REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How Basra Slipped Out of Control: by Gareth Porter

POSTED BY: HOWARD
UPDATED: Thursday, October 27, 2005 05:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7802
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:35 PM

HOWARD


How Basra Slipped Out of Control: Portent in the Shiite South?
by Gareth Porter
October 22, 2005

To understand just how tenuous the U.S. position in Iraq is at the moment, we have only to look at the way Basra, Iraq's second largest city, in the solidly Shiite South slipped out of the control of occupation forces last month.

The basic facts of the anti-British uprising in Basra have been well documented. On September 19 Iraqi police arrested two British military intelligence agents disguised as Arabs. The British command went to the police station where they were being detained to demand their return. Rebuffed by the police there, it took the law into its own hands, using armored vehicles to break down the wall of an Iraqi government police compound in order to free the two prisoners.

In response to the call of the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Moqtadr al-Sadr, hundreds of people gathered at the police station to protest that turned into a six-hour battle with the British troops. The crowd kicked and punched the British and threw stones, metal bars, Molotov cocktails and burning tires at their armored troop carriers, setting two of them on fire. The British say they killed four people and injured 44. An Iraqi judge who was there says nine Iraqis were killed, and 14 injured.

A crucial factor in Basra's sudden political transformation is that the local security forces and Shiite political leadership in Basra turned against the British and sided with the Mahdi Army. Through the six hours of violence, not a single Iraqi policeman came to the aid of the beleaguered British forces. Two days later, hundreds of policemen marched through downtown Basra waving pistols and AK-47s and shouting "no to occupation."

After meeting with the protestors, the 41 members of the provincial council voted unanimously to cut off all cooperation with British forces because of the "irresponsible aggression on a government facility." The council demanded an apology and full compensation for families of those killed and wounded by the British. And it is still demanding that the two spies be turned over to Iraqi authorities.

Shiite responsiveness to al-Sadr's appeals to oppose British actions symbolizing the loss of Iraqi independence should have come as no surprise. For a year and a half, it has been clear that Moqtada al-Sadr has enjoyed widespread support among Shiites because of his anti-occupation stance. Sadr's popularity had skyrocketed in April 2004, when the Mahdi Army challenged foreign occupation troops in eight different Shiite cities, including Basra. According to an article by counterinsurgency specialists Jeffrey White and Ryan Philips in Jane's Intelligence Review, polling by an Iraqi research organization showed that only one percent of those surveyed had supported him in December 2003, but 68 percent supported him when his forces were fighting U.S. troops in April 2004.

The stunning transformation of Basra from a secure rear area for U.S. and British troops into a center of anti-occupation agitation reveals the utter weakness of the Shiite political base on which the United States must now rely to sustain its occupation of the country.

After the election in January, according to senior police officials in Baghdad, the police force in the city was under the control of militant Shiite Badr Organization, which is aligned with the government of Prime Minister Jafari. But the loyalty of many militiamen in Basra to the Badr Organization proved in the end to be very weak. By the time of the protests, the Mahdi Army was clearly predominant within the police force.

The strategic significance of events in Basra becomes clearer if it compared with a parallel event in the Vietnam War. In 1966 an anti-government and anti-U.S. Buddhist "Struggle Movement" loosely aligned with the Communist forces carried out an uprising and seized power in Hue, the ancient capital and center of Buddhist agitation. The U.S. command responded by airlifting South Vietnamese government battalions into Hue to reassert military control. In Iraq, however, there were no government units available to send into Basra to take back the city. And neither the British nor the Americans had enough troops to impose direct control on Basra by force.

Comments to the press by British officers in Basra make it clear that the command understands that the city slipped out of control because the occupation forces could not trust the very people who they thought were their loyal allies. The U.S. command, meanwhile, refuses to acknowledge publicly that it faces a powerful anti-occupation movement in the South. Two weeks after the Basra uprising, Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, went so far as to claim that "lately" Moktadr al-Sadr had become "part of the solution" in Iraq.

If the U.S. command really believes that, it may be in for a nasty surprise. Moqtadr al-Sadr has yet not played all of his cards. He still has loyal followers all across the South and as well as in his primary political base in Baghdad's Sadr City. What happened in Basra may be a preview of a strategy aimed at causing the collapse of the U.S. political position in one city after another.

Gareth Porter is a historian and an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org). His latest book is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press, 2005).




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:03 AM

CITIZEN


I'm still largely unclear as to why the two men were detained.
This BBC article mentions shots were exchanged between police and the soldiers, when they failed to yield to a checkpoint.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4260894.stm

I am, however, unclear as to why.
Why did the soldiers fail to yield at the checkpoint (if your undercover it doesn't seem the brightest thing to start drawing attention to yourself)?
Why were shots exchanged (similar situations have occurred before, and they did not involve gun battles)?
Why were the troops not released when it became clear they were on an intelligence mission (or at least what was said to British Military officials when the release was requested)?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:49 AM

HOWARD


The BBC whitwashed this incident.
Other journalists on the ground brought
the real story to such broadcasts as
DEMOCRACY NOW. The British agents were
dressed like Arabs. The Iraqi police
found equipment and explosives in their
car identical to that of any terrorist
operation. The British SAS or whatever
they were clearly were up to no-good
and part of a mission to do harm. The
local police were totally in their right
to arrest them.

These military criminals were then held
by the local Shia authorities. But then
the British military used a tank to demolish
the building in which they were being held.
This is how we freed these characters. There
was no negotiation no due process of law just
illegal brute force used by the British army.

What this incident proves is that...
THERE IS NO IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY !!
All the lies of Bush and Blair exposed!!

Why do you think that as intelligence agents
they had a moral right to be freed? Because
CITIZEN all your life you have been conditioned
with the Disneyesque fantasy that "our side"
has benevolence in its heart and intent. Like
the brainwashing that enters peoples heads when
they watch a racist-imperialist TV show like
"24". People are so conditioned into the
illusion of "our benevolence" that they do not
even think of perceiving the world from
the rest of humanity's vantage point.

Go to DEMOCRACY NOW and listen to (or purchase
a CDR or DVDR of) of their Thursday 20th Oct
edition featuring Robert Fisk among others.

main home page http://www.democracynow.org/

October 20th show:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/20/1411211


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:32 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
The British agents were
dressed like Arabs. The Iraqi police
found equipment and explosives in their
car identical to that of any terrorist
operation. The British SAS or whatever
they were clearly were up to no-good
and part of a mission to do harm. The
local police were totally in their right
to arrest them.


You make an awfully huge leap here with this suggestion that the British were up to no good. In fact, you fall victim to the same fallacy that you accuse Citizen of (ie, that we are so evil that there is no way that they could have been doing anything positive). You don't have enough data to make any claim that they were "up to no good." What if they had been trying to infiltrate an insurgent cell, and were in possession of vital knowledge that necessitated their breakout? I have no idea, neither do you from the miniscule facts presented in the case. It's entirely possible they were planting evidence, acting as terrorists, whatever; but it's a claim no one can make because there aren't enough actual facts besides what gear they had on them and that the Brits thought they were vital enough to try to rescue.

Quote:
Why do you think that as intelligence agents
they had a moral right to be freed?


I dunno, maybe because they may have been unjustly detained? Why are you assuming they were participating in a criminal action?

Quote:
Because
CITIZEN all your life you have been conditioned
with the Disneyesque fantasy that "our side"
has benevolence in its heart and intent. Like
the brainwashing that enters peoples heads when
they watch a racist-imperialist TV show like
"24". People are so conditioned into the
illusion of "our benevolence" that they do not
even think of perceiving the world from
the rest of humanity's vantage point.



I think 50-something million Americans (and growing, based on W's poll numbers) would disagree with your idea that we are all brainwashed and don't realize how other people see us. If I had to travel anywhere in the world right now, I'm going the Bill Maher rouote - "I'm Swiss." But I think that over-analyzing something can be almost as bad as not paying attention at all. We call those kinds of folks the Tinfoil Hat Brigade. Not everything is a global conspiracy, because you can't have it both ways. W is either inept or he's a total genius. Can't be both (my money's on inept).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:51 AM

HOWARD


I did NOT accuse CITIZEN of being evil.
Naive yes but that is far from being evil.

But being naive can cause one to lend one's
support to those who are evil and misleading
in their promises to the people. Be it a Kerry,
Bush, Clinton, Blair etc.

Further more as a British guy I was talking
about a criminal incident for which the British
army is responsible.

I have read extensive independent accounts
on the incident. Those agents were up to
at the least criminal intent and at worst
planning an act of terrorist murder by which
to frame others.

Bush jnr is a puppet, Rumsfeld, Cheney and
Rice are the source of the policies.

While the population is fed vast amounts of
lies and disinformation by the mass media in
both news and entertainment form.

As for Americans travelling abroad. More than
90% of ALL US citizens NEVER obtain a passport
in their lifetime.

I know that it seems that Americans are
everywhere. When you or I travel we always
bump into Americans abroad. BUT with a
population of 280 million it can feel that way
if only 6% of Americans are abroad at any one
time. And that includes US troops!!

In reality it is likely to be a lot less.
Closer to 2% or 3% of Americans outside the
country at any point in their lifetime.

Most Americans have no personal experience of
being off-the-Americas mothership. While those
who travel as part of the military are very
much insulated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:51 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
I did NOT accuse CITIZEN of being evil.
Naive yes but that is far from being evil.


Actually, that was bad phrasing on my part; I meant you see the Brit and American gov'ts as evil, not Citizen.

Quote:
But being naive can cause one to lend one's
support to those who are evil and misleading
in their promises to the people. Be it a Kerry,
Bush, Clinton, Blair etc.

Further more as a British guy I was talking
about a criminal incident for which the British
army is responsible.

I have read extensive independent accounts
on the incident. Those agents were up to
at the least criminal intent and at worst
planning an act of terrorist murder by which
to frame others.


How do you KNOW that, Howard? I've read several reports of the incident as well, and the basics are that they got caught with materials they shouldn't have had (according to their detainers) and the British thought they were important enough people to stage a rescue. What, if any, facts do you have that suggest criminal intent or a plan to commit an act of murder? They weren't caught planting anything, they weren't caught selling anything, they were caught WITH something, which the British thought was important enough to justify a rescue. Why automatically assume the worst? You don't have enough facts.

Quote:
Bush jnr is a puppet, Rumsfeld, Cheney and
Rice are the source of the policies.

While the population is fed vast amounts of
lies and disinformation by the mass media in
both news and entertainment form.


Yes, Fox News and its viewers. I know. Doesn't change the fact that you are jumping to conclusions.

Quote:
As for Americans travelling abroad. More than
90% of ALL US citizens NEVER obtain a passport
in their lifetime.


My larger point was that not all Americans think we're loved abroad, in fact, the majority of us don't. You're generalizing in a very bad way about Americans here. In the same breath you've now said we're all aggressive, ignorant, manipulated brutes succeptible to the whims of the Bush clan. That's just Neocons. The rest of us are pretty smart folks, we just aren't in power right now. Doesn't mean we don't keep up with the news or know how to think critically.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:25 PM

HOWARD


I haver suggested one source I could easily
gather others. But between articles on Z-NET
and Counterpunch in the USA and coverage on
Channel 4 News in the UK along with guest
journalists and witnesses on Democracy Now
I have heard and read plenty that is
contrary to your suggestion.

You claim "its just the Neo-Cons" !!

So is not the Neo-Liberals as well????

What about Clinton, Kerry and Clinton like
their positions are the slightest different
in their core substance? Mrs Clinton refuses
to support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq
and John Kerry not only voted for the war it
was his policy platform to send an additional
100,000 troops to Iraq.

