THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

"According to the investigative writer Max Fuller (National Review Online), the key CIA manager of the interior ministry death squads "cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the US military mission in El Salvador". Professor Grandin names another central America veteran whose job now is to "train a ruthless counter-insurgent force made up of ex-Ba'athist thugs". Another, says Fuller, is well-known for his "production of death lists". A secret militia run by the Americans is the Facilities Protection Service, which has been responsible for bombings. "The British and US Special Forces," concludes Fuller, "in conjunction with the [US-created] intelligence services at the Iraqi defence ministry, are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias."

On 16 March, Reuters reported the arrest of an American "security contractor", who was found with weapons and explosives in his car. Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives; British forces bulldozed the Basra prison to rescue them. The Boston Globe recently reported: "The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials."

Cont; http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133564

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2031378#2031378

Well worth reading the translation of the document that fell into US CentCom's hands.

However, given that propaganda and playing the media, both in Iraq and the US, are very high goals by all involved, several questions have to arise in anyone's minds.

0 Replies

Bush's fight on terrorism:

Q: Is the data-mining program legal?
A: Government agencies traditionally have been required to obtain a warrant before monitoring Americans' conversations or call logs. The Bush administration asserts the authority to do so without a warrant. The NSA programs could be subject to court cases and congressional scrutiny.

Why hasn't anybody in congress challenged Bush's unauthorized, illegal, wiretaps that obviously impinges our our 4th Amendment Rights?

0 Replies

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday May 10, 2006

"The Senate last week approved $109 billion in additional spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $1.5 billion in added Iraq reconstruction money," the Wall Street Journal begins in a page four story Wednesday. "The administration has spent $20.9 billion to reconstruct Iraq's infrastructure and modernize its oil industry, but the effort hasn't restored the country's electricity output, water supply or sewage capabilities to prewar levels."

Writes the Journal: "A behind-the-scenes battle among legislators has made a crucial distinction between the new reconstruction money and that already spent: The new funds won't be overseen by the government watchdog charged with curbing the mismanagement that has overshadowed the reconstruction."

"Special inspector general, Stuart Bowen, who has 55 auditors on the ground in Iraq, will be barred from overseeing how the new money is spent," the Journal adds. "Instead, the funds will be overseen by the State Department's inspector general office, which has a much smaller staff in Iraq and warned in testimony to Congress in the fall that it lacked the resources to continue oversight activities in Iraq."

The move comes just two weeks after an American contractor was convicted for admitting a bribe-for-jobs scheme in Iraq.

Laughing

Suckers

0 Replies

Who was the poor schmuck who got fired for predicting the Iraq invasion would cost over $200 Billion.

Har har.

It's going to be a trillion dollars.

Joe(not even exaggerating a little)Nation

0 Replies

Larry Lindsey the "Moron traitor". You get fired for telling the truth in the White House.

If you remember, the White House's own economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired for predicting, in September 2002, six months before the invasion, that the total cost of the war might reach between $100 billion and $200 billion. What I (and perhaps others who questioned the wisdom of the war before it began) remember is the hundreds of e-mails and letters I received after I quoted Lindsey and used the higher figure as more likely. "Moron" and "traitor" were among the more polite epithets of the day.

$423 Billion

1000 Supported troops DEAD 17648 Wounded

100,000 Liberated Iraqi civilians DEAD

For What? Freedom? Democracy?

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2031378#2031378

Well worth reading the translation of the document that fell into US CentCom's hands.
...

emphasis added by ican

Quote:

Full Translation
Done May 3, 2006
Page 1 of 4

A glance at the reality of Baghdad in light of the latest events (sectarian turmoil)

It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah's wisdom.

The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.

There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations[.]

The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.

This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).

Page 2 of 4

At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad.

The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters:

First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events.

Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations.

The mujahidin do not have any stored weapons and ammunition in their possession in Baghdad, particularly rockets, such as C5K Katyosha or bomber or mortars which we realized their importance and shortage in Baghdad. That was due to lack of check and balance, and proper follow-ups.

