Quote:Can you name a time, place and which last US President has went into a sovereign nation under the cover of darkness without letting the leaders of the nation know he was coming?
Hey MM, do you think he did that every time he went to Russia?
"He, he, I going to sneak in there without telling Putin, he, he."
xingu wrote:Quote:Can you name a time, place and which last US President has went into a sovereign nation under the cover of darkness without letting the leaders of the nation know he was coming?
Hey MM, do you think he did that every time he went to Russia?
"He, he, I going to sneak in there without telling Putin, he, he."
What a silly thing to discuss. It's like listening in on a discussion amongst 7 year olds.
McGentrix wrote:xingu wrote:Quote:Can you name a time, place and which last US President has went into a sovereign nation under the cover of darkness without letting the leaders of the nation know he was coming?
Hey MM, do you think he did that every time he went to Russia?
"He, he, I going to sneak in there without telling Putin, he, he."
What a silly thing to discuss. It's like listening in on a discussion amongst 7 year olds.
Considering you have rarely ever brought anything to any discussion besides some asinine comment, I won't loose too much sleep over your latest comment.
Signs of progress
Quote:'Beginning of end' for al-Qaida in Iraq
Iraq's national security adviser today said an intelligence haul from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's final hideout would mark "the beginning of the end" for al-Qaida in the country.
Mouwafak al-Rubaie said documents and computer drives - including a thumb-sized device found on the terror leader's body - would give Iraqi security forces enough information to dismantle the organisation.
The claim came as the Pentagon announced that US combat deaths in Iraq since the invasion of the country in 2003 had reached 2,500.
Speaking at a news conference today, Mr Rubaie said large numbers of US-led troops would leave by the end of this year, with the "majority" going by the end of 2007. "Maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid 2008," he added.
He said the intelligence haul had followed the US air strike on a house north of Baghdad in which Zarqawi was killed, and in further raids on insurgent locations.
"We believe this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," Mr Rubaie said. He said the documents showed the organisation was in "pretty bad shape" politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.
"Now we have the upper hand," he added. "We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days."
Mr Rubaie said a thumbdrive - a pocket-sized device for storing computer files - was found along with a laptop and other documents in the debris of the house destroyed in the air strike.
When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, he said: "There is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his [Zarqawi's] pocket.
He said documents found after the air strike revealed al-Qaida wanted to trigger a war between the US and Iran. A document released to the press purported to show plans to stir up tensions between the countries in the hope of triggering armed conflict.
The document - whose authenticity could not be independently verified - said: "In general, and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shia in general."
Analysts said the language differed from the vocabulary normally used in al-Qaida statements posted on the internet. It does not, for example, refer to the US as "crusaders" or use the term "rejectionists" when referring to Shias.
The document has also aroused scepticism because it appeared precisely tailored to suggest situations the US military and Iraqi government say they are hoping for.
"The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq," the document said.
"Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces."
Mr Rubaie said insurgents had not realised how powerful Iraqi security forces had become, adding that the government "is on the attack now" and aimed to "destroy al-Qaida and to finish this terrorist organisation in Iraq".
He said the documents showed "al-Qaida is using everyone as a pawn to play in this war game, in this game of killing Iraqi people and destroying this country". They revealed "how their central strategy is to divide and destroy", he added. Meanwhile, government forces today fanned out across Baghdad for a second successive day, setting up checkpoints in a security crackdown that also includes a ban on carrying private weapons and a new curfew.
The operation - called Forward Together - involves 75,000 Iraqi army and police personnel, backed by US troops.
Gunmen killed one engineer and kidnapped another and a detergent worker was shot dead as he headed to work in western Baghdad, police said, but no major violence was reported in the capital.
Elsewhere, gunmen stormed a Sunni mosque near Tikrit, killing four people and wounding 15, including a fundamentalist Sunni cleric who had spoken out against the killing of Iraqis in the insurgency.
Pretty soon maybe we won't have an excuse not to leave.
Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military
Leader Also Backs Talks With Resistance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402432_pf.html "Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: "That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I," the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, "that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe."
blueflame, That is just too ironic for words to describe! Iraqi's now have a license to kill Americans!
cicerone, Bushie has signed off on this and this gives legitimacy to the insurgency. We're acknowledging that killing Americans was a patriotic action against an occupying force in the eyes of insurgents.
emphasis added by ican
revel wrote:Signs of progress
Quote:'Beginning of end' for al-Qaida in Iraq
Iraq's national security adviser today said an intelligence haul from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's final hideout would mark "the beginning of the end" for al-Qaida in the country.
