A Man Lived to Only Tell Horror Story!
In 1991 and after the gulf war put to an end, Iraqis in southern Iraq were fooled and led to believe that the U.S. Army and the coalition forces were going to help them to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Revolutionists in the south were given the green light to start their fighting against the former Iraqi regime based on promises that the United States will back them up, like it did with the Kurds in the north. And therefore, the 1991 Shiite uprising started. Tens of thousands of Iraqis carried rifles, RPGs and whatever considered a weapon and went to the streets to defend their cities against Hussein’s army and republican guards. They decided that Hussein’s regimes days were numbered and it was the chance to relieve Iraq of its tyranny and dictatorship. It was a pure Shiite uprising.
We were in Baghdad. I heard the news from relatives in a southern city. At least eight southern provinces were under the people’s control, they told us [Basra, Nasiriya, Muthan, Amara, Qadisiya, Wasit, Najaf and Karbala. And the furious and happy Iraqi “liberators” were moving towards Baghdad. The Iraqi army and republican guards were losing to the will of Iraqis. Some surrendered [because they were from the south] and some were killed and many withdrew. We heard that the American troops were air-covering the clashes and helping the Iraqis to win. Suddenly, the Americans decided not to go along with the plan. Suddenly, the Iraqis were left alone after their cities were destroyed and their infrastructure downed to nothing. After liberating Kuwait of Hussein’s tyranny, Iraq was left alone to continue enduring it although it was very close to “freedom.” Eight southern provinces plus three northern Kurdish ones were liberated, and the rest was very easy to join, except for Baghdad, because they were fed up already and wanted the change. But no. There was no ethnic tension and the Iraqis were not seeking to kill each other at the time. So, the plan was abolished!
Hussein Yousif Rabiya was 25 years old when the uprising took place. He was a resident of the southern Shiite city of Najaf. When the uprising spread, the Iraqi Army forced residents out. Rabiya, his wife, their five children, his brother and two cousins with their families, had to leave.
Ten days later, the group heard that it was safe to return to their houses. It was true that the families were allowed to return, but it was a trap. The government that time wanted to capture most of the residents and kill them. Rabiya, his brother, his uncle and two cousins were arrested by Iraqi soldiers while on their way back to Najaf. They were taken to a remote area in the desert between the cities of Najaf and Karbala, where the army gathered hundreds of detainees and executed them, Rabiya said.
Rabiya described the scene he never forgot. In his right eye, a shy tear declared the horror and agony in his story, but very proud to walk down the wrinkled cheeks. Men, old and young, were lined on the edge of a huge grave, he said. Each waiting for the bullet to come his way and end his life. When a bullet comes, the victim falls back in the deep grave.
“Some were still breathing,” he said widening his eyes. “We heard them humming.”
At some point, Rabiya said, the soldiers shouted to each other stopping the shooting. Apparently, he said, former regime officials came in to supervise the execution. Two of them came, Hussein Kamil -- Hussein's son-in-law, who was killed by Hussein’s men years later for “betraying Iraq” -- and Taha Yaseen Ramadhan -- Hussein's vice-president and codefendant in his trial now. They allowed the soldiers to continue, Rabiya said.
Rabiya was handcuffed to the back and his face was directed to his grave-to-be. He waited powerless for his bullet to spare him the horror of waiting to stop breathing.
“I couldn’t imagine that I was going to die,” he recalled, “I saw all my life going like a movie tape. I couldn’t do anything.” He said that he heard people weeping and asking the soldiers to spare them. “Anyone talked had a bullet in the face,” he said.
He heard the bullet killing his 80-year-old uncle and the other bullets that killed his brother and two cousins. At once, Rabiya received a bullet in the left shoulder. A big chunk of his shoulder was cut. He said he felt nothing for the next few minutes. He then woke up on the sound of bricks and sands thrown on the dead to bury them. He was alive. He was severely injured, but wasn’t dead. Two other detainees were alive too. The three of them decided to walk and find a shelter.