The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not?

It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin's. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party's and the Committee's channels.

Page 3 of 4

I believe that we should not allow this situation to exist at all, and we should bury it before it surfaces and reject any suggestion to that effect.

(Salah), the military commander of Baghdad (he used to be the commander of the Rassafah County and still is) is a courageous young man with a good determination but he has little and simple experience in the military field and does not have a clear vision about the current stage and how to deal with it Most of his work at al-Rassafah County is to take cars to the Jubur Arab Tribes, convert them into booby traps and take them back inside Baghdad for explosion. And the more booby trap cars he makes, the more success he has. This alone is not a work plan and we do not benefit from it in the medium range let alone the long range.

(Salah): The current commander of Northern al-Karkh (Abu-Huda) is very concerned because of his deteriorating security situation caused by being pursued by the Americans, since they have his picture and voice print. Therefore, his movement is very restricted and he is unable to do anything here. We should remove him from Baghdad to a location where he can work easier; otherwise he is closer to become totally ineffective. I know nothing about his past military experience or organizational skills.

(Salah): Northern al-Karkh groups are estimated at 40 mujahid, so is the Southern Karkh. They could double that number if necessary. Al-Rassafah groups in general is estimated at 30 mujahidin as I was informed by the commander of al-Rassafah. These are very small numbers compared to the tens of thousands of the enemy troops. How can we increase these numbers?

Page 4 of 4

Blank

End of Document/Translation

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

...

$423 Billion

1000 Supported troops DEAD 17648 Wounded

100,000 Liberated Iraqi civilians DEAD

For What? Freedom? Democracy?

For what

Our survival Exclamation

That's what Idea

Facts

The number of non-combatant civilians killed by violence since 01/01/2000, as of:
12/31/2002 (1096 days) -- total = 60,636 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 1,684.3 / 55.3;

The number of non-combatant civilians killed by violence since 01/01/2003, as of:
12/31/2005 (1095 days) -- total = 31,319 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 870.0 / 28.6;
01/31/2006 (1126 days) -- total = 31,928 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 862.9 / 28.4;
02/28/2006 (1154 days) -- total = 32,506 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 855.4 / 28.2;
03/31/2006 (1185 days) -- total = 38,161 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 978.5 / 32.2;
04/30/2006 (1215 days) -- total = 39,024 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 975.6 / 32.1.

After 9/11/2001, and before the USA invaded Afghanistan, the Bush administration demanded that the government of Afghanistan remove al-Qaeda from its country. The government of Afghanistan did not reply to our demand. The USA subsequently invaded Afghanistan.

After the USA invaded Afghanistan, the Bush administration demanded that the governments of Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria remove al Qaeda from their countries. The governments of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria agreed to our demand. The governent of Iraq did not reply to our demand. The USA subsequently invaded Iraq.

At the time we invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda was in control of 12 villages in northeastern Iraq. USA Special Forces and Special Mission Operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters invaded these al-Qaeda camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted, except, unfortunately, those who escaped.

Also at the time we invaded Iraq, several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, Sudan, Syria, and Libya were being trained in a camp south of Baghdad. After the USA invaded Iraq, USA marines killed them all. Fortunately, none escaped.

Subsequent to the USA invasion of Iraq, Iran and Syria reneged on their agreement to remove al-Qaeda from their countries.

More Facts

Quote:

Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
... On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it ...

Quote:

Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi
www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
A summary of Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi July 9, 2005.

*war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad.
*war in Iraq will not end with an American departure.
*al-Qaeda strategic vision is one of inevitable conflict with political action equal to military action.
*Popular support must be maintained at least until jihadist rule has been established.
*More than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."

Letter in English at:
www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf

No matter what the cost -- $500 billion, $1 trillion, $2 trillion, ... -- the USA must succeed in helping the Iraqi elected form a government that becomes capable of defending the Iraqi people against terrorist malignancy.

0 Replies

Truly tis bliss ........