Then there is Clinton in office. Let us run
down his crimes:

1. Single most genocidal Economic Sanctions
in history. Maintained and worsened upon
the Iraq people by Clinton. Death toll was
1:2 million. 600,000 Iraqi infants perished
due to Clinton's sanctions and bombing
campaign. The US Air Force and the Royal
Air Force bombed Iraq at least once every
3 days throughout the entire decade of the
1990's.

2. By 1997 Iraq had complied on WMD under the
UNSCOM program. Clinton and Blair could not
stand this fact so they lied claiming that
Iraq had not complied. Clinton launched
cruise missiles upon Baghdad. He also was
responsible for telling Richard Butler at
the UN to pull the weapon's inspectors out
of Iraq. Over the next few years the media
kept saying Iraq had thrown them out. When
in fact Clinton/Blair/Butler removed them.

3. Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on
the only medicine factory in Sudan. He made
the knowing false claim that it had chemical
weapons link. There was no inspection even
though the goverment of Sudan offered both
the chance to send UN inspectors in to the
privately owned factory and a dossier on
Bin Laden who had spent time in Sudan.
Clinton refused the intelligence dossier on
Bin Laden (the deal was don't bomb us and
we'll give you the dope on Laden) he made
no attempt to have inspectors check the
factory out. Instead he blew up the one
factory that made essential drugs for people
in a poor war torn third world country.
The German Ambassador told a distinguished
Harvard foreign policy journal that as a
result of the medicine supply being blown up
tens of thousands of people mostly children
died in the months that followed. So not
only did Clinton kill far more Sudanese than
the number of people who were to die on 9/11
he declined an intelligence dossier that
may have prevented 9/11.

4. COLOMBIA: During the 1990'S in the brutal
civil war in this Latin American nation
over 70% of the unarmed civilians killed
were murdered by the side that the Clinton
administration was arming and financing.
Every year of the Clinton admin the arms
and money for the Colombian army and in turn
death squads increased.

5. During the 1990's the Turkish state and
Turkish army destroyed hundreds of Kurdish
villages. Ethnic cleansing a million plus
people from their homes and murdered more
than 30,000 Kurdish men, women and children.
Throughout this crime that was bigger than
anything that went down in Kosovo the arms
and intelligence assist flowed from both
Washington and London to Ankara. Clinton
never froze or reduced arms, money or CIA
help to Turkey no matter how many Kurds
were being slaughtered. How interesting
it is that an Iraqi Kurd killed by Saddam
is evidence of evil but a Turkish Kurd
killed by us is considered to be mere
"realistic foreign policy". The Kurdish
people are merely unfortunate to have their
homeland in four different countries. Its
the same people but their slaughter has
been treated very differently depending on
who has their finger on the trigger.
Further to this there was a symbol act to
be passed by Congress to recognise the
historical fact of the genocide of the
people of Armenia at the end of WWI.
Clinton was going to sign it until he
got some phone calls from the Turkish lobby
and per usual he caved under the slightest
pressure. Clinton also cultivated a new
two-way arms supply relationship between
Israel and Turkey. No doubt they shared
notes on 10 ways to kill a Kurd / Ten ways
to kill a Palestinian. Which suited Clinton
who is an arch-Zionist, just fine.

6. The scope of Clinton's crimes against
humanity is so vast I do not have the
time or energy to explain the rest.

Haiti
Cuba
East Timor
West Papua
Indonesia
Kosovo
Serbia
Palestine
Lebannon
Mexico
and even Canada (via NAFTA)
have ALL paid a dire price for the
policies of the Clinton administration.
It is simply too easy to just blame all
on Bush and the Neo-Cons. Clinton built
a foundation for the Neo-Cons and the
blowback from around the world is a reply
not just to the Bush actions but to the
built up anger from the Clinton years.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:17 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
I have heard and read plenty that is
contrary to your suggestion.


Then back it up. All you've managed to post so far is some circumstantial evidence against the British soldiers. Not one hard, damning fact. You want to claim that they had 'murderous intent.' Well, I'm all for that pesky 'innocent till proven guilty' thing, and you have yet to make a case. I could just as easily argue that they had insider knowledge about the insurgency that the Iraqis didn't want to get out, and I would use the same facts you have laid out. If there's more to the story than just a couple guys got caught and their own countrymen wanted them back, show me. The burden of proof is on you. You can't hide from me with "I've got all the facts right here where only I can see them. If you have more details, show them to us.

Quote:
You claim "its just the Neo-Cons" !!

So is not the Neo-Liberals as well????


Not as it relates to this current mess and discussion, no, it isn't.

Quote:
Mrs Clinton refuses
to support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq
and John Kerry not only voted for the war it
was his policy platform to send an additional
100,000 troops to Iraq.


If you are using these arguments for any purpose, then you don't have half the grasp on geopolitics you seem to think you do. I was 100% against the war, from day 1, and so were a lot of other folks. And yet even I don't believe in an immediate pullout. You cannot just instantly withdraw from an occupied nation, especially one on the brink of civil war. If we pull out now, without a stabilized Iraq and with no trained Iraqi military, we're inviting a disaster of epic proportions. It's already a terrorist training ground and on its way to becoming a hardline Islamic state, with fewer rights for its citizens than it had before we went in. There is NO way we can have an immediate pullout, no matter how badly the anti-war crowd wants it. We are in, in effect, royally boned, with no end in sight. Explain to me how you think that if we just leave tomorrow, Iraq is going to magically fix itself into a land of unicorns and honey.

And you keep misinterpreting Kerry's position; you've done it in several posts now. He supported the authorization of force if all diplomatic options failed, but Bush went to war on Iraq early, so Kerry voted against the war when it came through the 2nd time. When he voted for the troop increase was after Bush went in with a numerically inferior force, and he realized that more troops would be needed on the ground to stabilize the country. Who, assuming our troops teleport out tomorrow, do you think is going to come in and help the Iraqis and bring order to the country? My guess is the Iranians, and you can be damned sure that I think that's a bad thing. I know you would like to see Israel and the US obliterated in nuclear flames, but frankly, I have to live here, and it's hard to teach English to 9th graders while your skin is burning off.

We should have never gone in, but once we did, we have to operate on the 'you break it, you bought it' policy. Immediate withdrawal is a pipe dream, and you can thank the neocons for that.

Quote:
Then there is Clinton in office. Let us run
down his crimes:


Clinton is not in office. You're far too left-wing to use the "B-b-b-but Clinton" argument, and it doesn't hold water with me. Get this through your head, Clinton is not President, nor is he Prime Minister of England.

But, while we're at it,

Quote:
1. Single most genocidal Economic Sanctions
in history. Maintained and worsened upon
the Iraq people by Clinton.


What made it all Clinton's fault? They were UN backed. Either the UN has power or it doesn't. You can't say how important the UN is on one hand and how unimportant it is on the other.

Quote:
2. . Clinton and Blair could not
stand this fact so they lied claiming that
Iraq had not complied... When
in fact Clinton/Blair/Butler removed them.


Show me any document that you have that proves that Clinton lied about Iraqi compliance to further your vision of American domination.
You know, why am I even arguing this- It's violating my own rules against the "But Clinton."

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Tinfoil is for wrapping food, not making hats.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:59 PM

HOWARD


You live in a Hollywood concocted
Clintonite dream-scape.

I did not misrepresent Kerry at all.
He was clear in his intent to send an
additional 100,000 troops that is approx
70% increase that could only deepen the
occupation and draw a major increase in
violence on all sides.

You do not want to hear the facts
no matter how much time I spend posting
or typing you don't want to hear it!!

All you had to do was take my lead and do
a google BUT you just can't be bothered.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=SAS+in+Basra+had+explosive+in+c
ar&meta=

Every single head of the UN programme
on Iraq resigned in protest at the
Clinton's admin's control of the policy
and the genocide of Iraqi infants that
manifested. More top figures resigned
in protest during the 1990'S at the UN
than over any other policy.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Dennis+Hallida
y+resigns&spell=1

And then:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=HANS+VON+SPONECK+RESIGNS&meta=

Clinton like Blair has never told the
truth about anything.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185984412X/qid=1130116787/sr=
8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-3414769-6002022

As for not being able to pull-out of Iraq
in the latest poll (read out on NPR) the
vast majority of Iraqis want us out NOW!!

Your provincial mind is so revealed with
a LOL when you refer to the Prime Minister
of England...straight out of a Hollywood
script written by bonehead who has never
been anywhere but Venice Beach California.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:35 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
You live in a Hollywood concocted
Clintonite dream-scape.


And you live in a Tom Clancy induced, paranoid delusional, tinfoil hat universe.

Quote:
All you had to do was take my lead and do
a google BUT you just can't be bothered.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=SAS+in+Basra+had+explosive+in+c
ar&meta=


I didn't make the claim - you did. The burden of proof of your argument is on you, not me. But let's review what I found on that google search, shall we?

The biggest hits were all from Socialist web pages, which is the evidenciary equivalent of extreme bias.

The BBC, on the other hand, reported,
Quote:
standard kit for British special forces


The author
Quote:
Fisk does not say directly what he believes the SAS was up to
, but sure does imply.

And, they were rescued, because
Quote:
Brigadier John Lorimer, who commanded the operation, said: “I had good reason to believe the lives of the two soldiers were at risk.”


So, the Socialist Party and Iraqi Nationalists say that the men were secret agents. You're taking the few facts that are known and are furthering your own radical left-wing anti-establishment arguments with it. I checked BBC, the Indy, and the Times-Online and didn't find half of the claims made on some of these blogs, none of which I had ever heard of before. Your sources aren't reliable. It's why rational conservatives don't cite Newsmax or the Free Republic. The few facts they get right, they bend to suit their agenda.

Quote:
Clinton like Blair has never told the
truth about anything.


Howard - It's 2005 - Clinton hasn't been President for 5 years, not to mention his last lame-duck year. Stop bringing up Clinton, he's irrelevant to the argument.

Quote:
As for not being able to pull-out in the
latest poll the vast majority of Iraqis
want us out NOW!!


Desire does not equal ability. I asked you to explain to me how you expect it to be done and retain some measure of stability in the Mid-East. You can't, so you keep bringing up Clinton. Tell me, in your opinion, how we can leave right now without a civil war breaking out and the Iranians or Syrians gaining control of Iraq and turning it into a fundamentalist terrorist breeding ground.

You won't, because you can't. You talk a good game about "immediate withdrwal this, they want us out that," but just like GWB and Rummy, you don't have a plan for post US Iraq. Thus, contrary to what all of us want, we'll be there a while. If you can come up with a way to leave that will leave the battered place safe from outside influence, and us safe from the backlash, send it to Washington, because they need it.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:40 PM

SEVENPERCENT


And another thing, stop editing your posts after the fact. If you want to make a new claim, or reinforce something, make a new post. I go to post, look back, and your posts have changed. Fix spelling or html errors with the edit key, don't alter the posts. It's disingenuous.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:45 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
I did not misrepresent Kerry at all.
He was clear in his intent to send an
additional 100,000 troops that is approx
70% increase that could only deepen the
occupation and draw a major increase in
violence on all sides.


You certainly did misrepresent him, and it's because you can't answer the question vis a vis a pullout or stabilizing the country. He ordered more troops because the number we sent was insufficient for the disaster we created. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Quote:
Your provincial mind is so revealed with
a LOL when you refer to the Prime Minister
of England...straight out of a Hollywood
script written by bonehead who has never
been anywhere but Venice Beach California.


Did I fall asleep and somehow Tony Blair was no longer PM? Did it change overnight, and the Queen is again the top gov't official? Or was I wrong, and Clinton suddenly took over the job, like you seem to suggest? Way to go Bill?