Mouwafak al-Rubaie said documents and computer drives - including a thumb-sized device found on the terror leader's body - would give Iraqi security forces enough information to dismantle the organisation.
...
He said documents found after the air strike revealed al-Qaida wanted to trigger a war between the US and Iran. A document released to the press purported to show plans to stir up tensions between the countries in the hope of triggering armed conflict.
...
He said the documents showed "al-Qaida is using everyone as a pawn to play in this war game, in this game of killing Iraqi people and destroying this country". They revealed "how their central strategy is to divide and destroy", he added.
...
Pretty soon maybe we won't have an excuse not to leave.
Pretty soon maybe more of us will recognize that we are in a real war that we must win to protect the lives of civilians throughout the world from being murdered by the
itm.
Joe Nation wrote:Let's see... Iraq is a sovereign nation now, got a government and everything. Right?
So, for five hundred A2K points, name another sovereign nation that the US President can fly into unannounced, under cover of darkness, for a surprise meeting with that nation's leader.
Take your time.
Joe(Knock, knock. Who is it?)Nation
Joe("Nobody here but us chickens")Nation, name another nation whose government we are aiding prevent
itm from murdering their civilians.
If you can name one (Bosnia?), I bet the government of that nation has a standing invitation to the president of the USA to come in any time he thinks he can help.
blueflame1 wrote:Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military
Leader Also Backs Talks With Resistance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402432_pf.html "Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: "That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I," the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, "that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe."
"Now the rest of the story."
emphasis added by ican
Quote:By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 15, 2006; A01
BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.
Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.
Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."
...
"The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation, and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty, but not a sort of unconditional amnesty," Kadhimi said in a telephone interview. "We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will be pardoned."
The reconciliation effort pioneered by South Africa after the collapse of apartheid might be a model, Kadhimi said. "One way was to admit what you have done and you will be forgiven, and maybe parts of this can be considered. Because once we see people coming forward to admit what they have done, and it's within the areas the government has the right to pardon, it could happen."
Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: "That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I," the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, "that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe."
Asked about pardons for those who had attacked Iraqi forces, he said: "This needs to be carefully studied or designed so maybe the family of those individuals killed have a right to make a claim at the court, because that is a public right. Or maybe the government can compensate them."
U.S. diplomatic officials have said previously that they were encouraging dialogue among Iraq's many rival factions, but none has confirmed U.S. backing for an amnesty offer.
Cycloptichorn wrote:No, I'm accusing him of supporting torture and murder through a third-party, based upon his statements.
While I am quite sure a professional would be more proficient at torture than an amateur, it doesn't make morally justified in any way, and therefore to say that you are 'glad' that certain people are good at torture is as morally reprehensible as committing torturous acts oneself. It is simply easier to justify when it isn't oneself who is called upon to do the act, but that doesn't make it right at all.
Problem with that whole line of argument is the fact that you are shadow boxing. I never claimed to be better than the hypothetical torturer
just weaker. Your idealism is spilling onto your predictions of other's behavior. I suspect I'd have an even harder time dealing with the guilt of having ordered such an action, than if I had done it myself... knowing full well that someone else then, too, would have to live with the decision. I can only extrapolate from infinitely less "dirty" jobs, like firing good people who really need the work, and can tell you that I generally prefer to pull those triggers myself, to alleviate the guilt of the potential middle-man. This changes my knowledge-base of what I'm capable of, not at all.
You still have failed to grasp the implications of your own "kill one child to save a village", hypothetical. The hypothetical doesn't allow for alternate solutions; so your options are kill the child or let the entire village (including said child) die. While implementation may prove difficult for us civilized human beings
the correct answer is unavoidable. Each and every person incapable of answering appropriately merely proves his or herself a hopeless idealist. There are worse things, much worse, a person could be. But don't confuse yourself with someone who faces the harsh realities of reality head on
because you clearly do not.
Did you intend to post this twice?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2095699#2095699
I saw it the first time. I didn't respond because I don't know what to say; I would rather be considered a 'hopeless idealist' than someone who approves of torture and murder based on a utilitarian view of saving lives. You've completely missed the point of the 'kill a child to save a village' example, which is a classic tool used for showing that the ends do not in fact justify the means; yet you have interpreted it in the completely opposite fashion, saying that the death of some innocents is neccessary in the pursuit of a good goal.
This is the attitude displayed by many tyrants and purveyors of human misery throughout history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ends_justify_the_means
Quote:The ends justify the means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The ends justify the means" is a phrase encompassing two beliefs:
Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes.
Actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.
Conversely, people who believe that the consequences of an immoral action are greater than those of the expected outcome will often say that the ends do not justify the means.