0 Replies

Quote:

No matter what the cost -- $500 billion, $1 trillion, $2 trillion, ... -- the USA must succeed in helping the Iraqi elected form a government that becomes capable of defending the Iraqi people against terrorist malignancy.

Ican, you are simply divorced from the reality of the situation in Iraq. The government in Iraq is just as much a part of the ongoing and ever increasing violence in the country as the 'insurgents.' What is happening is a civil war between the Sunni's, Shiites and to a lesser extent the Kurds. Each faction has their own militia which is causing a good deal of the violence in the country. These are such obvious facts that it should not be necessary to state them.

0 Replies

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Iraqis are now 58 times more likely to die a violent death, Lancet
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

0 Replies

We cannot maintain security in the US by spending our treasury on a war that was never a threat to the US or Americans.

People like ican should send all their money to Bush to be used in Iraq; I wish to keep what I contribute in taxes to be used at home - for Americans.

The only way we can accomplish this is to throw out the members of congress in November; most are crooks and cheats. Maybe five percent deserve to keep their jobs for advocating for Americans best interest.

0 Replies

Iraq Insurgents Bomb Holy Shiite Shrine

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A series of roadside bombs and explosions damaged a Shiite shrine east of the volatile city of Baqouba late Saturday, police and the Interior Ministry said.

The bombing at the Imam Abdullah Ali al-Hadi shrine, which caused no injuries, marks the second time in nearly three months that assailants have targeted a site sacred to Iraq's Shiite majority. It is likely to further heighten sectarian tensions, particularly in Baqouba, a mixed Sunni Arab-Shiite town that has recently seen an increase in violence.

The blasts occurred about 11 p.m. at the shrine, according to the Diyala provincial police Joint Coordination Center and Interior Ministry Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi.

On Feb. 22 bombs heavily damaged the Golden Dome in Samarra, which holds the tomb of Imam Abdullah's father. That attack dramatically escalated tensions between Shiites and Sunni Arabs who form the core support for the insurgency.

0 Replies

October 24, 2004

Apparently, 350 tons of specialized, dual use, high explosives were looted early in the occupation. The same kind of explosives that have been killing our troops over the past year. The same kind of explosives used in the triggering process of a nuclear bomb.

"This material was monitored and controlled by U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thanks to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration, we now have no idea where it is," Lockart said. He demanded the White House explain "why they failed to safeguard these explosives and keep them out of the hands of our enemies."

"The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country. "

"...After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

"Earlier this month, in a letter to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

"another obvious question is what's been done with the 350 tons, if anything, outside of Iraq? Our sources were unanimous in thinking that for reasons noted below, "it's still in Iraq, and this is the most likely primary source of the explosives which have been used to blow up Humvees and in all the deadly car bomb attacks since the Occupation began." Sources also discount any possibility except that "this was a highly organized operation using heavy equipment, and it was done right under our noses."

I wonder how many tons are left?

0 Replies

Not only were the munitions not secured after "we won the war," but our troops lacked the proper equipment to keep them safe. It has been reported that 80 percent of the Marines died unnecessarily from lack of proper body shields.

If I were a spouse, parent or friends of those killed, I'd be so pissed at this administration, I'd do more than just spit. Especially after all the rhetoric from Bush about "supporting our tropps."

Where's the anger?

0 Replies

I think were numb now. confounded, defeated.

We can't, as Americans, comprehend what is happening or what to do or what to do about it. Shock and awe

0 Replies

A christian president that declares "each life is precious" while planning the killing of thousands of innocent people from "shock and awe bombings" scares the bejeesus out of me!