------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:36 PM

HOWARD



I will edit my own posts as I like.

Thank you very much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 PM

HOWARD


It is most interesting how you have evaded
every link and all my knowledge simply
because you supported a prior President
who committed crimes against humanity that
do not bother you because "your" party was
in power. The only reason you claim to oppose
this war is that it is a Republican war. Your
lack of outrage toward Clinton's crimes shows
how party-politcal you are.

How about this for easy to get:

More troops = more occupation = more war =
more terrorism !!

Plus the Iraqi people do NOT want more troops
in their country.

What matters is the Iraqi people...remember
them?

PS Mr Blair is not the English Prime Minister
he is the British Prime Minister.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:54 PM

HOWARD


You said:

"Tell me, in your opinion, how we can leave right now without a civil war breaking out and the Iranians or Syrians gaining control of Iraq and turning it into a fundamentalist terrorist breeding ground."

TOO LATE: It already is for some time now.
The Occupation has done this. We have to leave Iraq NOW! There is NO other option.

Now read this interview with ROBERT FISK he knows damn more than you will ever will about Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: I asked him his assessment of the current situation there and what needs to be done.

ROBERT FISK: Three days after the Americans came to Baghdad, I said the real story is about to begin and that is the story of war against American occupation. A lot of my colleagues thought that was very, very funny -- they hooted at me with laughter. But they're not anymore.

Look, apart from the Kurdistan area, Iraq is in a state of total anarchy and chaos. No roads are safe outside Baghdad. Much of Baghdad is in insurgents hands. Only the little green zones, the armored hotel areas where the westerners live and swim, and some cases don't even leave their rooms, and that applies to many journalists, only here are people allowed to have the illusion that things are getting better, things are improving. Outside in the streets where some journalists still go, including, for example, my colleague Patrick Cockburn of the Independent and myself and the Guardian Newspaper, not most Americans though one or two.

Out in the streets where few of us go is hell on Earth. I managed to get, a couple of weeks ago, to the mortuary in the city of Baghdad. As I often go in the past, counting the bodies of midday and midsummer out in the heat. There were 26 by midday. Nine had arrived by nine in the morning. I managed to get the official figures for July for the total number of violent deaths in Baghdad alone. The figure was 1,100 violent deaths, men, women and children. Shot, butchered, knifed, executed, death squad killings. A figure which, of course is not given out by the Iraqi Health Ministry and certainly not by the occupational authorities.

We now have a situation in Iraq where there is a full scale insurgency by both the Shiites and the Sunnis against western forces. Once an insurgency of that kind starts in a Muslim country, it is impossible to quench it. Sorry, you guys can we put the book back? Let's start again, we got it wrong at one point. You can’t do that. You can't do that. I was discussing with an Iraqi friend three weeks ago in Baghdad what he thought the answer was. He said, “There is no answer. You've got to go. You've got to go.” I wrote at the time that I thought it was a terrible equation in Iraq. It goes like this. The Americans must leave. And the Americans will leave but the Americans can't leave. And that's the equation that turns sand into blood.

Once you become an occupying power you take upon the responsibilities for the civilians which we have not done but you also have a responsibility to yourself. You have to keep justifying over and over and over again to your own populations. You were right to do it: ok, there were no weapons of mass destruction but we got rid of Saddam; ok, we haven't gotten the electricity yet but there will be a constitution. Well, we hope. And we did have elections. Remember them in January? And all the time people die in ever greater numbers. Remember that figure for July that’s just Baghdad. What does that mean for the whole country? 5,000 dead? In July? What does that mean in the whole of Iraq in a year? You see the problem? We're talking a 50,000, 60,000 dead a year now. The worst figure we've heard is 100,000 since 2003 yet still we don't get statistics. When individual journalists have to go to hospital mortuaries and count the bloated corpses on the floor, you have know you've got problems.

The last time I was in Baghdad I began to ask myself whether the dangers -- and I've never done this on any other war except for the Algerian war which was very similar in many ways, questioning whether the dangers of covering Iraq are any longer worth the story. I suppose I think they are. But I guess having looked at my face in the mirror occasionally and seeing the gray hairs, I wonder if I should keep going. I probably will, but I'm not sure.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert, what about the number of journalists who have died? This weekend there's going to be a major anti-war protest in Washington, on the 24th, and all over the country. One of the people or two of the people who will be there are the mother and brother of Jose Couso, who is the Spanish cameraman killed at the Palestine Hotel, the day before the U.S. Forces pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square.

ROBERT FISK: No, it was the same day. It was the same day. The same day. It was the first armored division tank. It was the American tank that killed him absolutely, but it was the same day.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, he is one of scores of people, of journalists who have died most recently. Reuters photographer killed, his colleague arrested by U.S. Forces and held, another IS being held at the Abu Ghraib prison. Dozens of journalists. What about your colleagues in Iraq right now?

ROBERT FISK: The total figure of journalists who have died during and after the 2003 invasion up to date is now 68. The most recent being an Iraqi stringer again from The New York Times in Basra who was found dumped in a waste heap, executed with three bullets through the back of his head. I suspect the “Iraqi police” killed him like I suspect the Iraqi police killed the American journalist in Basra. Look, there's no doubt it's becoming the most dangerous story for journalists anywhere ever.

If you want to look at the worst period it would be in Bosnia in 1992 when a lot of journalists who had never been in wars before were sent in to Bosnia and were dying at the rate of dozens a month. That was primarily, I think, because they were sending in very young men whose experience of war was Hollywood where the hero, of course, always survives. And what is shocking about this is that almost all the journalists are being killed, almost without exception in Iraq, are experienced in many cases, middle-aged guys who have been under fire many times before, who know about the lethality of weapons and whose jobs and lives are simply no longer respected. I've never been in a war like Iraq war in which our lives are so endangered, so targeted by all sides it sometimes seems. And I'm not sure what we can do about it.

The American correspondents, some of them are guarded by armed Iraqis. The New York Times has a compound with four watch towers and armed Iraqis with “NYT” New York Times on their black t-shirts. NBC lives in a hotel in the Karada District with iron grills. The A.P. lives in the Palestine Hotel with two armored walls. Very rarely do they ever venture out and never do the American staffers go in the streets. As I say, we still go out with Iraqi friends. We actually go out to lunch in restaurants in Iraq. But I think that's probably because as long as we're with Iraqis and we look at our watch and say, 20 minutes, finish the meal, half an hour, got to be out. You're ok but it's a calculated risk.

As I said, I'm not sure the risks are worth it anymore. Our lives are worth nothing to the insurgents. Our lives appear to be worth virtually nothing to the Americans or the British. I think that when you reach a stage where our lives and our jobs are simply no longer respected, you do have to ask the question, is it worth it anymore. I think it is because I think Iraq is an appalling tragedy. Primarily for Iraqis, of course, who we don't put at the top of our list. We say 1,900 Americans, 93 Brits or whatever it may be. It's the Iraqis doing the suffering and the dying in fast numbers. Many of them because they trusted us and took our schilling and wanted to work for the police or wanted to work for construction companies building landing strips for the Americans or fortresses for the Americans.

But I think the whole Iraqi story for us as journalists is becoming almost impossible to cover. Certainly if you have a journalist who lives behind two armored walls of the hotel who just used a mobile phone to call British or American diplomats behind another concrete wall, you might as well live in County Mayo, Ireland or Santa Fe, New Mexico. There's no point in being there.

And for example, the last trip I made outside Baghdad it took me two weeks to arrange it to go down to Najaf. It was the most fearful trip. I drove the road with three Iraqi friends. One of them a Shiite proleter, a clergyman, a religious man. All the checkpoints of the Iraqi army had been abandoned. This just after George Bush says the Iraqi army is in the field. There were up-turned Iraqi police cars, burned-out American vehicles. I didn't see a member of the Security Forces until I reached the outskirts of Najaf about 80 miles from Iraq.

The whole of the countryside outside Baghdad is under the control, is now the property of the armed insurgents both Sunni and Shia. This, we are not being told. This, president Bush will not acknowledge. This, our own dear Mr. Blair will not acknowledge. And that is part of the tragedy. And it seems now to be part of our life that New Orleans flooding is not real until it's real, that the collapse of Iraq is not real until it's real.

With such poor television coverage, although we did get good pictures I noticed, of the British soldiers on fire, for heavens sakes in their armored vehicles. I don't know if it's possible to explain what is happening in Iraq anymore. Most journalists, western journalists are relying upon Iraqi stringers, Iraqi correspondents to risk their necks on the streets. And they are risking their necks and they are dying for it to bring in the news. But there are no by and large -- by and large there are no westernized, independently journalists on the streets unarmed. My newspaper does not have protection. We do not carry weapons.

But my goodness, as I say, I don't know how long we can continue doing this. Each time Patrick and I go to Iraq it's a little bit worse. And when we look back at what it was like a year ago, which was considered appalling, we're amazed at how free we were, how easily we went grocery shopping. I still go grocery shopping-- for six minutes only. Grab the bread, push my way to the front of the cue, pay, out. You learn a lot.

I went out to my favorite restaurant, the Ramaya, the other day to find it was no longer the Ramaya. It was now given an Islamic name and had a green neon sign. When I went inside, the menu was no longer in English, French, and Arabic. It was only Arabic. No more bottles of Lebanese red wine. It been totally Islamicized. You need to see this and understand it. But the problem is most of our colleagues are not permitted even by their head offices to do that.

AMY GOODMAN: Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent newspaper. [Break]

AMY GOODMAN: We've just returned from New Orleans. Something that is most stunning about what has happened with the media, aside from the horror that has taken place, is that because the national guard were in Iraq, because president Bush did not get the resources there immediately there were no troops for the reporters to embed with. And so what happened is you had reporters who were the victims, in the street, reporting the facts on the ground like we have never seen a reporter with a body that floats by behind them. And then when government officials say this isn't true, the reporters actually challenge the government officials because they are experiencing this themselves. One of the first things president Bush did when he started getting involved was say that the bodies of corpses, the corpses were not to be photographed. I think what has turned this country around right now is that people have truly seen the real images of New Orleans in a way that we have not seen in Iraq. Can you talk about the whole embedding process and the control of the media?

ROBERT FISK: It's not about embedding. It's not about embedding, Amy. It's about television’s refusal to show the truth of war. Let me give an example. In 1991 I was driving up the main road towards Basra, the so the-called highway of death, further up, with a crew from ITV, British commercial channel. And we stopped at a place where there were large numbers of Iraqi soldiers dead in the desert. And hoards of desert dogs had appeared. And they were ripping the soldiers to pieces and eating them. Dragging off an arm here with its hand cruelly going along through the desert, eating through stomachs, gnawing away at cheekbones of dead soldiers. The ITV crew got out and started filming. I said, “What are you filming this for? You'll never get it on air.” He said, “No, it's just for the archives.”

This, you see, was the problem. The war was over then. We're talking about the 1991 Gulf War, the liberation of Kuwait. When journalists had been put in pools, which was then the equivalent of embedding. And they chaffed that they wanted to report real war, weren't being allowed to, that they were being censored. But when the war ended and they were allowed to drive up the highway and film anything they wanted, they censored themselves. Far too sensitive. Can't receive this sort of thing at breakfast what about the children? And in London, and in Washington, and in New York, and everywhere else, Paris, the television directors and the editors said, “We can't show that.” Impossible. Many of the worst pictures taken in the invasion of Iraq in 2003: a man holding a kid out like a piece of pancake. A beautiful girl in the arms of a man, we have to lop it off here because we didn't want to see the bones of the foot sticking out. She was dead, wounded in many captions. Never saw the light of day. They couldn't be shown. They could-- but they were not. Because sensitivities. Mustn't show this at breakfast time. It's irresponsible to show the dead like this, it's disrespectful.

