0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 11:38 am
al-Zarqawi letter to al-Zawahiri, intercepted by US forces in January 2003:
Quote:
With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening [and if it continues] we will all have to pack our bags and break camp for another land.


al-Zawahiri letter to al-Zarqawi, intercepted by US forces July 2005:
Quote:
We are in a battle. More than half this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.
...
Is the opening of another front [kill all the Shi'a in Iraq] now--in addition to the front against the Americans and the government--a wise decision? Or does this conflict with the Shi'a lift the burden from the Americans by diverting the mujajhedeen to the Shi'a, while the Americans continue to control matters from afar?
...
As for the battles that are now going on in the far flung regions of the Islamic world--such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia--they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world.
...
We must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain [this Muslim state]. And it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq. Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam--and how they left their agents--is noteworthy.
...
The second stage: establish an Islamic authority or emirate. Then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphat over as much terrirotry as you can, to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas.
...
The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
...
The fourth stage: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 12:06 pm
revel, the possibility that the beheadings were a revenge for the rape/murders has been discounted in some media. It seems that no one knew US soldiers were involved, and in fact the deeds had been attributed to insurgents, until it was disclosed in June, after the attrocities against US soldiers.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 04:53 am
Good news, here. And about time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1818406,00.html

The Bush administration was facing the collapse of its detention regime in the war on terror yesterday after the Pentagon said for the first time that prisoners at Guantánamo and elsewhere in US military custody around the world would be granted the protections of the Geneva convention.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 06:20 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
snood wrote:
"...and then 9/11 happened, and all the rules changed..."

Yes, our country switched from a democracy to a kingdom.
Tiss tiss. 9/11 happened and the United States woke up and realized what the rest of the world already knew about terrorism...
The difference is the United States has the wherewithal to do something about it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:04 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
snood wrote:
"...and then 9/11 happened, and all the rules changed..."

Yes, our country switched from a democracy to a kingdom.
Tiss tiss. 9/11 happened and the United States woke up and realized what the rest of the world already knew about terrorism...
The difference is the United States has the wherewithal to do something about it.


Quote:
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

Benjamin Franklin


This quote has been thrown around a lot these last few years because never before has it been so apt.

The republicans in America today would have been the royalist yesterday.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:05 am
Quote:
Merchants of death in Iraq
By Dahr Jamail and Ali Fadhil

FALLUJAH - It could be called perhaps just another raid. Early in the morning on Sunday, June 18, US military helicopters landed near the home of Sinan Abdul-Ilah al-Mashadani in the al-Jughaifi district of Fallujah.

Within two minutes the doors of his home were blasted open and "a strange looking group of people" stormed inside, according to Said Walid Ahmed, a 40-year-old teacher who lives in the neighborhood.

"This force is not totally unknown to us here in Fallujah," Ahmed, who witnessed the incident from a nearby house told Inter Press Service (IPS). "They are a special force of Americans that assassinates more people than it arrests."

Ahmed described the force from the helicopters as "big men with

long hair and beards, some wearing earrings, and others with little black caps on the top of their heads at the back".

Sinan Abdul-Ilah al-Mashadani, who was a student at al-Mustansiriya University and the sole supporter of his mother and younger brother and sister, was killed in the raid, apparently by a special operations team supported by the US military, according to witnesses.

"Their [special forces troops'] dogs were biting everybody, including children and women in the neighborhood," Um Amar, a 63-year-old woman who lives three houses away from Sinan told IPS. "They killed the poor boy in cold blood and arrested his little brother." She burst into tears and began to pray.

Another neighbor, Jassim al-Jumaily, said Sinan's father Najim Abdul-Ilah al-Mashhadani was killed during Operation Phantom Fury in November 2004 when his house was bombed by US warplanes.

The US military assault on Fallujah then destroyed most of the city and killed between 4,000 and 6,000 people, according to Monitoring Net of Human Rights in Iraq (MHRI), an Iraqi non-governmental organization based in Fallujah.

Sinan took responsibility for his family after the death of his father, Jumaily said. "He had to work and study at the same time. We did not notice any abnormality in his behavior at all. When the helicopters came, we never thought Sinan would be the target, because we realize they only come after big personalities from al-Qaeda or leaders in the Iraqi resistance."

Jumaily said the long-haired bearded men from the special force "blasted the doors of Sinan's house open as if they were attacking an army headquarters".

People in the neighborhood said they heard some of what was going on. "The screaming of Sinan's mother and sisters was frightening," Jumaily said. "All we could do was pray for their safety, trying to comfort each other that the worst possibility was that they would arrest Sinan."

After the men had been inside the house for three hours, Jumaily and other witnesses said they heard Sinan's mother wailing, and saw the men leave with Amin, her 13-year-old son who was being beaten by the men and bitten by their dogs as he was taken away.

Many of the neighbors then went to Sinan's home, and found his body, covered with sheets and mattresses. There was a pool of blood on the floor, some was splattered on the walls.

"Three days after his detention, Amin was released," said Muhamad al-Deraji, director of MHRI. "The left hand of this orphaned child was bitten three times, and is now scarred and deformed."

The US forces also raided other homes in the area, Deraji said. "One of the dogs attacked a woman who tried to protect her baby. The dog bit the mother's hand."

Deraji said the forces looted money and jewelry from several of the houses they raided.

IPS sent an email to Major Douglas Powell at the Combined Press Information Center for the Multi-National Force in Iraq to request comment on the incident. There was no reply.

Later, IPS phoned the US military spokesperson in Baghdad to request information on the incident. The spokesman, who declined to give his name, said, "We have no information confirming this event ever took place."

(Inter Press Service)

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:11 am
revel wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
snood wrote:
"...and then 9/11 happened, and all the rules changed..."

Yes, our country switched from a democracy to a kingdom.
Tiss tiss. 9/11 happened and the United States woke up and realized what the rest of the world already knew about terrorism...
The difference is the United States has the wherewithal to do something about it.


Quote:
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

Benjamin Franklin


This quote has been thrown around a lot these last few years because never before has it been so apt.

The republicans in America today would have been the royalist yesterday.
Clever quote... but it was never very accurate. That's why cars, houses and businesses require keys... Cops, Investment Advisors and Insurance people have jobs... and societies have rules of law.

I prefer the Edmund Burke quote in my sig-line. :wink:
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:31 am
Don't know if this has been posted already as I don't have the time to look at all previous posts. This survey was done in March 2006 in Iraq by the International Republican Institute. Never heard of them.

http://www.iri.org/pdfs/04-27-06%20Iraq%20poll%20presentation.ppt
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:38 am
OCB
Quote:
Clever quote... but it was never very accurate. That's why cars, houses and businesses require keys... Cops, Investment Advisors and Insurance people have jobs... and societies have rules of law.

I prefer the Edmund Burke quote in my sig-line. Wink



What??
Wait, I get it .... that was one of those non sequitur things right?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:51 am
No. All security comes at liberty's expense.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:16 am
A look at Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
A look at Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
McClatchy Newspapers
7/11/06

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the Pentagon embraced Tuesday as official policy after years of refusing to be bound by it in the war on terrorism, is the basic international legal standard for the treatment of prisoners of war.

The United States agreed to honor the Geneva Conventions as binding law in 1955. Common Article 3 says prisoners of war "shall in all cases be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." The article specifically prohibits:

"(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

``(b) taking of hostages;

``(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

``(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions" without legal protections.''
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:17 am
Someone should explain the Geneva conventions to the Islamic terrorists that choose not to abide by them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:19 am
McGentrix wrote:
Someone should explain the Geneva conventions to the Islamic terrorists that choose not to abide by them.


Someone should explain to McG that if he is robbed at gunpoint it doesn't give him the moral or the legal authority to go out and rob others at gunpoint.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:24 am
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Someone should explain the Geneva conventions to the Islamic terrorists that choose not to abide by them.


Someone should explain to McG that if he is robbed at gunpoint it doesn't give him the moral or the legal authority to go out and rob others at gunpoint.


Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes

If I am robbed, those robbing should not expect me to treat them with kid-gloves. They should expect a good ass-whoopin' if I catch them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:47 am
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Someone should explain the Geneva conventions to the Islamic terrorists that choose not to abide by them.


Someone should explain to McG that if he is robbed at gunpoint it doesn't give him the moral or the legal authority to go out and rob others at gunpoint.


Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes

If I am robbed, those robbing should not expect me to treat them with kid-gloves. They should expect a good ass-whoopin' if I catch them.


Yeah, you get to break the law because they did. My point is made.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:49 am
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Someone should explain the Geneva conventions to the Islamic terrorists that choose not to abide by them.


Someone should explain to McG that if he is robbed at gunpoint it doesn't give him the moral or the legal authority to go out and rob others at gunpoint.


Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes

If I am robbed, those robbing should not expect me to treat them with kid-gloves. They should expect a good ass-whoopin' if I catch them.


Yeah, you get to break the law because they did. My point is made.


But you are allowed to use the required force,including deadly force,to protect yourself.
So,should we give no quarter and kill every terrorist?
Or,should we arrest them and put them on trial?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:57 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No. All security comes at liberty's expense.


Let me see if I understand ... I give up all my freedom and you provide me with security.
First of all what need have I of security in a cage... after I abandon all freedoms ... what is left?
Second, how am I to deal with the next 'protector' I run into with a bigger head of cheese?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:07 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No. All security comes at liberty's expense.


Let me see if I understand ... I give up all my freedom and you provide me with security.
First of all what need have I of security in a cage... after I abandon all freedoms ... what is left?
Second, how am I to deal with the next 'protector' I run into with a bigger head of cheese?


You have obvioulsy missed the point, whether purposefully or not.

Do you lock your doors at night? Do you take your keys out of your car? Do you have a bank account?

You need those protections because others do not respect your freedoms. You use safegaurds to keep your possessions and yourself safe.

The all or none proposition you are expressing is what I would expect from a 5 year old. You are not a 5 year old are you?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:04 am
McGentrix wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No. All security comes at liberty's expense.


Let me see if I understand ... I give up all my freedom and you provide me with security.
First of all what need have I of security in a cage... after I abandon all freedoms ... what is left?
Second, how am I to deal with the next 'protector' I run into with a bigger head of cheese?


You have obvioulsy missed the point, whether purposefully or not.

Do you lock your doors at night? Do you take your keys out of your car? Do you have a bank account?

You need those protections because others do not respect your freedoms. You use safegaurds to keep your possessions and yourself safe.

The all or none proposition you are expressing is what I would expect from a 5 year old. You are not a 5 year old are you?


Your 'spin' is as usual, based on providing a basis for an arguement that fails the test of logic. The doors, keys, bank account options are based on the understanding that my personal freedoms remain just that, personal freedoms aka ... liberties. These freedoms are granted to each member of a society by all the members of said society to the benefaction of all.
The fewer liberties a society have, the closer to anarchy they slide.
All or none? Are you sure that your criteria for which freedoms to give up and which to keep is a choice you want somone else to make.
Once started where will the erosion stop?
In short, I retain the right to leave my car unlocked with the key in the ignition and my bank book on the seat. I also support the right to be stupid.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:07 am
I will not allow your stupidity to endanger me or my family. That's why we have laws and why we have security.
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 0.06 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 11:51:29