getting people to believe in propaganda is just part of that game.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 06:45 am
McTag you said

"Way back at the beginning of this, the dark chapter of Bush, I thought it likely that some of the contributors on these threads were government plants, so slavishly did they toe the official line and praise the almighty one."

I remember you saying that. And I thought no, they couldn't be bothered. But now I think who knows...its a strange world we live in.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 07:09 am
http://www.bartcop.com/wwn-Al-Fubar.gif
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 07:55 am
I know it's an acronym like SNAFU (situation normal, all f*cked up) but I'm ashamed Embarrassed to say I do not know what FUBAR stands for.

(I liked the footnote, which was used here by Rory Bremner among others: "Pres demands Syria withdraws, misses irony")
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:04 am
Quote:

Lebanon's parliament nominated pro-Syrian Omar Karami as prime minister Wednesday, a decision sure to anger the anti-Syrian opposition that pressured him to resign in the first place.

The 70-year-old Mr. Karami resigned on February 28 amid some small protests, that the VOA describes as "mass protests over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri". Opposition lawmakers, who hold about a third of the seats in the 128-member parliament, are not proposing a candidate for prime minister. Instead, they have a list of demands including an international investigation into the Hariri killing, which they blame on Syria. Damascus denies involvement.

Funny right?
:*)
hahahaha

All of the US propaganda about the falafel revolution in Lebanon, and the crap about the middle easterners getting their oh-my-god democracy, didn't work.

After weeks of the US mainstream media drawing the image of "These simple cute middle easterners, we are very happy for them. They are having revolutions and dreaming of democracy, sniff", the real revolution against illegal US interference in the Middle East happened. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALF A MILLION AGAINST U.S. INTERVENTION.

HALF A MILLION said no to little bushy and his aggressive administration.

You know why?
No, not because we like the Syrian government..
No, not because we like the Iranian government..
We have been fighting against the mistakes and corruption in our national governments since decades, for tens of years. We lost many of our beloved people; We had good times and bad times living in our independent developing countries. My parents took a part in trying to kick the Syrian forces out of Lebanon. We fought against the Syrian presence for years.

BUT, these are OUR problems, and we'll solve them one day on our own.

When bush and his imperialist (oops a buzz word here) administration come in a week and hijack OUR fight for freedom and public participation, WE WILL STOP THEM.

I admire every one of the courageous half million people who went in the streets in Beirut to say "No" to the bush administration, and another "NO" to the French dirty double agent good-cop administration.

Most of us in the Middle East know that both bush and the French administration are not interested in our so called "freedom", the bush administration wants to cut the wings of Syria and Iran, after years of planning to do so. Iran, Syria, and Lebanon had one of the only victories in the 20th century against the US-Israel axis of evil when they kicked the occupying Israeli forces out of Lebanon. These attempts of destroying the Iran-Syria-Lebanon Alliance have been going on for decades; they are not new at all.

When the French administration plays humane and nice concerning Iraq, it is because they can't take a part of the cake. But as soon as they reach to a point where they and bushy can share a hunt, they'll change the name of their French fries to freedom fries too. The US administration is just interested in destroying the anti-US axes, and France is interested in Lebanon as the Middle Eastern francophone base.

It seems that the Syrian Government played their game the right way, and it seems that Newsweek and the Economist won't put the real big demonstration that happened on their first page, as they did with what happened in the 70,000 demo.

The re-appointment of Karami is hilarious and shameful defeat for the US illegal foreign policy. Yet, it doesn't mean that the bush administration cannot change this again, we shouldn't forget that the one with bigger tanks, stronger fighters, and WMDs will win the war at the end.

The real question is what happens AFTER winning the illegal wars? What is happening in Iraq after more than a month and a half of the sham early elections? What is happening after two years of the illegal occupation? What will happen when the US-made clerics start clashing with the occupiers?

Did we really have revolutions in the Middle East the last couple of months? Was the "cedar" and "purple finger" revolutions real or not?