I tell you, if you saw what I saw when I go to wars when I’m on the front line with or without soldiers or with civilians or wounded in hospitals, if you saw what I saw, you would never, ever dream of supporting a war again. Ever in your life. It's a remarkable thing that the cinema, the commercial cinema, feature films can now show the bloodiest, goriest themes which are quite similar to what we see in real life, "Saving Private Ryan," the guts spilling out. And yet real war cannot be shown without censoring pictures which in many cases are exactly the same as what you see when you go to the cinema. Or when you watch a war movie on television. It's remarkable. And only when you're there do you realize -- and I have an editor in London who shakes his head in disbelief and when I say this over and over again. If you go to war, you realize it is not primarily about victory or defeat, it is about death and the infliction of death and suffering on as large a scale as you can make it. It is about the total failure of the human spirit. We don't show that because we don't want to. And in this sense journalists, television reporting, television cameras are lethal. They cloud with governments to allow to you have more wars because if they showed you the truth, you wouldn't allow any more wars.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, two questions. One is, why do you think president Bush has done this? And what do you think, since you write in your book that's just about to come out, "The Great War for Civilization," about the increasing call of your readers, questions, outcry, what can we do? Why do you think he's done this? What do you think he wants to accomplish now? And what do you think people can do?

ROBERT FISK: Look. What Bush did in 2003 and what our own Lord Blair did, our prime minister whom we deeply love, what they both did is they made a terrible mistake which history should have taught them not to make. They went to war for ideological reasons. They dressed it up in military reasons, weapons of mass destruction, saving the poor Shiites, or the poor Sunnis, or the poor Kurds, or whatever you like, destruction of Saddam Hussein, giving democracy to the Middle East. There will be some more, come up soon, before we tell the Iraqi that they're ungrateful and they should be more grateful than they are. We are already beginning to tell them in the letters columns, I noticed.

But they went to war for ideological reasons. If you do that you will always fail. You see, everything goes wrong in a war based on ideology. Whether it be right-wing Christian ideology, fundamentalist ideology, whether it be the ideology of American western democracy has to plow up the dictatorships of the Middle East. I won't go into that because we'll all fall asleep. But what happens is that everything about your military purpose gets perverted. For example, look at American intelligence. It's hopeless in Iraq. Absolutely hopeless. All they do is arrest the wrong people. People get beaten up, people get tortured. Yes, they do by the way.

And yet, America has this extraordinary intelligence gathering apparatus. Massive super computers sucking in telephone calls. Millions from all over the middle east. Translators going through page after page, not fast enough as we know it before September 11, 2001. But doing it. And they amass this huge volume after volume of intelligence of what's going on in the Middle East. Now, if you are able to understand injustice, which is what the Middle East is partly and principally about, you can make sense of it. But if you're going to go ideologically at this intelligence and try to make it fit what you believe or what you want to believe, then the whole C.I.A. is eliminated. It's worthless.

That's why, for example, the background, the foundation of the Iraq war is built on sand because it was an ideological war. It wasn't based on what do Iraqis want what would really happen. It was also based on oil, I know that. Because if the chief exported Iraq with asparagus, we wouldn't be there, would we? When you base a war ideology, that’s what happens? You lose. And when you lie about the basis of it, you lose. And the war in Iraq has been lost already. It's only prison journalism or hotel journalism and the lies of the State Department and the Pentagon and the White House and the Downing Street and the Defense Ministry in London and so on that keep this spin rolling. At some point there's going to be an explosion the like of which will be inexplicable by those in power. I don't know what it's going to be, but it will come.

How do we deal with it t? I don't know. You see, those readers who write to me and still do. I've got a bunch of mail outside the studio in my bag. What can we do? There seems to have been a complete breakdown in Britain. Between the electors and the elected. One of the reasons, of course, the Tory party supporting the Labor party, the press have become the opposition. You have a bigger problem in the United States in that, as I understand it -- well, I'll quote a U.S. Marine who said to me in San Diego a few months ago, "Our problem is we have this kind of false democracy," he said, "We vote for our senators and congressman for what they say they'll give us and they give us something and say something completely different.

I think you have a big problem with the lobby groups. I don’t mean just the Israeli lobby, I mean the gun lobby and so on. I think you have a major problem with lobby groups in Washington and every president comes along saying he's going to clean that out but he never does. Actually, Bush didn't say that, not George W., anyway. But I think you have a much bigger problem in the United States where on issues like the Middle East, for example, your voice is simply not heard unless it is pro- Israeli, pro-American policy in the Middle East, etcetera, up on the hill. You'll get a few brave souls, Paul Finley. Look what happened to him. But basically you won't get represented on these critical issues.

American policy in the Middle East is the critical issue in all our lives at the moment. I hinted -- I go at much greater length in my new book on the issue why after September 11, 2001, I remember having this terrible argument with that Boston professor, Dershowitz, who called me “a dangerous man. He's anti-American. It's the same as being anti-Semitic.” Which is rubbish of course, I’m neither. But anyone who asked the question why did it happened was seen as being unpatriotic, potential enemy therefore anti-American, anti-people, anti-democracy. Because, of course to ask the question why, we have to say: well, hold on a second, the 19 hijackers came from the Arabs. They came from the Middle East. Is there a problem out there? We can't go into that.

It's strange because if you have a crime in Santa Fe, the cops come along. First thing they do is look for the motive. When you have an international crime against humanity on the scale of September 11, 2001. The one thing you're not allowed to do is look for the motive for the crime. And I think that by and large for many months Americans were prevented from looking for the motive. By the time they could look for the motive, we were bombing Afghanistan and saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And then defeating Saddam Hussein. And so it goes on and on. And it seems somehow that modern-day politicians with, in many cases, the help, I’m afraid, of journalists, are able to continue to bamboozle people. “We'll explain it tomorrow, that's too secret to tell you,” secret intelligence officials insist. Look at The New York Times’s first paragraphs over and over again, “According to American intelligence officials.” “American officials say.” I think sometimes The New York Times should be called “American Officials Say. Just look at it tomorrow or the day after. Or the L.A. Times, or the, not the San Francisco Chronicle, it's not much of a paper anymore unfortunately, but The Washington Post.

It's almost as if—you know the cozy relationship between American journalists and power is very dangerous. You want to look and see what that relationship is like. The osmotic, the host and the parasite together. You only have to look at a White House press conference, “Mr. President, Mr. President?” “Yes, Bob. Yes, John? Yes, Nancy,” that's the relationship. Journalists like to be close to power. They know that if they want to be close to power, they mustn't challenge power. And that goes back to the Amira Haas definition of journalism, which I am a total devote of: you must challenge power all the time, all the time, all the time even if the politicians and the prime minister, even if your readers hate you. You must challenge power. And that includes Bin Laden power.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, we are out of time but I just have a quick question, perhaps--

ROBERT FISK: Thank goodness.

AMY GOODMAN: And that is, you've covered the Israeli invasions of Lebanon, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Gulf war, wars in Algeria, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the invasion and occupation of Iraq--

ROBERT FISK: Enough, enough, enough.

AMY GOODMAN: What gives you hope? What gives you hope?

ROBERT FISK: Nothing. I’m sorry. Nothing. I’m sorry. Nothing at the moment. Ordinary people, I guess. Ordinary people who speak out. People in the Arab world as well. But in terms of governments, nothing much. I may be wrong. I may be too much of a pessimist because I've seen too much.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, author of “The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East," reports for the Independent newspaper for 30 years, based in the Middle East.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
-----------------------------------


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:07 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
It is most interesting how you have evaded
every link and all my knowledge


I haven't evaded anything, you've gone so wildly off topic that I'm trying to steer the discussion back to the issues you brought up, which were the pullout from this particular war and the British SAS folks. How is Clinton even remotely relevant? Answer? He isn't, you just can't refute my points, so you're dodging.

Quote:
simply
because you supported a prior President
who committed crimes against humanity that
do not bother you because "your" party was
in power. The only reason you claim to oppose
this war is that it is a Republican war. Your
lack of outrage toward Clinton's crimes shows
how party-politcal you are.


Oh, don't think I'm letting Bill off the hook just because I'm not talking about him. Bill did plenty I opposed. But, again, BILL IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS THREAD.

Quote:
More troops = more occupation = more war =
more terrorism !!


Less troops = Occupation by Iran/Al-Qaida = More Terrorism!!

Quote:
Plus the Iraqi people do NOT want more troops
in their country.


I'm pretty sure they don't want foreign fundamentalist fighters there either. So again, back to the original question, how do you propose to stabilize their country should the US begin an immediate pullout?

Quote:
What matters is the Iraqi people...remember
them?


I do. It is you sir, that wants to leave them in utter wreckage that we caused, without us sticking around to fix it. You think Saddam was bad? Lets leave now, you'll get to see someone far worse in charge, I guarantee it. Do you remember the west? Because if the Iranians gain influence in Iraq, with a budding nuke program, it'll be a fun 10k degrees celsius somewhere.

Quote:
PS Mr Blair is not the English Prime Minister
he is the British Prime Minister.


Ahhhh, semantics. Because calling you English instead of British somehow negates the fact that Blair is still PM and Clinton doesn't rule your nation. You know, since you must have never come to America, having never left the White Cliffs of Dover, I'll let you in on a little secret - we still call you guys England on this side of the Atlantic, not Britain. Get over it.




------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:17 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
You said:
"Tell me, in your opinion, how we can leave right now without a civil war breaking out and the Iranians or Syrians gaining control of Iraq and turning it into a fundamentalist terrorist breeding ground."

TOO LATE: It already is for some time now.
The Occupation has done this. We have to leave Iraq NOW! There is NO other option.

Now read this interview with ROBERT FISK he knows damn more than you will ever will about Iraq.


You haven't had an original thought this whole thread. When confronted, you go off topic, or post links to socialist websites, or post someone else's opinions on the matter.

Read the Fisk article a little closer, because he doesn't offer any solutions, he just points out the problems. He doesn't even theorize on the quicksand issue that a pullout might leave. Basing a response on this article makes your case fall flat.

I'm done arguing with you, someone else can take over.


------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:22 PM

HOWARD


I live in a city called Manchester
my address for international purposes
ends with UNITED KINGDOM.
I am British. Britain is a multicultural
nation. English is an ethnicity.

You know NOTHING about me, my life or
my history.

I have lived in:
Miami, Boston and New York City.

That is lived-in not just visited but lived
in for years.

Your ignorance in calling Blair the Prime
Minister of England is just plain dumb.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:32 PM

HOWARD



First of all I have the interview on MD that
I recorded off DEMOCRACY NOW. Listening to
his tone and emphasis one is able to hear
and comprehend his intent more than just a
written transcript. But even in writing if
you read it as insight into how things are
and why you are so poorly informed by your
media, its all there.

As I suspected you are a bonehead who will
bleed another person for hours my entire AM
night hours...but no matter how much info or
sources I give you and no matter the fact that
you have no intent of doing anything other
than believing corporate media with a pro
imperial slant...you simply prove that Kerry
voting American Liberals are the single greatest
obstacle to progressive change in the United
States.

This discussion is over!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:39 PM

TWEEK128


One problem: This is the British sphere of control, Basra. If you read up on what's happening in U.S. controlled areas, the locals are cooperating and the police are with us and their people.

Besides, isn't it Iran's fault anyway, according the the Brits? No, not the Brits fault for taking their "hands-off" policy and letting the Shi'a in the region kill prostitutes with abandon. No, not at all. It's Iran for mucking up a perfectly rudderless situation that the British could otherwise have let evolve...somehow.