Iraq Diaries
Shock and Awe: Aerial Bombardment, American Style

William Van Wagenen, Electronic Iraq

6 July 2005

Before the 2003 American invasion the Bush administration declared that the strategy of "Shock and Awe" bombing would be used to assault Iraq. Driving through Baghdad during my stay here in the last month has allowed me to see some of the destruction caused by the aerial bombardment, which preceded the US invasion. One thing that struck me as odd was a bombed out government run shopping mall, which resembled the huge Wal-Mart stores back home in the States. I asked our driver about it, who said the Americans bombed it during the 2003 invasion. He said one could find anything there, including food, clothing, and so forth. Curious as to whether the bombing of this shopping mall had been an accident, I asked our driver whether any other malls had been bombed. He simply laughed and said, "Many!" He later showed us several of the shopping malls around Baghdad that had been bombed by US forces. In all, we saw three government run shopping malls, and two major markets which had been destroyed. We noticed that the bombing of the Rashid market in downtown Baghdad was so precise that no other buildings next to it, including a mosque, seemed to be harmed. Our driver knew of other malls that had been bombed, but they were either far away or in areas he felt were too dangerous to visit.

This begs the question, why did the US bother to bomb markets and shopping malls? In war, don't armies kill other armies, and weapons destroy other weapons? The logic of targeting civilian infrastructure is explained in the book from which the Bush administration's "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq was drawn. Military researchers at the National Defense University wrote Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance in 1996, declaring the supposedly new doctrine of applying US military "resources to controlling, affecting, and breaking the will of the adversary to resist." For this to be successful "psychological and intangible, as well as physical and concrete effects beyond the destruction of enemy forces and supporting military infrastructure, will have to be achieved (emphasis added)." Through Shock and Awe, it is hoped that "the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese" will result. "This Shock and Awe may not necessitate imposing the full destruction of either nuclear weapons or advanced conventional technologies but must be underwritten by the ability to do so. . . to convey the unmistakable message that unconditional compliance is the only available recourse. It will imply more than the direct application of force. . . This could include means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure." The violence unleashed must be "all encompassing" in "scope", using "force against force and supporting capability (emphasis added)" [1].

In other words, Shock and Awe bombing would be used against Iraq to directly target the infrastructure necessary for the survival of the Iraqi civilian population, as well as threaten the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity, in order to "break the will" of the Iraqi regime and force its capitulation.

Targeting civilians for the sake of achieving political or military goals constitutes terrorism. Rather than denounce the idea that America should engage in state terrorism on a massive scale, President Bush responded enthusiastically to the concept of "Shock and Awe" when it was introduced to him by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in the lead up to the war [2]. Several weeks before the invasion, CBS Evening News reported positively about this new strategy, interviewing the main author of Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, Harlan Ullman. CBS also quoted one Pentagon official who had been briefed on the plans as saying, "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad ... the sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before" [3].

Fortunately, US military planners decided not to bomb Iraq's civilian infrastructure to the extent they did in the Gulf War in 1991, where Iraq's power stations were among the primary US targets [4]. What is interesting to note is that not devastating Iraq's civilian infrastructure fully appears to have been a departure from the officially endorsed US military doctrine (and previous practice). My view is that Iraq's power plants and water treatment facilities were spared this time around because in 2003 the US was planning to occupy Iraq directly, and if the infrastructure had been completely destroyed, the US would be shackled with the problem of repairing it. In 1991, the aim was to destroy Iraq and wait for one of Saddam's "Sunni henchman" [5] to overthrow him, and thus the US could simply absolve itself of responsibility and let Saddam deal with the war's horrific aftermath. Another possibility is that Saddam's regime fell so quickly that imposing the full shock and awe regime upon the civilian population did not become necessary.

Despite the exercise of some restraint, the effect of the bombing on Iraqis was still horrendous. A study by the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that some 100,000 Iraqis have died as result of the US-led invasion and occupation, primarily due to US/UK bombing [6]. Because I was in Palestine at the time, the only coverage of the US invasion I saw was on Al-Jazeera. Each morning they broadcast gruesome scenes of dead women and children, victims of the US bombing each night before. As a war against Iran may possibly be upon us in the coming years, it is important to keep in mind the effects of US military tactics on civilian populations, especially if one considers the rhetoric of our government to liberate oppressed peoples to be sincere. Targeting civilians is still terrorism, whether undertaken for the best of motives or the worst.[/color]

0 Replies

"Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance in 1996"

I have this. I read the whole thing. It didn't work as good as they thought. The Germans invented it. Blitzkrieg.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know