The premise is that Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes
The implication is that good ends justify questionable means. Though such a view is implicit in consequentialist moral theories such as utilitarianism, and almost all persons would be willing to commit small moral transgressions in the service of a greater good, the phrase is most often used to denote the much stronger view that any action in the service of an important enough cause is justified. This view is found in many radical political ideologies, and the atrocities committed by some Jacobins, communists, fascists, Takfiris and others are often attributed to a form of moral blindness in which a powerful ultimate goal becomes an excuse to ignore ordinary moral considerations.
In some applications at least, this argument is related to the question of serving the greater good in which the means is detrimental to an individual or a small (i.e., minority) group while appearing to benefit the majority or the vaguely defined society. For example, faced with a bomb hidden in a metropolitan area, it could be considered morally justifiable to torture the person who knows where it is (assuming that under torture he would truthfully reveal information which saved the citizens). Given the belief that torture is wrong, one could consider it moral to commit that wrong in the interests of saving thousands of lives. As is often, but certainly not always, the case with this dilemma, this is a Lesser of two evils principle situation.
Utilitarian use of the ends justify the means must consider the ends to include all outcomes from the means, not just the goal outcomes; in the above dilemma, assuming the existence of perfect intelligence on this question, the ends would include one or more definitely tortured suspects, the possible saving of a thousand civilian lives, the likely future resentment of the various suspects, their families, and the groups that identify with them, the possible appreciation of the saved civilians, their families and groups, the psychological effects on the immediate torturers, their superiors and supporters, the erosion of respect for human rights and dignity among all those who try to justify or even know of this use of torture, plus other un-anticipated side-effects that could last as long as the memory of this event.
Few people will use the ends justify the means to describe their own views; instead, the phrase is often used to cast suspicion on the actions or motivations of others.
Some free-market libertarians, following Robert Nozick, characterize their views using the reversed slogan the means justify the ends.
This phrase the ends justify the means is closely associated with Machiavelli and The Prince, credited with helping to advance the colonial and modern forms of imperialism. Though it should be noted, Machiavelli never wrote the phrase. A more literal translation is "One must consider the final result." (See List of famous misquotations) Also, most experts agree that Machiavelli wasn't necessarily advocating such an outlook in The Prince.
Most religions do not endorse the utilitarian philosophy. For example, the golden rule, held by Jesus, and the Hindu doctrine of karma would both discourage actions based on a purely utilitarian justification. The rationale behind this is the doctrine that all will come to light (all will be known, discovered) in the end and that good begets good, and also the doctrine stating that this life on earth is not the primary life.
The concept that murder of innocents is a neccessary thing in order to preserve order, that torture is neccessary in order to preserve order, is a sure way to no longer have order at all. It is the same justification presented by every enemy of America; that the things they do are neccessary in the name of 'state security.' Well, I don't f*cking buy it. That's not what America is about, torturing and murdering.
Our greatest tool for fighting terror isn't our military force, but our culture. American culture has proven
amazingly effective in transforming thoughts and opinions all over the world, societies, peoples. By bending the rules which supposedly make us special - by becoming more like those countries who we have disdained over the years - we throw away our greatest tool for changing the world. And it is a nameless and shapeless fear we toss it away for, one which realistically will never end (terrorism will never end, no matter what we do, like the war on drugs really). In the long run, we are doing far, far more damage to our cause by engaging in murder and torture than we are helping our cause by finding immediate intel (which is extremely suspect anyways).
I don't really care if you call me an ideologue, or say that I don't understand how things work in the real world. It doesn't mean anything that you say that, because I could say the same about you, and it wouldn't change anything. All that matters to me is that some people excuse the US using torture, and some don't, and those who excuse it are
wrong for doing so, and destructive to our ultimate goal of Democratizing the world, through their short-sightedness and fear.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, Excellent post; I agree with you 100 percent. Killing innocents is never justified.
Top 11 Things That Anti-War Protesters Would Have Said At the Normandy Invasion on D-Day (Had There Been Anti-War Protesters At Normandy)
11. No blood for French Wine!
10. It's been two and a half years since Pearl Harbor and they still haven't brought Admiral Nagumo to justice.
9. In 62 years, the date will be 6/6/6. A coincidence? I think not.
8. All this death and destruction is because the neo-cons are in the pocket of Israel.
7. The soldiers are still on the beach, this invasion is a quagmire.
6. Sure the holocaust is evil, but so was slavery.
5. We are attacked by Japan and then attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!
4. Why bring democracy to Europe by force and not to Korea or Vietnam? I blame racism.
3. This war doesn't attack the root causes of Nazism.
2. I support the troops, but invading Germany does not guarantee that in 56 years we won't have a President who's worse than Hitler.