Recent operations in Sunni areas have been progressively more successful, with greater and greater levels of local coopration. Among the major cities, only in Basra do we see the level of fear by the locals to not cooperate with the Coalition forces. Meanwhile, Iranian style sharia is starting to take root. You know, the kind with the roving religious folks out to kill or beat folks who aren't "moral"?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:14 PM

HOWARD

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:17 PM

TWEEK128


Sorry. Not a Fisk fan.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:21 PM

HOWARD



This is happening because the US and British
governments have made it happen.

They tout a constitution that removed the
paragraph that gave rights to women. But
still Bush glows whenever the constitution
is mentioned.

One of the first acts by the US Occupation
authority was to ban the secular non-tribal
Iraqi trade union movement.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:23 PM

HOWARD


That is NOT the bloody point!!

You see how star-celebrity determines
who you listen to?

Read the interview for information
regarding what he has witnessed and
what is happening. It is NOT about whether
you like him. He is not a candy bar or pop
star. He is a witness to real events.

Read it. It won't kill you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:50 PM

TWEEK128


Yeah, but he sure wishes he was and acts accordingly.

As for what's been happening, no, it's not quite the fault of the U.S. and U.K. so much as it is the radical Shi'a elements in Basra and Iran.

But, I'm not the type to assume that evil can only be done by Western powers. Evil doesn't only happen through the inaction of the good. It happens through the actions of the evil, and remains unchecked through the actions of the good.

And for all you want to say about women's rights, laws and declarations don't kill or unkill prostitutes in the streets. Force against the elements willing to kill does. Something the Americna forces tend to do is enforce order and law. The British, out of respect for the Shi'a turned a blind eye to the growing theocratic elements in Basra. Now that they're reaping what they've sown, there's a want to criticize the US?

Laughable. Five months ago, there was likely praise for the British contingents "hands-off" tendencies and cultural sensitivity. And what do we have now? Increasing order in the U.S. areas and a rising theocratic movement in U.K. administered Basra.

Cultural sensitivity is no reason to let theocrats usurp power.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 9:47 PM

HOWARD


The US anti-Sunni pro Shia policy has created
this.

You are ignoring so much of what Fisk reports.

By the way. How many more people exactly are
you prepared to have murdered in your name
in order to achieve the imposition of "our"
values upon a people that may not want it?

At what point would you say. We have killed
too many now. We have tortured too many and
mostly tortured the wrong people and that
torture is wrong and that it all has to end?

And remember this as you seem fixated about
Iran.

Who was it that drove Iran into a religious
solution.

It was the CIA and Kissinger who helped the
Shah to purge Iran of all secular Left-Wing
dissent leaving the Iranian people who never
wanted a theocratic option no choice but to
back a cleric lead revolution to rid themselves
of the Shah. CIA supervised torture and murder
under the Shah convinced them of this.

Meanwhile the CIA under Bush Snr put their fave
thug into the Presidency of Iraq. Saddam was
first hired by the CIA as a young assassin in
1959 last year of Eisenhower admin. Saddam took
defacto power in 68 then official President a
decade later.

In the corridors of the CIA the relationship
between Bush snr and Saddam was known as
"the love affair".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 1:32 AM

TWEEK128


Way to spasm all over the post.

As for Iran, points noted. That's another mess that needs cleaning.

As you said, Saddam was our mess, too. We've rectified it. Are you suggesting we should go into Iran, too? I tend to like that idea if the situation was right.

Speaking of torture, are you familiar with that his regime was responsible for? We've ended more suffering there than we've caused. Further, torture? What torture are you referring to specifically? Humiliation is a form of torture, sure. But so is raping a wife and daughter in front of the husband. So is feeding a man feet first into a plastic shredder so you can hear him scream, and so that the pain lasts longer.

If you really consider anything the U.S. has done as "torture," then any moral grandstanding you presume to do is hamstrung from the outset.

All the "refusal to impose our values" has done is allowed Basra to degenerate to the point noted above. Have any opinion on the fact that the U.S. is better appreciated in their administered areas than the less-imposing British forces?

And, y'know, you've got a point about them "not wanting" our values. That democracy is a pesky, and decidedly Western thing. Heavens forbid we impose such a wicked concept as voting for leadership into a Middle Eastern state.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 3:29 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:

In the corridors of the CIA the relationship
between Bush snr and Saddam was known as
"the love affair".


Ok, thats enough. Put the koolaid down and step away from the internet.

I give you credit. Your an equal opportunity nutjob. You bash Clinton with the grace of Rush Limbaugh and Bush with the moral outrage of Michael Moore.

So if you hate Bush and hate Clinton that leaves only one catagory for you to fit in. Your an anti-American.

Here, I'll prove it, I'll be you for a moment: America, bad. American policy, bad. American charity, bad. American culture, bad. Anything that hurts America, thwarts American policy, or American allies, good.

That makes you a French licking, earthquake loving, hurricane cheering, Bin Laddenite. Hey, one of you Kerry supports out there, I'll hold him, you poke him in the eye.

'Look son, an old Europe America hater in his natural habitat. There's wine, a statue of Lenin, a suicide bomb making kit, and even a connection to the internet with all the crazy anti-American websites listed under favorites.'
'But Dad, I wanna see the Hippos...'

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 6:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wow Hero, you sure managed to derail a detailed discussion!

I was going to point out that I'm also very unhappy with Clinton. As for the lack of sovereignty in Iraq- I didn't need a signal moment (like the tank and helicopter retrieval of two Brits from the Basra jail) to tell me that! Clearly, the US and Britain are supporting a puppet government and a puppet process. But as far as what those two officers were actually doing, and what they had in-hand: so far, there are a lot of allegations of the work of agents provocateurs but no proof. I'm not dismissing for one instant the possibility that this is occuring- after all my dad was an agent provocateur and I've seen plenty of evidence that the tactic is still favored by the USA and prolly Britain. But still- no hard evidence that such is occuring in Iraq. In my mind, the jury is still out. And it seems while Bush is really pushing for a unified Iraq, the provocateurs would seem to be pushing in the opposite direction.

I'm more interested in where this is all going. al Sadr is one powerfully underappreciated actor. He seems to be playing deep strategy in the political, security/military and popular arenas... and winning. His wiining message is USA OUT NOW. (Gives y'all an idea of how appreciated we are there.) Parliament includes many of his supporters who ran under different banners. Any opinion as to his ultimate strategy and goal?


Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 6:43 AM

TWEEK128


Sig,

Problem is mostly with the Brit admin'd Shi'a areas. Sunni areas are coming around.

Regarding the agents, an impression I'd gotten elsewhere was that they were active in tracking terrorist elements and were deep cover when they were taken in by the corrupt locals.

Overly simplistic view? Perhaps. Correct? Also, perhaps. Incorrect? Perhaps.

But the bottom line is, these were Brits, who like to look down their noses at American insensitivities and who were allowing murders to go uninvestigated by the thoroughly infiltrated local police, so is it any wonder that law and order might not be at hand in Basra?

Again, meanwhile, our "heavy-handed" tactics are earning U.S. forces in the Sunni areas to gain the trust of the locals who want the so-called "insurgents" to stop killing children and innocent Iraqis. We're actively working towards civility in the heart of the "insurgency" while the Brits have allowed a new fever swamp to grow where there was once order.

Something to be said for getting your hands dirty and sacking up to the task at hand.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and about al-Sadr: Again, that's a problem more in Shi'a areas where he can accuse the Brits of being distant, imperialistic occupiers who care more about looking tough and care less about people living and dying unjustly. In the U.S. areas, the hands-on approach has yielded more positive results.

And, yeah, Iran's hand is likely up al-Sadr's backside. Better our puppet than theirs. But better no puppet at all, and we're more likely to withdraw the hand than Iran would be.

Others may disagree, but if they do, anyone with working knowledge of state actors other than the U.S. and U.K. can well disregard whatever follows or precedes such blatantly ignorant disagreement.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 6:46 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Any opinion as to his ultimate strategy and goal?


I can't speak for his strategy but his goals are pretty clear:

1. Death to Isreal
2. Pan-Arab Union (with him in charge)
3. Dead Americans (or American allies)
4. Serenity 2 in 2007 (but not a new Series)

Same as most other radical Arab leaders and France.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 6:50 AM

TWEEK128


Would the plot of that Serenity II involve Martyr ops? I don't think I'd like that version.

I mean, sure, they'd all see Wash again, but, c'mon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:29 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:
Originally posted by TWEEK128:
Sig,

Regarding the agents, an impression I'd gotten elsewhere was that they were active in tracking terrorist elements and were deep cover when they were taken in by the corrupt locals.

Overly simplistic view? Perhaps. Correct? Also, perhaps. Incorrect? Perhaps.


This was my entire point, before the argument got derailed into Howard's belief that a secret cabal of John Kerry, Blair, and Bill Clinton are steering the events in Basra from their secret underground lair in the Andes. We just don't have enough facts to realistically assess what the SAS was up to, for good or ill. I think saying they had 'murderous intent,' without backing, is biased.

But Howard seems to think that regardless of facts or lack thereof, the west is eeeeeeviiilll, like the fru-it of the deeevil.
This makes twice I've had to agree with Hero lately, and I'm not happy about it. No offense intended, H.

Quote:
And, yeah, Iran's hand is likely up al-Sadr's backside. Better our puppet than theirs. But better no puppet at all, and we're more likely to withdraw the hand than Iran would be.



Valid point all around. Does anyone realistically believe that if we withdraw now, Iran won't be in almost complete shadow control of the Iraqi government? One that is increasingly reliant on religious law? How is that in any way in either our interests or the interests of the common Iraqi?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The person who seems to be more in tune with Iran is Sistani. Sadr, altho also Shia, was working pretty strongly to siphon support from Sistani. I haven't seen much in the way of evidence that Sadr is in Iran's pocket.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:34 AM

HOWARD



Please also see

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=14247

and the many links at bottom of the page.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:37 AM

HOWARD




also how about people checking out this
thread..

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=14217

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 11:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
The British agents were dressed like Arabs.

Shock! Horror!
Undercover agents dressed as Arabs in an Arab country! Whatever next?
I always assumed they wore orange jumpsuits with "Undercover agent" written across the back...
Quote:
The Iraqi police found equipment and explosives in their car identical to that of any terrorist operation.

Soldiers, with weapons? Surely not, you kid?
I mean, what do you expect undercover British agents/soldiers to have in their boot, pink leotard? Feather duster?
Quote:
The British SAS or whatever they were clearly were up to no-good and part of a mission to do harm.

The Iraqi police had weapons. Were they also clearly(?) up to no good.
Quote:
The local police were totally in their right to arrest them.

Possibly. I never made any assertions. I asked questions. Not even biased questions.
Quote:
There was no negotiation no due process of law just illegal brute force used by the British army.

Actually, there was a negotiation. Neither you nor I know what was said during it. For all we know the Iraqi police could have said "Haha, we're going to slowly murder your two soldiers and there's nothing you can do about it.".
They may have said "Sure, if a court finds them not guilty.".
Both are possible, and both put a radically different spin on the situation.
Your assertions are simplistic at best.

Beyond that, it seems to me that Iraqi civilian police don't have jurisdiction over the soldiers in this situation.
That falls to either:
The Iraqi military
Or
British Military police.
Quote:
What this incident proves is that...
THERE IS NO IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY

I agree. Except the all the Bush and Blair lies part.
Quote:
Why do you think that as intelligence agents they had a moral right to be freed?

I never said I did. There’s nothing in my post that even suggests that. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Quote:
Because CITIZEN all your life you have been conditioned with the Disneyesque fantasy that "our side" has benevolence in its heart and intent.