On the way, they found shepherds, who fed them and tried to clean their wounds. The next day, they walked away again fearing the retaliation of Hussein’s soldiers if they knew about them. Everyone took a road and split.
After a ten-day trip, walking in the desert with no food or potable water, Rabiya arrived to an abandoned plaster factory. No one was inside. When Rabiya wanted to enter the factory, dogs followed him. “Fierce and wild dogs,” smelled the blood covering his clothes and every part of his body and wanted to attack him.
“I didn’t fear them,” Rabiya said about the dogs. “I talked to God and said ‘your dogs are better than Saddam’s dogs’ I just wanted to arrive home to tell my family I was alive.” The tear now is shamed by the tone in Rabiya’s voice. It slowly dropped on his face to satisfy his crying heart. He was saved. His family was happy to see him again. He lived to tell the story. A story we all heard about, but never met a witness to tell it.
In June 18, 2005, just 47 days after he told his story before a camera, Rabiya was killed. He lived the last 40 years to witness one of Iraq’s darkest eras in history, but wasn’t meant to live after giving his testimony. Ranbiya was assassinated in Latifiya, a city to the south of Baghdad that became, and still is, a safe haven for insurgents and a theater for their ethnic-motivated assassinations. Rabiya wasn’t killed by Saddam Hussein. He was killed by the deterioration in the security situation after the dictator was toppled!
At 2:21 AM, 
24, here is a very interesting article dealing primarily with exploding the myth that the No-Fly Zones were for the protection of the Iraqi people. There is also a specific and relatively small excerpt that refers directly to the events that led to the bloodshed in the South, and the thinking of the US / British commanders and governments of the time. It may interest you to read this:
“A Humanitarian Intervention? Assessing the No-Fly Zones in Iraq”
Eric Herring - Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2002.
“During the US-led UN bombing of Iraq in February 1991 as part of the campaign to force Iraq out of Kuwait, US President George Bush senior called on ‘the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.’” [Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein (London: HarperCollins 1999), p. 13.]
What he wanted was a military coup, not a popular uprising, because it was expected that such an uprising in the centre and south of Iraq would be pro-Iranian and in favour of an Islamic state, and in the north would be in favour of Kurdish independence.
Bush’s National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft said in 1997 “we clearly would have preferred a coup. There's no question about that.” [Interview on ABC news 26 June 1997 quoted in Sarah Graham-Brown, Sanctioning Saddam. The Politics of Intervention in Iraq]
A popular uprising did take place in March 1991, and for the reasons given above, the US was willing to see it crushed and acted in a way that helped to ensure that it was crushed. According to Sarah Graham-Brown: “General Schwartzkopf, leading the coalition delegation [which met Iraqi commanders on 3 March], appeared to have little interest in the civil unrest engulfing southern Iraq. In fact he explicitly agreed, to the surprise of the Iraqi commanders, that Iraq could fly military helicopters - but not fighters or bombers - in areas where there were no coalition forces. This effectively allowed Iraq to use helicopter gunships, along with artillery and groundforces, to crush the rebellions.” [Graham-Brown, Sanctioning Saddam, p. 19.]
General Sir Peter de la Billière, who commanded the British element of the coalition forces, defended the decision to allow Iraqi forces to use helicopters. Without a trace of irony he said: ‘The Iraqis were responsible for establishing law and order. You could not administer the country without using the helicopters.’ Graham-Brown concludes: ‘This suggests that the potential uses of the helicopters were well understood by the negotiators.’ [Washington Post 12 March 1998 quoted in Graham-Brown, Sanctioning Saddam, p. 47.] “ //end excerpt
At 11:08 AM, 
Lynnette in Minnesota
24,
Glad to see you back. After that last post and your absence again, I was getting a little worried.