1. I don't see Roosevelt or Churchill storming the beaches -- they're Chicken Hawks!
June 16, 2006
Congress Erupts in Partisan Fight Over War in Iraq
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE
WASHINGTON, June 15 ?- The House and the Senate engaged in angry, intensely partisan debate on Thursday over the war in Iraq, as Republicans sought to rally support for the Bush administration's policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war.
It was one of the sharpest legislative clashes yet over the three-year-old conflict, and it came after three days in which President Bush and his aides had sought to portray Iraq as moving gradually toward a stable, functioning democracy, and to portray Democrats as lacking the will to see the conflict through to victory.
In the House, lawmakers moved toward a vote on a Republican resolution promising to "complete the mission" in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any "arbitrary date for withdrawal." In the Senate, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to shelve an amendment calling on the United States to withdraw most troops by the end of this year, although Democrats vowed to revisit the debate next week.
Both actions were carefully engineered by the Republicans in charge, and for the moment put both chambers on a path to rejecting Congressional timetables for withdrawal .
House Republicans asserted that their resolution was essential to assure American troops and the world that the United States was behind the war in Iraq and the broader struggle against terrorism.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the formal debate on a war that, the government announced Thursday, had claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops. "It is a battle we must endure and one in which we can and will be victorious," he said of the fight in Iraq and beyond. "The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores."
He said the American troops in Iraq knew their cause was noble. "It is time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we know it, too, that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of it." Democrats, divided over the wisdom of the war but more or less united in condemning Mr. Bush's management of it, countered that the Republican resolution was a political ploy, "a press release for staying the course in Iraq," as Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, put it.
At the start of the debate, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, asked for a moment of silence to recognize the 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq. Many lawmakers talked about visiting the troops, in Iraq and in hospitals, and about the toll in death and suffering.
Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran whose call for a speedy withdrawal of troops transformed the debate last year, rose repeatedly to tell Republicans, "Rhetoric does not solve the problem." He added: "We need a plan. It's not enough to say stay the course."
Referring to the sectarian violence cleaving Iraq, Mr. Murtha said, "They're fighting each other, and our troops are caught in between." The House, which debated the resolution for more than 11 hours on Thursday, is scheduled to vote on it on Friday. The Senate debate will continue into next week.
Five months before the November elections, partisan passions ran high. Republicans argued repeatedly that their Democratic opponents lacked the toughness to confront terrorism, returning to themes that they used successfully in 2004. "Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win," said Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia. "The American people need to know precisely who they are." He said: "It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda, or is it America?"
Democrats countered, at times with barely controlled fury. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, described the war "as a grotesque mistake." She and others said Congressional Republicans were simply trying to "trap" Democrats, not engage them in a true debate. The resolution Republicans offered could not be amended, but only voted up or down.
Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry's name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as "cutting and running."
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, one of many Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Kerry's amendment, rose to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Reid moved to remove the amendment from consideration, and his motion was approved by a vote of 93 to 6. Senate Democrats promised to return next week with additional amendments on an exit strategy for American troops.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, portrayed the vote to table the amendment as a declaration of support for the fledgling Iraqi government. "This sends a good message that the United States government opposes, overwhelmingly, a cut-and-run strategy."
But Democrats said the vote was just a political game. "It's just kind of a jump-ball, stick-it-to-them kind of thing," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat.
Democrats have been divided over a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. Last November, they rallied around legislation, which passed in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, that declared 2006 should be a "year of significant transition" in Iraq. In both chambers, Democrats have been trying to arrive at language that goes beyond that, but stops short of a firm deadline.
In a highly unusual attempt to influence the debate, the Pentagon sent a 74-page "prep book" to several members of Congress, outlining what it called "rapid response" talking points to rebut criticism of Mr. Bush's handling of the war and prewar intelligence. The Pentagon sent the book to Democratic leaders on Wednesday night, apparently in error, then sent an e-mail message two hours later asking to recall it.
The resolution under debate in the House declares that the United States and its allies are "engaged in a global war on terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world." It also declares that "the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology."
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, asserted that "the war in Afghanistan was the response to the terrorist attacks" ?- not the war in Iraq.
The combination of the popular and unpopular in this resolution ?- support for the troops, combined with an endorsement of the administration's policy and a rejection of any withdrawal deadline ?- left many Democrats in a bind as they headed toward Friday's vote. But some Democrats argued that it left Republicans in a bind, too, committed to an open-ended presence in Iraq.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting for this article.