I asked some questions, and instead of answering or accepting them you insult me. I'm naive, incapable of thinking for myself and so on.
What was the insult you used in that other thread?
Ah yes, foolish child, who hasn't been taught how to think. Taught!
Where does one get taught to think the correct (your) way?
The Ministry of Correct Thinking? LOL!

Howard, I didn't even make an opinion, so how the hell can you attack it?
You wanted to hear a position you could attack. I wonder why.

So anyway, I checked your links. I read the Robert Fisk interview, and although interesting, it doesn't seem to really support your argument, nor does it have any baring on this discussion (makes no mention of this incident).
I did search DEMOCRACY NOW for a mention of this incident though, and found it an example of poor reporting.
You say the BBC article is a whitewash? It doesn't force an agenda, it reports the facts. DN, on the other hand, made completely baseless accusations. Let me clarify:
Quote:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/1330222&mode=threa
d&tid=25
An Iraqi official said that the British soldiers were arrested after they had fired at an Iraqi police officer.

Which Iraqi official? No name, no actual quote. Hearsay. No counter viewpoint.
Quote:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/1330222&mode=threa
d&tid=25
The British Army attempted to downplay the incident claiming that the men were released after negotiations.

Who in the British Army said this. It was widely reported negotiations failed, and there was military action taken. There was never a story from the British Army that said otherwise. I challenge you to show a quote or evidence to the contrary. That is total BS.

Please spare me your stock reply:
"Your a moron too brainwashed to understand or believe the data I present."
That is the only article on this incident I could find on DN and it is obviously biased, and obviously attempting to push a political agenda, rather than impartially present the facts.
NOTE:
I am not accusing DN of bad reporting, but that particular article is flawed enough for me to place as much confidence in it as I would 'The Sun' or the 'Daily Fascist', I’m sorry, of course I meant 'Daily Mail'.
Quote:
I will edit my own posts as I like.
Thank you very much.

Fine, please acknowledge those sorts of edits though. Otherwise you’re merely 'changing history'.
Quote:
I live in a city called Manchester my address for international purposes ends with UNITED KINGDOM.
I am British. Britain is a multicultural
nation. English is an ethnicity.

I too describe myself as British. However, if you really want to get picky, it is just as acceptable to place England after your address. The Prime Minister can also be called the English Prime Minister (it is arguably more correct from a historical standpoint and even a future one as many of the nations of the 'British Isles' move toward devolution).
Quote:
Originally posted by TWEEK128:
Problem is mostly with the Brit admin'd Shi'a areas. Sunni areas are coming around.
...
Again, meanwhile, our "heavy-handed" tactics are earning U.S. forces in the Sunni areas to gain the trust of the locals who want the so-called "insurgents" to stop killing children and innocent Iraqis. We're actively working towards civility in the heart of the "insurgency" while the Brits have allowed a new fever swamp to grow where there was once order.

American controlled areas are 'coming around'?
Quote:
The rate at which U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq, therefore, rose from only 0.5 a day from Sept. 8 through Sept. 13 to 1.375 a day from Sept. 14 to Sept. 21, and even further to more than two a day over the Sept. 22-28 period, an increase of 400 percent.
...
These figures clearly document an insurgency that is remorselessly spreading in area and getting worse in intensity and capabilities.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050930-032035-4078r
You seem to be suggesting that 'bullying' a local population and generally acting like conquers is more likely to pacify a population than an approach of understanding and working together?
The British have a long history of these kinds of situations and we have learnt from our mistakes.
I could just as easily interpret the current issues in Basra as a result of American aggression (the British and Americans are part of the same occupying power) as British 'lax methods'.
You give lawlessness that the British 'turn a blind-eye too' completely ignoring the fact that these incidents happen in Baghdad (for instance) on a much greater scale.
In fact I suspect if American policy had been more like that of the British the problems would have been lessened.
People join 'insurgencies' and terrorists because they believe they are being attacked, which comes more from a hard-line policy than a softer one.
Given America's Hard-line policy the British 'softly-softly' may have been ill advised but it did not cause the problems.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 3:41 PM

TWEEK128


Quote:

Quote:
The rate at which U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq, therefore, rose from only 0.5 a day from Sept. 8 through Sept. 13 to 1.375 a day from Sept. 14 to Sept. 21, and even further to more than two a day over the Sept. 22-28 period, an increase of 400 percent.
...
These figures clearly document an insurgency that is remorselessly spreading in area and getting worse in intensity and capabilities.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050930-032035-4078r
You seem to be suggesting that 'bullying' a local population and generally acting like conquers is more likely to pacify a population than an approach of understanding and working together?
The British have a long history of these kinds of situations and we have learnt from our mistakes.
I could just as easily interpret the current issues in Basra as a result of American aggression (the British and Americans are part of the same occupying power) as British 'lax methods'.
You give lawlessness that the British 'turn a blind-eye too' completely ignoring the fact that these incidents happen in Baghdad (for instance) on a much greater scale.
In fact I suspect if American policy had been more like that of the British the problems would have been lessened.
People join 'insurgencies' and terrorists because they believe they are being attacked, which comes more from a hard-line policy than a softer one.
Given America's Hard-line policy the British 'softly-softly' may have been ill advised but it did not cause the problems.





But it did allow them to spread. Think of it like criminal activity. If the police are understanding of growing lawlessness, it will only increase as will the people's reluctance to cooperate with authorities due to the fear of unchecked reprisals.

We were heavy-handed in earlier actions, but due to the mistakes we made, we're conducting ourselves with far greater respect to local customs and sensitivities. While. Still. Accomplishing. Our. Goals.

While, yes, the British and U.S. do jointly administer, I doubt you were stressing this when Basra was the "good" city. It's the Brits' sphere, and if you wanted to take credit for the "stability" bought by quiet complicity before, you must take credit for the growingly theocratic local elements now.

As for the 400% increase, that sounds nice and scary. Versus what? Day-by-day totals? Or same-day totals the year before? Be completely sure of context of the values instead of letting them be shaped.

Also, the increase may have been due, not to increased operations by insurgents (which, in fact, have actually decreased in frequency, but, I believe, increased in severity)but possibly due to the increased operations by U.S. forces in the border towns through which Syrians and other foreign "insurgents" have been flowing into Iraq.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/squeeze-play.html

When you go to their bases, expect your body count to rise some. But I'm positive that their body counts are significantly higher (and that's not just counting that their often-forced suicde ops).

On a side note: Hm...never had a Menk lecture me about diversity. In fact, a Menk once told me that the U.S. is actually slightly less racist than the U.K. on the whole because our national identity doesn't rest on race nearly as much as the TUKOGBANI identities do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:40 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128
But it did allow them to spread. Think of it like criminal activity. If the police are understanding of growing lawlessness, it will only increase as will the people's reluctance to cooperate with authorities due to the fear of unchecked reprisals.
...
While, yes, the British and U.S. do jointly administer, I doubt you were stressing this when Basra was the "good" city. It's the Brits' sphere, and if you wanted to take credit for the "stability" bought by quiet complicity before, you must take credit for the growingly theocratic local elements now.

Basra was a 'good' city for sometime. Now it is starting to see some of the continuing violence of the American controlled areas and you seem to want to blame that on lax British policy.
As I see it it is more indicative of the insurgency and violence fostered by the (continuing) American shoot first ask questions later policy, beginning to spread to the rest of the country.
Quote:
We were heavy-handed in earlier actions, but due to the mistakes we made, we're conducting ourselves with far greater respect to local customs and sensitivities. While. Still. Accomplishing. Our. Goals.

I see no real evidence of either the American military learning from their mistakes in Iraq, or Accomplishing. Any. Goals.
Quote:
On a side note: Hm...never had a Menk lecture me about diversity. In fact, a Menk once told me that the U.S. is actually slightly less racist than the U.K. on the whole because our national identity doesn't rest on race nearly as much as the TUKOGBANI identities do.

A Menk? What, pray tell, is a Menk.
As for the racism lecture, race never came into it. Sociology, perhaps, not race.
As for this other 'Menk' who thinks racism is more of an issue in the UK.
As I understand it in America minorities are often segregated into their own min-communities? This is much rarer in the UK.
When we talk about racism in the police force it's not about how a man caught 'Black in Charge' was beaten to within an inch of his life, it's because someone suggests there isn't enough officers from Minority groups. The UK is sensitive to race issues to an almost pathological degree. I really don't see where this other 'Menk' is coming from.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:58 AM

TWEEK128


First off, Menk = Mencurian, however you spell it. Folk from Man-Chest-Ah.

And that pathological sensitivity is actually what he was speaking to, if indirectly. Here, there's self-segregation at times, but nowhere near what y'all over there seem to think. Nowhere near. In the end, anyone can be American, but can a black person be English? Can an Asian of any type?

As for Basra, yes, the U.S. isn't administering that area, and, yes, the British are, so, yes, I would hold the British responsible.

By your reasoning, that which is lessening in, say, Mosul and other cities and is increasing in Basra (institutional and popular resistence to the "occupiers") could be said to be the fault of the British, since it was taking place in U.S. administered areas. Sorry, no joy. I know you want to blame the U.S. for everything, but when it's not in our sphere of control, that tack falls short.

Further, the violence in Basra is not the same as the violence in Sunni areas. In large part, this is because you have Iraqi forces working with the Coalition groups, and against the terrorists. In Basra, the police and government seem to have their fates more tied with radical Shiite theocrats and an Iranian model of government.
Basically it boils down to this:
Sunni/U.S. areas: U.S. / Locals vs. terrorists.
Shiite/U.K. areas: U.K. vs. locals / terrorists.

Why? Because when it is clear that your interest is not the rule of law but "sensitivity" and your opposition is interested in subverting order to their own ends at the expense of the average person, then the people will fear those usurping power and know that you, who are in a position to do something about it, will sooner let them die than to offend the sensitivities of your common opponent.
The British are now on record as having attacked a police headquarters, whereas the terrorists in the North are the only ones who've done so in a U.S. administered areas. There, we've worked with the police to make sure that no undesirable elements make it in. Obviously, that was not a high concern of the British authorities in Basra.


As for goals accomplished, we're rolling back terrorist groups and capturing leaders at a good clip, and attacks against U.S. forces are lower than they were a year ago.

If you're not aware of this, it's because you're reading articles that have a vested, ideological interest in presenting the news in as harsh a light as possible. If you're interested only in hearing the negative aspects, fine, well and good, but don't act like you're interested in anything else or that you'd care if there was any positive news.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:38 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
First off, Menk = Mencurian, however you spell it. Folk from Man-Chest-Ah.

The term is Mank = Mancurian, petty, perhaps, but I understand Mank .
Secondly, I'm not from Manchester... not even close... You’re thinking of Howard...
Seriously, please don't confuse us.
Used to live in Hull for a bit, which is about as close as I've ever been to Manchester...
Quote:
By your reasoning, that which is lessening in, say, Mosul and other cities and is increasing in Basra (institutional and popular resistence to the "occupiers") could be said to be the fault of the British, since it was taking place in U.S. administered areas. Sorry, no joy. I know you want to blame the U.S. for everything, but when it's not in our sphere of control, that tack falls short.