" Ranbiya was assassinated in Latifiya, a city to the south of Baghdad that became, and still is, a safe haven for insurgents and a theater for their ethnic-motivated assassinations."
" And the Resistance is not fighting for his return but only for US troops to leave. That's clear." Bruno
Clear as mud.
At 6:21 PM,
"My opinion? No change at all. But he deserves what he will get. And the Resistance is not fighting for his return but only for US troops to leave. That's clear."
Another Bruno lie. See the Sept. 30, 2003 Story from AFP / Deborah Pasmantier, quoting various insurgents:
"First of all we are fighting in the name of Allah (God) because we are Muslims and we cannot let infidels occupy our country and confiscate our wealth," said Ahmed Ali, a 33-year-old accountant.
"We are also FIGHTING FOR THE RETURN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN [emphasis added] because we realise that we were better off with him than with the Americans who open fire indiscriminately on civilians," Ali added.
Care to rescind your latest fabrication, Bruno?
Oh, bravo, Kryptonite, you managed to find an article (which doesn’t access through Google, btw, speaking of fabrications) which quotes ONE Iraqi who wants Hussein back because he was better than your murderous goons. (Alack and alas, I am devastated.) That’s an indictment of JUST HOW BAD THINGS ARE UNDER YOUR RULE in Iraq, if there are some Iraqis that actually preferred Hussein to you.
Anyway, that is not longer the case, since it is quite clear that Hussein is NEVER coming back, now that he is in the clutches of the US. If Iraqis were fighting to get Hussein back in power they would have ceased fighting the moment he and his sons were out of the equation. As history records, however, resistance to your oppression since his capture has increased dramatically. Now, why would that be?
Simply, that’s because prior to his capture, Iraqis feared that if they booted the US out, they might indirectly be restoring Hussein to power. So they stayed their hands. After his capture, it was clear that he was never going to return, and thus the resistance ramped up, because it was real freedom that Iraqis were fighting for, not the return of Hussein.
This is a link to a statement signed by many organisations opposed to US involvement in Iraq. Please note that amongst their aims and objectives, there is no mention whatsoever of restoring Hussein to power.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/achcar-allawis-offensive-gilbert.html
And:
This is an excerpt from a report from a military study as reported by AFP:
Saddam never planned insurgency - US military study
WASHINGTON, March 13, 2006 (AFP)
“ Ousted president Saddam Hussein did not plan the insurgency in Iraq because he thought the United States would never invade the country, a US military history has concluded. Even with US armored columns 100 miles (161 kilometers) from Baghdad about to make their final push, Saddam apparently believed the war was going Iraq's way, according to the history, called "The Iraqi Perspectives Project."
"As far as can be determined from the interviews and records reviewed so far, there were no national plans to embark on a guerrilla war in the event of military defeat," it said. "Nor did the regime appear to cobble together such plans as its world crumbled around it," it said. "Buoyed by his earlier conviction that the Americans would never dare enter Baghdad, Saddam hoped to the very last minute that he could stay in power," it said.
Excerpts of the partially de-classified study for the US Joint Forces Command are being published in the May/June edition of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. The study was written by Kevin Woods, James Lacey and Williamson Murray.” //end excerpt
Here's another link to a relevant article about the Shia uprising, and how it was viewed at the time:
http://www.exile.ru/2002-July-25/
war_nerd.html
"They rose up; we took pictures from our recon satellites and laughed at 'em while they got slaughtered.
I have a friend who was in DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. He helped write up those leaflets. I asked him if he felt bad about what happened. He said, and I quote, "They're just animals anyway." //end
I don't know how reliable the quotation is, but it certainly fits into the pattern of US inaction - or complicity - when the Shia uprising was being crushed.
At 10:18 AM,
"Oh, bravo, Kryptonite, you managed to find an article..."
There are many other sources indicating the same thing, actually. I simply cited this article as a sample. You said no one was fighting for the return of Saddam. Based on this article, and many others, that is simply not true. You lied...again.