I really believe these pop-up revolutions don't and won't work; they are out of context, with no roots and with no future.

The only true revolution will starts by us.
Posted by: Raed Jarrar / 1:38 AM (71) comments
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:07 am
FUBAR = FU beyond all recognition.

McT, if there is a dead-tree version of this paper at a newstand in your country, would you be so kind as to send it to me (complete with Page Three Naked Lady)?

I'll pay the freight, of course...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:07 am
Diiferent meanings, although the one here seems to be clear :wink:

Quote:
FUBAR

FUBAR is an acronym that originated in the military to stand for the words "f***ed up beyond all repair." This is often softened to "fouled up beyond all repair" in reference to hardware. The programming and documentation equivalent is "fouled up beyond all recognition." Sometimes the last word is "recovery" or "reconciliation" or "reason."
In a Virtual Address Extension (VAX), the acronym FUBAR has been adapted to refer to the words "failed UniBus address register." Some programmers apparently managed to sneak this by humorless higher-ups, and the term stuck.

F.U.B.A.R. International is the name of a film company founded in 1989 by several businessmen seeking adventure. They went on location to film natural disasters. Some of the disasters were artificially created, especially avalanches, which could be triggered by explosives. Company executives vacation in Vail, Colorado every year, and have become local celebrities. These days, F.U.B.A.R. International markets clothing and novelty items.

Because foo, an unrelated term, appears phonetically in FUBAR, programmers have taken to using both foo and bar as metasyntactic variables when two such variables are needed.
Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:08 am
McTag: FUBAR = "Fouled up (or F**ked up) beyond all reason. It's an old Army term. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:21 am
I know this is out of place but it slightly ties in with Iraq since it shows that the abuses started before prison abuse scandal in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html?hp&ex=1110690000&en=b0127745ff807788&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: March 12, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 11 - Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public.

One soldier, Pfc. Willie V. Brand, was charged with manslaughter in a closed hearing last month in Texas in connection with one of the deaths, another Army document shows. Private Brand, who acknowledged striking a detainee named Dilawar 37 times, was accused of having maimed and killed him over a five-day period by "destroying his leg muscle tissue with repeated unlawful knee strikes."

The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner.

The reports, obtained by Human Rights Watch, provide the first official account of events that led to the deaths of the detainees, Mullah Habibullah and Mr. Dilawar, at the Bagram Control Point, about 40 miles north of Kabul. The deaths took place nearly a year before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Among those implicated in the killings at Bagram were members of Company A of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, from Fort Bragg, N.C. The battalion went on to Iraq, where some members established the interrogation unit at Abu Ghraib and have been implicated in some abuses there.

The reports, from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, also make clear that the abuse at Bagram went far beyond the two killings. Among those recommended for prosecution is an Army military interrogator from the 519th Battalion who is said to have "placed his penis along the face" of one Afghan detainee and later to have "simulated anally sodomizing him (over his clothes)."

The Army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Mr. Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe."

American military officials in Afghanistan initially said the deaths of Mr. Habibullah, in an isolation cell on Dec. 4, 2002, and Mr. Dilawar, in another such cell six days later, were from natural causes. Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, the American commander of allied forces in Afghanistan at the time, denied then that prisoners had been chained to the ceiling or that conditions at Bagram endangered the lives of prisoners.

But after an investigation by The New York Times, the Army acknowledged that the deaths were homicides. Last fall, Army investigators implicated 28 soldiers and reservists and recommended that they face criminal charges, including negligent homicide.

But so far only Private Brand, a military policeman from the 377th Military Police Company, an Army Reserve unit based in Cincinnati, and Sgt. James P. Boland, from the same unit, have been charged.

The charges against Sergeant Boland for assault and other crimes were announced last summer, and those against Private Brand are spelled out in Army charge sheets from hearings on Jan. 4 and Feb. 3 in Fort Bliss, Tex.

The names of other officers and soldiers liable to criminal charges had not previously been made public.

But among those mentioned in the new reports is Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, the chief military intelligence officer at Bagram. The reports conclude that Captain Wood lied to investigators by saying that shackling prisoners in standing positions was intended to protect interrogators from harm. In fact, the report says, the technique was used to inflict pain and sleep deprivation.

An Army report dated June 1, 2004, about Mr. Habibullah's death identifies Capt. Christopher Beiring of the 377th Military Police Company as having been "culpably inefficient in the performance of his duties, which allowed a number of his soldiers to mistreat detainees, ultimately leading to Habibullah's death, thus constituting negligent homicide."

Captain Wood, who commanded Company A in Afghanistan, later helped to establish the interrogation and debriefing center at Abu Ghraib. Two Defense Department reports have said that a list of interrogation procedures she drew up there, which went beyond those approved by Army commanders, may have contributed to abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Past efforts to contact Captain Wood, Captain Beiring and Sergeant Boland, who were mentioned in passing in earlier reports, and to learn the identity of their lawyers, have been unsuccessful. All have been named in previous Pentagon reports and news accounts about the incidents in Afghanistan; none have commented publicly. The name of Private Brand's lawyer did not appear on the Army charge sheet, and military officials said neither the soldier nor the lawyer would likely comment.

John Sifton, a researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said the documents substantiated the group's own investigations showing that beatings and stress positions were widely used, and that "far from a few isolated cases, abuse at sites in Afghanistan was common in 2002, the rule more than the exception."

"Human Rights Watch has previously documented, through interviews with former detainees, that scores of other detainees were beaten at Bagram and Kandahar bases from early 2002 on," Mr. Sifton said in an e-mail message.

In his own report, made public this week, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III cited the deaths of Mr. Habibullah and Mr. Dilawar as examples of abuse that had occurred during interrogations. Admiral Church said his review of the Army investigation had found that the abuse "was unrelated to approved interrogation techniques."

But Admiral Church also said there were indications in both cases "that medical personnel may have attempted to misrepresent the circumstances of the death, possibly in an effort to disguise detainee abuse," and noted that the Army's surgeon general was reviewing "the specific medical handling" of those cases and one other.

The most specific previous description of the cause of deaths of the two men had come from Pentagon officials, who said last fall that both had suffered "blunt force trauma to the legs," and that investigators had determined that they had been beaten by "multiple soldiers" who, for the most part, had used their knees. Pentagon officials said at the time that it was likely that the beatings had been confined to the legs of the detainees so the injuries would be less visible.

Both men had been chained to the ceiling, one at the waist and one by the wrists, although their feet remained on the ground. Both men had been captured by Afghan forces and turned over to the American military for interrogation.

Mr. Habibullah, a brother of a former Taliban commander, died of a pulmonary embolism apparently caused by blood clots formed in his legs from the beatings, according to the report of June 1, 2004. Mr. Dilawar, who suffered from a heart condition, is described in an Army report dated July 6, 2004, as having died from "blunt force trauma to the lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:34 am
Two thoughts assuming the article is accurate:
1) If the report has 'not yet been made public', now did the NY Times get it?

2) The article is further proof that the U.S. military is not tolerating or ocndoning torture or any other improper treatment of prisoners and any who are doing these things are subject to prosecution and full weight of military law.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:09 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Geli writes
Quote:
Is there anything this man will not lie about?

Mcg....paranoid? care to explain?


Bolded sections are mine:

Text of President Bush's speech
Quote:
Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in
sehttp://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/20203.htmcuring and reconstructing that country

Quote:
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0305/doc01.htm

Quote:
The landing came just hours before Bush is to tell the nation that major combat operations in Iraq have ended. The speech will be delivered from the carrier's flight deck at 9 p.m. EDT. (Full story)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/


Now then, Geli, will you admit to the distinguished assembly on this thread that you were more than willing to believe any garbage about the President and repeat it when it is very easily proved to be garbage?