Actually, I don't want to solely blame the US. I'm trying to point out that the problems in Basra and Iraq in general are not caused by these silly lax Brits.
Yes, I blame a lot of the current level of violence and the fast proliferation of Insurgencies after the occupation on the abysmal American military policies.
Yes I think that the problems in Iraq would be less if the American military had adopted a more British approach, rather than, as usual, arrogantly assuming theirs was the best way, and ignoring these crazy Brits and their prior experience.
Yes, the Brits lax policies are now helping the violence to proliferate. But the situation is not as simple as your assertion of, American hard-line policies are saving Iraq, and British lax policies are sending it into chaos.
Yes American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. Not only have innocent Iraqi civilians been killed in this way but British troops have too. This is going to anger people. The widely and continuing abuses of prisoners is going to anger people.
You say the locals are working with the US against the Terrorists, but who do you think a lot of these terrorists are? No matter how much our authorities want to play it down the insurgencies do comprise Iraqis. Yes they are the extremists amongst the population.
But Hard-line policies have a way of pushing people to extremes.
I'm not saying that American policy is entirely at fault. You are saying that the problems of Iraq are being brought under control by American hard-line policy, and this is being messed up by British wishy-washy techniques.
No, I don't see that as being the case.
Quote:
There, we've worked with the police to make sure that no undesirable elements make it in. Obviously, that was not a high concern of the British authorities in Basra.

The Americans have cases where families have been unnecessarily slaughtered. By your reasoning the deaths of families is not a major concern for the American authorities.
Quote:
If you're not aware of this, it's because you're reading articles that have a vested, ideological interest in presenting the news in as harsh a light as possible. If you're interested only in hearing the negative aspects, fine, well and good, but don't act like you're interested in anything else or that you'd care if there was any positive news.

Actually I read a lot, on both sides of the 'fence'. I also often watch and read the BBC, which is a news source I'd hold above anything in America for impartiality.
If you want to read nothing but good reports and attribute any others to the failings of the British, all fine and good, just don't act like you care about the truth.
There are actually many reasons besides yours for any falloff that may be experienced in American deaths.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:10 PM

TWEEK128


Yeah, that was at Howard. I saw his "I'm enlightened" schpiel earlier and found it funny that a Mank was going on about how worldy he was since he was A. British and B. had lived in three cities in the U.S. If he lived in Miami, I don't know how he could think that the U.S. was essentially racist. And I don't know where Hull is, truth be told. But then, you probably don't know where Davenport or Council Bluffs are off the top of your head.

I was gonna use the truth line earlier, but danced around it. You seem pretty sharp, so let's do better to avoid the ad hominem shall we? I mean both me and you, so don't think this is asking this only of you.

I see an acknowledgement that the U.S. is not "solely to blame" and I think that's good. We're not. But given how Basra was held up before as how things should be done, and given the situation there now, I think it's rather clear that the way the rising Shia theocrats were "handled" (which is, not at all)was less-than-ideal.

As for the idea that most of the insurgents are locals, I'd agree that the heads are, but I believe most of the current crop are foreign fighters or holdovers from Saddam's regime and their sympathizers. If you've read some of Michael Yon's reporting, that would seem to be the case.

Also, to cite a sign of U.S. success, look at the bombing of the Palestine hotel. Iraqi security/army stopped the attack from achieving the higher death count that was intended. Only one U.S. soldier was involved. Could this have happened in Basra? Or would it be a police element conducting the attack?

Infiltrators were a problem in Sunni areas, but vetting techniques were stepped up, and more tasks are being left in ING and local police hands. We just take care of the big stuff.

And I don't want to turn this into a purely U.S. vs. U.K. thing, but, seriously, have any U.S. personnel been detained by Iraqi police or ING after identification? No. U.K.? Yes. I'm curious as to why, without the implication that there's "fault" to be lain. The question that should be focused on is why, and how to rectify the situation.

As for the reasons for the falloffs, cite them. Don't cop out and suggest on the one hand that increased deaths = increased instability, but that decreased deaths do not necessarily equal increased stability. That's a relationship that's established by those citing the figures and to say that the opposite conclusion need not be accepted when the premise is refuted is to acknowledge that the original conclusion itself need not be accepted.

And, please, the BBC ain't all gold. Neither is Reuters or AP. Collective approach is best, but I'm curious who you define as one the "other" side of the fence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:58 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
Yeah, that was at Howard. I saw his "I'm enlightened" schpiel earlier and found it funny that a Mank was going on about how worldy he was since he was A. British and B. had lived in three cities in the U.S. If he lived in Miami, I don't know how he could think that the U.S. was essentially racist.

Ah right, sorry. I assumed as your post was solely answering mine, so I assumed the footnote was also directed at me.
Quote:
I was gonna use the truth line earlier, but danced around it. You seem pretty sharp, so let's do better to avoid the ad hominem shall we? I mean both me and you, so don't think this is asking this only of you.

I was unsure about using it myself, but I was a little taken-aback by the assertion that I didn't want to hear anything good about Iraq. I do. I really do. I was anti-war, but I don't see the ideology of being anti-war and wanting Iraq to fall into chaos so we can say see, Bush, see Blair, war did the place up.
IMHO that’s just kids stuff.
Quote:
Also, to cite a sign of U.S. success, look at the bombing of the Palestine hotel. Iraqi security/army stopped the attack from achieving the higher death count that was intended. Only one U.S. soldier was involved. Could this have happened in Basra? Or would it be a police element conducting the attack?

Well, the Iraqi army is solely operating with the Americans. There's no option of them operating with the British, mainly because the Iraqi army is still largely non-existent (one operational Brigade I believe).
Quote:
And I don't want to turn this into a purely U.S. vs. U.K. thing, but, seriously, have any U.S. personnel been detained by Iraqi police or ING after identification? No. U.K.? Yes. I'm curious as to why, without the implication that there's "fault" to be lain. The question that should be focused on is why, and how to rectify the situation.

I believe it's too do with differing roles between the US and the UK. US forces are being employed in high visibility aggressive battles.
The only UK soldiers captured have been undercover SAS/Special Forces (Two incidents, the first was defiantly SAS, the second it's unclear, though I suspect they were probably SAS).
I find it unlikely that US forces are being employed in this sort of undercover role; they simply do not have the relevant training. Even the CIA cannot field agents in this capacity, as they tend to payoff locals.
The SAS, on the other hand, have much training in this regard, and it is, indeed, part of their reason for existence.
Simply put, I believe UK forces are in the situation where they can be arrested. US forces are not.
Quote:
As for the reasons for the falloffs, cite them. Don't cop out and suggest on the one hand that increased deaths = increased instability, but that decreased deaths do not necessarily equal increased stability. That's a relationship that's established by those citing the figures and to say that the opposite conclusion need not be accepted when the premise is refuted is to acknowledge that the original conclusion itself need not be accepted.

Ok.
We have less than two months of data indicating a falloff (august was in fact one of the bloodiest months of post war Iraq) so its far to early to say the situation is actually stabilizing. There’s no sustained trend.
As you say Iraqi forces are being fielded now, so that can also mean Iraqi forces are taking the brunt. Also I find figures of Iraqi casualties can be misleading, if for no other reason because there's no body bags coming home to count.
Also we're in October now. Ramadan started on the 5th. It's entirely possible that Muslim insurgents have temporally downed arms for just that reason.
On a purely conjectural basis the drop in insurgent activity could also be an indication of 'regrouping' for a major offensive.
My point is that it's way too early to start saying that Iraq is stabilising.
Quote:
And, please, the BBC ain't all gold. Neither is Reuters or AP. Collective approach is best, but I'm curious who you define as one the "other" side of the fence.

Never said that the BBC was. What I meant was that the BBC is a far more impartial and reliable source than any of the equivalent sources in the US.
My both sides of the fence comment was aimed at the idea that I'm only looking at 'doom and gloom' reports.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:19 PM

TWEEK128


So I take it you're familiar with Chertoff's roundups?

The one operational brigade thing was a false assumption.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/few-good-men.html

The "one operational brigade" was a misunderstanding regarding the fact that only one was rated at the highest level of capability set by the U.S. military.

Further:
Quote:
GEN. CASEY: You mentioned the Tall Afar model. I think that's a good example. Three Iraqi brigades and a third Iraqi infantry division went in Tall Afar with one of our brigades. Urban fighting. I mean, the toughest type of combat. And these Iraqi units were right there with our guys. And what happens is more and more we're seeing them -- and General Vines told me this morning -- in about half the cases now our guys are providing the outer cordon, and it's the Iraqis that are going inside; frankly, because they're much more effective in understanding what it is they're seeing there. But that's kind of the Tall Afar model. And none of those brigades that went in there were level one. They were level two and three. And so I'm trying to give you some sense of the capabilities of these guys.


If there was only one operational brigade, you wouldn't hear about as many Iraqi centered ops as you tend to hear about. It's another defeatist creative fact to run with.

As for why, then, the Brits don't run with as many Iraqi units, that's a question I'd like to see answered that I don't think we have an answer to right now.

Certainly, you may say it is or is not stabilizing, but if the death numbers fluctuate as they do, it is likely not the best measure of stability to cite, especially divorced of context.

As for BBC impartiality, I don't buy it. Does BBC have something of a high standard, sure. Impartial? Never. No one can be. They can try, but at times it's the belief that a source is impartial that allows its biases to have the most insidious effects. And, by belief, I mean both on the part of the consumer and the producer. Someone who cannot say "terrorist" regarding a suicide bomber is showing partiality (is that proper usage?) by not calling something what, under any circumstances, it could be or should be called.
To wit, is Timothy McVeigh referred to as an insurgent, when his goals were similar to those of the Iraqi "insurgents"? No, he is a terrorist. Why is sensitivity not shown to him as well?

You may not want the effort to fail, but can you honestly say that the reporters that you're reading feel the same and do not allow their biases to paint the situation accordingly? Language isn't the sole indicator of bias, after all. It can manifest itself in the selection of facts that one provides. And, in this case as with most, it can be almost impossible to check without multiple sources.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:29 PM

CITIZEN


Tweek128:
Good questions.
But It's late here, I'll address them tomorrow.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:14 PM

TWEEK128


Shiny.

I think we've upped the level in discourse in this thread considerably.

Odd how Howard's nowhere to be found.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
The "one operational brigade" was a misunderstanding regarding the fact that only one was rated at the highest level of capability set by the U.S. military.

My understanding was that only one brigade was at full operational capabillity. My comment was a simplification of that.
Quote:
As for why, then, the Brits don't run with as many Iraqi units, that's a question I'd like to see answered that I don't think we have an answer to right now.

As you've already alluded to, the Iraqi military is the 'baby' of the US. As you say we don't know why the Iraqi military isn't operating with British forces, but I doubt it's because the British don't want to.
I think it should be noted that the Iraqi military is mainly being employed in 'American' operations (that is operations that would have been conducted by the American forces).
This is likely to be political (the Iraqi's are fighting the insurgency now, not us etc) as well as logistical. The American people just don't want their soldiers being the one's coming back in body bags (understandable).
Do I think the American Military is 'preventing' the Iraqi Military from operating with the British?
No, but I do think that the American military is keeping the Iraqi's on a short 'leash' for the time being.
Quote:
Certainly, you may say it is or is not stabilizing, but if the death numbers fluctuate as they do, it is likely not the best measure of stability to cite, especially divorced of context.

That was kinda my point...
Quote:
As for BBC impartiality, I don't buy it. Does BBC have something of a high standard, sure. Impartial? Never. No one can be.