You said no one was fighting for the return of Saddam. Based on this article, and many others, that is simply not true. You lied...again.
By that standard an awful lot republicans, in fact almost all politicians would be considered liars.
At worst you could accuse Bruno of mildly overstating the case. If out of every 1000 resistance fighters you can find 1 that is fighting to restore Saddam to the throne .... you can probably find someone fighting to restore the line of Xerxes. You get the point, being obtuse won't help dialouge.
I feel Bruno's point stands, a tiny minority of lunatics might be fighting for Saddams return, but the vast majority simply want to get rid of the US.
At 1:41 PM,
There are many other sources indicating the same thing, actually. I simply cited this article as a sample. You said no one was fighting for the return of Saddam. Based on this article, and many others, that is simply not true. You lied...again.
whenever i read a passage that is a quote i simply copy a few senrences of it and put it into google search. very very simple. if it does not pull up by news, it pulls up by web. yours is simply unavailable. if a source cannot be verifed it falls into the catagory of 'opinion' or sometimes even 'outright lie'. so, cough up big shot.
There are many other sources indicating the same thing, actually. I simply cited this article as a sample.
provide one source by link if there are any. or at least test your quote and see if it is searchable. even the obscure report of the iraqi police report on the rape, murder and burning of the 15 years old child i posted at the end of the last thread eventually showed up , altho only from one source . all your bravado and you quote something we cannot view the context of. if you are so sure of your assertions
this wouldn't be a problem for you. no amount of excuses will silence your critics like a bit of evidence.
At 6:30 PM,
"If out of every 1000 resistance fighters you can find 1 that is fighting to restore Saddam to the throne."
Bruno is pretty lazy when it comes to identifying who the insurgents are, and what they are fighting for. When discussing matters of such consequence, it is important to be as accurate as possible in identifying who the insurgents are and what they are fighting for. Bruno and other far leftists characterize the insurgents as patriots fighting imperialists. He makes broad statements implying that the one and only motive of the insurgents, (who he equates with the iraqi people, generally), is a forced immediate withdrawal. At that point, Bruno supposes that Iraq will magically transform into a blissful country void of any violence, or at least a country with less violence than there is now. I disagree. An American withdrawal will lead to increased bloodshed, not less, and will increase the time it takes for iraq to develop into a true, industrialized, modern democracy.
So, when Bruno makes statements like: "And the Resistance is not fighting for his return but only for US troops to leave" I counter it to impeach him. He didn't say, "while many insurgents are fighting for the US troops to leave, some (or "many", or "a few") are fighting to reinstitute baathist totalitarianism" or "...an iranian islamic theocracy" or "...a taliban style theocracy". If you haven't noticed, Bruno does not address these concerns, which are at the heart of the argument for keeping the US in Iraq. He simply assumes that these are concerns that Americans just make up. He focuses primarily on conspiracy theories, and makes endless presumptions about the nefarious intentions of the US military and, by extension, the American people.
At 8:56 PM,
At 9:39 PM,
[kryptonite] “Bruno is pretty lazy when it comes to identifying who the insurgents are, and what they are fighting for.”
Kryptonite is pretty useless at reading, since I *ALREADY* just posted a link to a statement by several groups fighting US occupation that outlines the principles they agreed on and pledge to stand by. But of course Kryptonite would prefer to ignore this fact and continue blithering on about reality as he perceives it.
[kryptonite] “At that point, Bruno supposes that Iraq will magically transform into a blissful country void of any violence, or at least a country with less violence than there is now. I disagree. An American withdrawal will lead to increased bloodshed, not less, …”
Where have I ever claimed Iraq would transform into some sort of utopia? Hardly. I’m aware that the violence has by now taken on its own momentum which will be hard to extinguish. However, since the US is the major player in Iraq, and the major stoker of the said violence, it stands to reason that if it left Iraq then the violence would dramatically decrease.