(Edited to add boldface and quote boxes)


The question remains unanswered......'Is there anything this man will not lie about?'
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:34 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Two thoughts assuming the article is accurate:
1) If the report has 'not yet been made public', now did the NY Times get it?

2) The article is further proof that the U.S. military is not tolerating or ocndoning torture or any other improper treatment of prisoners and any who are doing these things are subject to prosecution and full weight of military law.


I do not believe you read the article with an open mind to come to your thoughts.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:41 am
Revel writes
Quote:
I do not believe you read the article with an open mind to come to your thoughts


Really? I thought I was very open minded. However, I don't believe you read my thoughts with an open mind. Smile
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:44 am
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:46 am
Quote:
OPINION

Editorial: Glass houses
U.S. rights report seen in a mirror


Published 2:15 am PST Saturday, March 12, 2005

As required by Congress, the State Department has issued its annual report on human rights progress, or the lack of it, in countries around the world. Among those faulted are a number of U.S. allies, including the provisional government in Iraq that is partly a U.S. creature. As always, only one country was missing: the United States.
That's not entirely self-serving. This country doesn't rate itself because, as a State Department official put it, "it wouldn't have any credibility." Besides, he said, there's no shortage of critics, including U.S.-based human rights groups. But this year's report comes at an especially awkward time. There is continuing evidence of abuses in U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba - the same kind of abuses for which State's report rightfully faults other governments. But there has not been the full, impartial probe that's needed to give a fuller picture of what happened and who, at whatever level, is responsible.

As long as the United States fails to fully investigate, report and correct its own lapses, it allows abusive regimes abroad to deflect criticism by asking: Who is the United States to judge? Indeed, Russia and China did just that following publication of the State Department report.
It's a fair question, and part of the response should be a thorough attempt to go beyond the focus on abuses by low-level military and intelligence personnel. Too much is already known to accept the facile explanation that the accumulating scandal reflects only isolated "rogue" behavior.

And while there have been several investigations, and more continue, all have been conducted by or for the Pentagon, which is unlikely to point the finger of blame upward. Whatever the full truth may be about where ultimate culpability lies, an air of cover-up hovers over the process.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has rejected a proposal by the Democratic vice chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, to launch a broad probe into the role of U.S. intelligence agencies in the detention, interrogation and "rendition" - transferring to the custody of foreign governments - of terror suspects. This standoff suggests a partisan approach to a vital national security matter.

What's at stake in the investigation of prisoner abuses is the credibility of this country, which is likelier to be restored through an independent, nonpartisan investigation that lays out whatever facts it finds. Perhaps there is no "smoking gun" to be found at the top. But for as long as the process remains an essentially in-house exercise, those annual State Department human rights reports will continue to raise the question: Who is the United States to judge?
Source: The Sacramento Bee
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 10:05 am
Geli rolls eyes after posting that thing about Bush doctoring a headline?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 10:06 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The powerful have always used lies deceipt and fabrications to influence the way people think. The biggest confidence trick of the lot is to get ordinary people to think that the people at the top are playing by the same rules as the rest.

Life is pretty good if you are a prominent figure in the elite. I would suggest that for most people the only compensation for not being in that group is that they imagine such people must be weighed down with the cares of office. But its not like that at all. The ruling elite only allow themselves to be troubled by weighty matters if they want to. Their only real concern is (as ever) maintaining their powerful positions, which they do by playing games with other peoples lives. Getting people to believe in propaganda is just part of that game.


Nice sounding insights, but do you really know the truth of it?
My experience of life is that nearly all people in all situations use lies in various forms to prop up their self-images, the perceptions of others and other more objective goals. Do you really know how "the elite" behave, compared to others?

One fact and difficulty that people of all persuasions face when they are in positions of power or responsibility, large or small, is that, within their domains, their actions will likely be interpreted and broadcast by others with distortions and unjustified presumptions of knowledge of intent by people doing this in pursuit of their own motives, goals and lies. For example, McTag often presumes to know the inner motives and intent of an American President he has never met, and of whose actions he is not particularly well informed.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 12:34:23