Never said they were impartial. I essentially said they were about as good as you can get, and I still think they're better than the American equivalent.
Anecdotally I remember the news coverage of the attacks on the 7 of July in London. I was leaving Monument tube station at the time of the attacks, which is two stops down from Aldgate.
Throughout the day I obviously monitored the news, including American sources. The BBC delivered facts, first how it was believed to be an explosion from a power surge, then the likelihood of 'terror' attacks. They cited what and where, the emergency response, the number of casualties etc. There was no discernable speculation on the part of those expose the information. Looking at CNN (for instance) showed me terrible sensationalist crap, full of "Oh my god! This must be terrorists!" and alluding to the involvement of Islamic extremists.
Reuters is pretty good, though. Reporting the news, rather than opinion.
Quote:
Someone who cannot say "terrorist" regarding a suicide bomber is showing partiality (is that proper usage?) by not calling something what, under any circumstances, it could be or should be called.
To wit, is Timothy McVeigh referred to as an insurgent, when his goals were similar to those of the Iraqi "insurgents"? No, he is a terrorist. Why is sensitivity not shown to him as well?

The difference between Terrorists and Insurgents is in tactics. Terrorists attack civilian populations, use 'Terror tactics' (such as planting bombs, or suicide attacks) to spread fear, and distrust. Insurgents may use terror tactics, but they also engage military forces in open battles.
Timothy McVeigh was a Terrorist.
The Iraqi Insurgents are likewise insurgents. They use terrorists tactics as part of a wider 'guerrilla' action. They also limit their activities to the 'combat zone', which is another hallmark of Terrorist, who will attack their 'enemies anytime anywhere'.
Quote:
You may not want the effort to fail, but can you honestly say that the reporters that you're reading feel the same and do not allow their biases to paint the situation accordingly? Language isn't the sole indicator of bias, after all. It can manifest itself in the selection of facts that one provides. And, in this case as with most, it can be almost impossible to check without multiple sources.

As I said, I check many sources. I often cite the BBC as I can't cite them all, and I find the BBC on the whole gives the most well rounded account for a single source.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:43 AM

TWEEK128


Quote:
My understanding was that only one brigade was at full operational capabillity. My comment was a simplification of that.


Hence my remark regarding sources. I found contrary information, but I tend to read sites that actively find such information. This was one of the media "take it and run with it, facts be damned" kind of thing that reflects the willfullness of reporters to report untruths, half-truths, and misappropriated "facts" and report them as the unsullied, objective truth.


Quote:
This is likely to be political (the Iraqi's are fighting the insurgency now, not us etc) as well as logistical. The American people just don't want their soldiers being the one's coming back in body bags (understandable).
Do I think the American Military is 'preventing' the Iraqi Military from operating with the British?
No, but I do think that the American military is keeping the Iraqi's on a short 'leash' for the time being.


Still doesn't address why British forces aren't training groups on their own. Are they not in charge of the ING and Iraqi police in their sphere as we are? Or is it another example of the British "hands-off" policy? It just seems inexplicable why there is the level of distrust and lack of cooperation between the police and the British forces. Cite infiltration if you'd like, but the question then comes up as to how infiltration was left unchecked.

Quote:
That was kinda my point...


K. Agreed, then.

Quote:
Anecdotally I remember the news coverage of the attacks on the 7 of July in London. I was leaving Monument tube station at the time of the attacks, which is two stops down from Aldgate.
Throughout the day I obviously monitored the news, including American sources. The BBC delivered facts, first how it was believed to be an explosion from a power surge, then the likelihood of 'terror' attacks. They cited what and where, the emergency response, the number of casualties etc. There was no discernable speculation on the part of those expose the information. Looking at CNN (for instance) showed me terrible sensationalist crap, full of "Oh my god! This must be terrorists!" and alluding to the involvement of Islamic extremists.
Reuters is pretty good, though. Reporting the news, rather than opinion.


I think this is a result of the increased belief that "analysis" (more "speculation," really) is also definable as news. However, I find it really, really funny that all the spec you showed distaste for ended up being actually correct, and that the declaration (given in the same terms, mind you. They are careful about bs semantics) that you were more comfortable with was, in the end, false. How does that jibe?

Honestly, if you just prefer the home team, say so. Don't try to argue BBC's inherently better, as I've seen little whole truth to support this. Do they have good reporting? Sure. Are they head and shoulders, or even just head, above any other news agency on a given day? Not really. If it's your venue of preference, that's fine, but Foxnews is the venue of preference of others for the same reasons you cite BBC. Not saying that either your reasons are theirs are necessarily true, but the same reasons are cited.

Quote:
Insurgents / Terrorists definitions


This seems nitpicky, and not completely correct. While fear and distrust are terrorist goals, they are often towards a (perceived) greater political goal to which the group or individuals are working towards.
Also, McVeigh was striking and a Federal building, which, to his mind was not a civilian building. Does this, then, make him an insurgent?
To be honest, I think we're splitting hairs here. I would argue that a less logically problematic defintion would be that insurgents go out of their way to not target civilian deaths, (though some are unavoidable) whereas terrorists do not care whether the people killed are civilians, or military.
Yes, conveniently, by definition, the Iraqi "insurgents" who force foreign conscripts into car bombs and have recently made a habit of targetting children, are terrorists. But that is because they are committing acts against the very people they purport to represent.
Hence my taking issue with them being consistently referred to as "insurgents" even when, under your own definitions, they are acting solely as terrorists.
The media does not even split the hair, as you do, and that at the very least, I would argue, is worth criticism.

Quote:
More BBC


Careful. What was the name of the fellow who killed himself a year or two back? What was the story behind that?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:46 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
Still doesn't address why British forces aren't training groups on their own. Are they not in charge of the ING and Iraqi police in their sphere as we are?

The Military is a centralised thing. It's not open to being put together dependent on different areas. This is true of any Military, including the United States, the military is centralised. It can't work in any other way. There is cooperation between British and Iraqi forces, at least on an administrative level, but, as I said, the Iraqi military is the Americans baby, and it's centralised.
Quote:
It just seems inexplicable why there is the level of distrust and lack of cooperation between the police and the British forces. Cite infiltration if you'd like, but the question then comes up as to how infiltration was left unchecked.

Your argument is fine, assuming the same problems aren't hitting US areas.
This isn’t the case.
Quote:
They fled. It was all over the news. When the bullets flew, they fled. Leaving stations, abandoning posts, forgetting duties, hundreds of police fled. When the police response to gunfire was to simply run away, the city fell into lawlessness.
...
The local population, which had been friendly before, would no longer talk with the Americans, apparently fearful the enemy might either win or just outlast the Coalition.

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/10/battle-for-mosul-iv.html
This is also a success story, read down the article, but goes to prove that these things are also still happening in American areas.
Quote:
Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country’s divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.
While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/21/allen-loyalty/
Indicates problems within American sponsored police/security.
More:
Iraq's thin (and blurred) blue line (Slightly older)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/03/baghdad_journal12_polic
e.html
Quote:
"[[]Infiltration[]]affects the Iraqi police across Iraq as a whole"
Col Bill Dunham

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4266304.stm
Quote:
However, I find it really, really funny that all the spec you showed distaste for ended up being actually correct, and that the declaration (given in the same terms, mind you. They are careful about bs semantics) that you were more comfortable with was, in the end, false. How does that jibe?

Simple. The BBC’s comments were what they were being told by the authorities. They were reporting what the official line was. CNN was making it up. Whether they were right or not is completely incidental, they could have just as easily been wrong. Can’t you see how dangerous this kind of baseless (and at the time it was entirely baseless) speculation can be. It’s sensationalism for the purpose of gaining ratings, and has no place in real news reporting.
Quote:
Honestly, if you just prefer the home team, say so. Don't try to argue BBC's inherently better, as I've seen little whole truth to support this. Do they have good reporting? Sure. Are they head and shoulders, or even just head, above any other news agency on a given day? Not really. If it's your venue of preference, that's fine, but Foxnews is the venue of preference of others for the same reasons you cite BBC. Not saying that either your reasons are theirs are necessarily true, but the same reasons are cited.

Fox news? Come on. I could have cited fox news but didn’t because I don’t think they’re even comparable. Fox news is ‘tabloid’ news. I put about as much faith in their reporting as I would The Sun news paper. Hell, even the Star.
The BBC continually asks our leaders tough questions, the American media, not so much. Whether this is because the White House ‘doesn’t allow it’ or whatever doesn’t matter, the fact is the questions don’t get asked.
When was the last time Fox News reported a bad story about Rupert Murdoch? On the other hand the BBC is continually questioning the British Government, and even, in some circumstances the BBC administration.
Quote:
This seems nitpicky, and not completely correct.

I don’t think so at all. What it boils down too is that terrorists don’t engage in open warfare with the ‘enemy’, Insurgents do.
Quote:
The media does not even split the hair, as you do, and that at the very least, I would argue, is worth criticism.

The media, the American/British administrations, et al.
Quote:
Careful. What was the name of the fellow who killed himself a year or two back? What was the story behind that?

On the whole was the words I used and I’m still standing by it. You’re thinking of Dr David Kelly, and really, I’m not sure what your point is regarding the BBC in that regard.
Some fairly good stuff on Dr Kelly/The Hutton enquiry.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/0,13747,1002607,00.html
Wikipedia must always appear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly
The Hutton enquiry website:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
The BBC Hutton enquiry page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/
The ‘timeline’ of the incident:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7813-980537,00.html



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:38 PM

TWEEK128


I think we're reaching the "agree to disagree" point here.

Regarding Foxnews, if you look at their actual news reporting--not their opinion or "analysis" pieces--they stand up to cnn or msnbc. Have you actually read Foxnews' work, or do you simply accept what their competitors and detractors say regarding them and find no evidence to the contrary? Now this may seem like a foolish question, but the core of it is, do you know they are "tabloid" news because you know firsthand, or because that's the conventional wisdom of what you've read?

I've read a chunk of Yon's work, and it is on that that I base some of my understanding on the situation on the ground. I know about the translator guy, and Iknow that infiltration's a problem everywhere. The difference is that we have not had situations in other cities as you had in Basra, with the detention of British servicemen.
I'm seeing nothing from you acknowledging that that is new or different from problems the Americans are having, so I'm assuming you see nothing new and different there.

Regarding the BBC / CNN, would you, then, credit an American news agency that is simply " reporting what the official line" is? Is that not something to be critical of, when a media source simply accepts the offical line on something and does not provide competing theories?
And my preference is on accuracy. Sure, BBC was more reassuring, but in the end, they were wrong. CNN was speculative, but in the end, they were right. To me, that just reflects the better understanding of incoming information on the part of CNN. Not a flying-off-the-handle on their part.
Your defense of Beeb in this is somewhat amusing because it otherwise seems to contradict your standard of selective preference in instances.

Regarding the point on terrorists and insurgents, I disagree again. And I seriously wonder if you're pursuing this point in insistence that you are correct, or if you legitimately believe what you're saying.

Further, open warfare is different from terrorism. While open warfare may be unleashed upon buses, police stations, schools, and children, that does not change the fact that they are not conducting open warfare. They are conducting terrorist operations. Suicide bombers in cars, roadside ieds, and random attacks on soft targets is not open warfare.

If insurgents conduct themselves as terrorists, they are terrorists. How can you say otherwise? Would you disagree with my definition in the earlier post regarding targetting innocent civilians?

Regarding the articles on the Iraqi police, I find it interesing that the dateline is from, strangely enough, Basra. From the WaPo article:

Quote:
Since the formation of a government this spring, Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, has witnessed dozens of assassinations, which claimed members of the former ruling Baath Party, Sunni political leaders and officials of competing Shiite parties.


Also, the other article dealt with infiltrators allowing attacks ON the police. The WaPo article on Basra discusses attacks BY the police. Neither contradict my central points. Quite the contrary. Thanks for the material.


As for David Kelly, he was an example where what he said was taken out of context and against the meaning of how he had intended it. The reporter shaped what he heard to suit the story he wanted to write, and to me that is a black mark on their credibility.

But the bottom line is, you trust them more than I do, so would you agree it's pointless to discuss them much further?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL