US military investigators have flown to Iraq to study reports that marines shot dead at least 15 civilians, including seven women and three children.
The incident is said to have happened in Haditha on 19 November 2005.
The military's initial claim that the civilians died in a roadside blast was disproved by an earlier investigation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4827424.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article352819.ece
cicerone imposter wrote:There has been some revelation that Bush and this administration were told about potential terrorist acts with airplanes before 9-11.
They must have read "Executive Orders."
Hey, maybe Tom Clancy had something to do with 9/11. Is he Jewish?
cicerone imposter wrote:Mr. Bush asserted that Iraq was not in a civil war, and took issue with Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister and White House ally, who said Sunday that it was. The president also said repeatedly that he was convinced that the United States would succeed in Iraq and that he would continue to deliver that message across the country.
Looks like Bush and Cheney uses the same neocon dictionary for civil war. Believe it or not, they are our leaders.
What is your definition of "civil war," c.i.?
Tico, Do you own a dictionary? I mean a non-neocon one.
You know, the run of the mill kind that anybody can get their hands on.
I think he wants to know what you are using as a definition of civil war C.I. as it does not appear to be the same as that found in "the run of the mill kind that anybody can get their hands on."
It's becoming very clear why the likes of Tico (and McG) continues to misinterpret statements made by other people. His definitions for words have a different meaning. They don't even understand what a "dictionary" is.
Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Mr. Bush asserted that Iraq was not in a civil war, and took issue with Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister and White House ally, who said Sunday that it was. The president also said repeatedly that he was convinced that the United States would succeed in Iraq and that he would continue to deliver that message across the country.
Looks like Bush and Cheney uses the same neocon dictionary for civil war. Believe it or not, they are our leaders.
What is your definition of "civil war," c.i.?
cicerone imposter wrote:It's becoming very clear why the likes of Tico (and McG) continues to misinterpret statements made by other people. His definitions for words have a different meaning. They don't even understand what a "dictionary" is.
What's the misinterpretation here C.I.? It was a simple question that has a simple answer but you fail to even answer the simple questions choosing instead to blabber on and on about nothing as is your typical MO.
The question seems to be if
you understand what a dictionary is because you demonstrate here that you don't.
With one faction based on Sunni Islam willing to kill and maim another faction based on Shi'ism, said second faction as eager to do the same, and both motivated by the desire to have political control (which the Sunnis had and lost, and which the Shi'ites are eager to attain), the current situation easily meets a modest historical definition of civil war.
Wouldn't the leaders of the warring parties have to be involved somehow in something other than trying to stop the violence?
Right now it is an insurgent population playing one side against the other. Guerilla war tactics yes, civil war, no.
You confuse the American puppets with leaders. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'ites are "lead" by anyone who plays government for the United States. I think it hilarious that you attempt to suggest that using guerilla tactics is not consonant with civil war--but i'm not surprised at the desparation with which the rightwingnut crowd wish to deny the obvious.
The Council of Foreign Relation was asking some experts in September last year if there was (then) a civil war in Iraq.
Most thaught so, half a year ago.
Today, it can be taken as an example for schoolbooks for ... what Set said ...
a modest historical definition of civil war.
(At least, in my opinion.)
Setanta wrote: I think it hilarious that you attempt to suggest that using guerilla tactics is not consonant with civil war--but i'm not surprised at the desparation with which the rightwingnut crowd wish to deny the obvious.
I honestly suggest that some read ... e.g. a history book about the Irish Civil War or the Spanish Civil War ...
They are performing true to form - this is the same crowd who invented the term "enemy combatants", to avoid treating POWs (or muslims in the wrong place at the wrong time) humanely. This is the crowd who came up with "rendition", to ship people they wanted tortured to torture-friendly countries. They don't need no steenking dicionary. They just make **** up as they go...
Good point, Walter--the "flying columns" of the Irish civil war were a very effective tactic which we should hope the Iraqis never emulate.
Here's an AP link to this shocking story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_fatal_raid
Quote:Ali, 76, whose left leg was amputated years ago because of diabetes, died after being shot in the stomach and chest. His wife, Khamisa, 66, was shot in the back. Ali's son, Jahid, 43, was hit in the head and chest. Son Walid, 37, was burned to death after a grenade was thrown into his room, and a third son, 28-year-old Rashid, died after he was shot in the head and chest, Rsayef and Hamza said.
Ican, these people are crying out to you from the grave, just so you know. Crying out that there is a very real downside to every aggressive act that you advocate.
Cycloptichorn
Setanta wrote:You confuse the American puppets with leaders. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'ites are "lead" by anyone who plays government for the United States. I think it hilarious that you attempt to suggest that using guerilla tactics is not consonant with civil war--but i'm not surprised at the desparation with which the rightwingnut crowd wish to deny the obvious.
naturally you jump to the wrong conclusion, you can't help yourself. I was referring to people like Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani who called for peace. You can denigrate the elected leaders of Iraq all you wish, just as you may wallow in the mound of horse manure that you shovel all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Setanta wrote: I think it hilarious that you attempt to suggest that using guerilla tactics is not consonant with civil war--but i'm not surprised at the desparation with which the rightwingnut crowd wish to deny the obvious.
I honestly suggest that some read ... e.g. a history book about the Irish Civil War or the Spanish Civil War ...
The point you both seemed to have missed is that it is a third party using the guerilla tactics to incite both sides against each other. Not that the tactics are not used.
Was the sentence just too damn hard to understand?
Yes, the fact that Sistani has occassionally called for peace, while carefully walking a line which does not lead to endorsing the US sponsored government would appeal to the dull-witted as an argument. That, of course, ignores that those who commit atrocities against Sunnis don't work for Sistani. Whether or not you like it, sitting there in your manure pile, civil war rages in Iraq--why don't you skip over there and ask the Iraqis. Oh, that's right, i forgot, you're one of the armchair warrriors . . .