SierraSong wrote:Top 11 Things That Anti-War Protesters Would Have Said At the Normandy Invasion on D-Day (Had There Been Anti-War Protesters At Normandy)
11. No blood for French Wine!
10. It's been two and a half years since Pearl Harbor and they still haven't brought Admiral Nagumo to justice.
9. In 62 years, the date will be 6/6/6. A coincidence? I think not.
8. All this death and destruction is because the neo-cons are in the pocket of Israel.
7. The soldiers are still on the beach, this invasion is a quagmire.
6. Sure the holocaust is evil, but so was slavery.
5. We are attacked by Japan and then attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!
4. Why bring democracy to Europe by force and not to Korea or Vietnam? I blame racism.
3. This war doesn't attack the root causes of Nazism.
2. I support the troops, but invading Germany does not guarantee that in 56 years we won't have a President who's worse than Hitler.
1. I don't see Roosevelt or Churchill storming the beaches -- they're Chicken Hawks!
Something conservatives still can't seem to grasp; WW II is not the same as Iraq and Bush is not a Roosevelt even if he has wet dreams of being one or a Truman.
Meanwhile the violence marches on
Quote:Friday, June 16, 2006
At least 27 killed in Iraq violence
BAGHDAD: At least 27 people were killed and several others injured, as violence continued across Iraq on Thursday.
Three successive roadside bombs targeting Iraqi army patrols killed five soldiers and injured six others in the northern town of Tal Afar on Thursday, police said. Four soldiers were killed when the first roadside bomb hit their vehicle. A second bomb went off as soldiers on foot rushed to the site. The third bomb hit an Iraqi army vehicle nearby. Gunmen stormed a Sunni mosque near Tikrit, killing four people and wounding 15, police said.
At least 18 more people were killed in other violence-related incidents across the country. In Baquba, gunmen killed 10 people, including two brothers, police said. Police found seven bullet-riddled bodies across Baghdad. A policeman was also shot dead by armed men.
Also, US and Iraqi forces detained a senior Shia official after raiding his home in Kerbala early on Thursday, Iraqi officials said. The US military said it could not confirm the reported arrest of Akeel al-Zubaidi, head of the provincial council in Kerbala.
The Iraqi group "Imam Ali Brigade" said it abducted Turkish "technical expert" Hasan Eskinutlu and his translator north of Baghdad and demanded the withdrawal of Ankara's ambassador from Iraq, Al-Jazeera television reported on Thursday, showing footage of the alleged hostage. The group gave Ankara a week to meet its demands, the channel said.
The Pentagon said on Thursday the number of US military deaths in Iraq had reached 2,500. In addition, the Pentagon said 18,490 troops have been wounded in the war. Meanwhile, 450 detainees were released as part of a reconciliation bid ordered by Prime Minister Maliki. Also, the US military released pictures of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, alias Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Mohajer, successor of slain Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. agencies
source
And women are being raped
Quote:IRAQ: Local NGO warns of rising cases of sexual abuse
14 Jun 2006 12:18:07 GMT
Source: IRIN
BAGHDAD, 14 June (IRIN) - There has been a massive increase in reported cases of sexual abuse in Iraq since the days of Saddam Hussein's regime, according to the Women's Rights Association (WRA), a local NGO.
The WRA recently conducted an in-depth study into the sexual abuse of women after receiving continued allegations of such maltreatment since December 2005. While fewer than five cases were reported per year in the Hussein's era, nearly 60 women have been raped in Baghdad since February, while another 80 were abused in other ways, according to the NGO.
"We've observed an increase in the number of women being sexually abused and raped in the past four months, especially in the capital," said Mayada Zuhair, spokeswoman for the WRA, adding that this is causing panic among women who have to walk alone.
Activists say the main reasons for the increase is the marginalisation of the population, lack of security and the negative psychological effects associated with war. According to Zuhair, women of all ages face abuse, while there are also cases of men and boys being raped by unidentified gangs. "Given the current insecurity, these incidents could increase if the government doesn't take urgent measures to stop these gangs," she said.
The Ministry of Interior has issued notices warning women not to go out alone. "This is a Muslim county and any attack on a woman's modesty is also an attack on our religious beliefs," said senior ministry official Salah Ali. "These gangs will pay for the pain they've caused." Ali added that several rape cases were currently being investigated and urged women to report any abuse.
In mosques, both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders have used their weekly sermons to spread awareness of this issue and have advised their largely male congregations to keep women safe at home rather than allowing them go out to work.
"These incidents of abuse just prove what we have been saying for so long," said Sheikh Salah Muzidin, an imam at a central mosque in Baghdad. "That it is the Islamic duty of women to stay in their homes, looking after their children and husbands rather than searching for work - especially with the current lack of security in the country."
Yes, things are definitely getting better in Iraq.