As a matter of fact, a majority of Iraqis themselves AGREE WITH ME and believe that if the US left things would get better, including a decrease in violence :
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/
pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf
“ Respondents were asked what would happen in a variety of areas if US-led forces were to withdraw from Iraq in the next six months. Majorities of Iraqis express confidence that in many dimensions related to security, things would improve. Sixty-seven percent say that “day to day security for ordinary Iraqis” would increase, a consensus position among all ethnic groups—83% of Sunnis, 61% of Shia and 57% of Kurds. On other points, Sunnis and Shia agree, but the Kurds diverge. Overall, 64% believe that violent attacks would decrease, including a majority of Sunnis (86%) and Shia (66%), but 78% of Kurds think they will increase. Overall, 61% think that the amount of interethnic violence will decrease, including a majority of Sunnis (81%) and Shia (64%), but a majority of Kurds (68%) think it will increase. Similarly, 56% overall agree that the presence of foreign fighters in Iraq will decrease if US-led forces withdraw (Sunnis 74%, Shia 64%), but 74% of Kurds think they will increase.
Interestingly, there is a fair amount of consensus that if US-led troops were to withdraw, there would be substantial improvement in the performance of the Iraqi state. Overall, 73% think there will be an increase in the willingness of factions to cooperate in Parliament, including majorities of Kurds (62%), Sunnis (87%) and Shia (68%). Sixty-seven percent assume there will be an increase in the availability of public services such as electricity, schools and sanitation (Sunni 83%, Shia 63%, Kurds 54%). Sixty-four percent assume crime will go down (Sunnis 88%, Shia 66%), but here again the Kurds diverge, with 77% assuming crime will increase.” //end excerpt.
If we think about this “America is protecting Iraqis from violence” story of Kryptonite rationally, it’s obvious that Americans are NOT protecting Iraqis. Even IF we ignore the continuous sporadic incidents of US troops massacring Iraqi civilians (Ishaqi, Haditha) or raping Iraqis (Mahmoudiya) or randomly shooting at Iraqis (Truth-Teller) – the fact remains that overall the people the US is killing every day are IRAQIS.
The US military insists on expanding military operations into areas where it is not welcome, and more – it insists on fighting its battles squarely in civilian areas. Fallujah was destroyed, and ruined because Iraqis were resisting. Adhamiya is under attack again, because they refuse to succumb to the death squads the US bankrolls. Ramadi is scheduled to have the centre of its city bulldozed and rebuilt as a “mini green zone” wherefrom US troops can shoot and kill Iraqis from.
I mean, DUH.
US troops are in Iraq shooting and killing Iraqis, period.
If we interpret Kryppie’s argument to mean that US troops are in Iraq to protect Iraqis FROM EACH OTHER then it is even more ludicrous. Think about the facts. The days after Askariya was hit, US troops were nowhere to be seen as sectarian militias rampaged up and down Baghdad. Nice protecting they did there.
What have US troops done to protect Iraqis from sectarian car bombs and militias right now? Virtually nothing. Either we have to assume that they WANT Iraqis to kill each other (rather than uniting on the common invader) or that they are completely useless.
Either way, they must go.
At 6:52 AM,
If we think about this “America is protecting Iraqis from violence” story...
This is ANOTHER lie. I never said this.
The Iraqi government is responsible for "protecting" Iraqis. You could argue that the US is in Iraq to protect, and ensure the continuity of the current Iraqi government. As Iraq's security forces grow, they will be able to "protect" the Iraqi people.
Violence amongst Iraqi is responsible for the overwhelming majority of violence. As has been pointed out to you NUMEROUS times, the number of Iraqi deaths that come at the hands of other Iraqis FAR OUTNUMBERS the number of deaths caused by US troops. However, because of the way the US media system works, and the excessive transparency in our society, when incidents like Haditha happen, or Abu Ghraib, or the Green rape, they are given ample attention, giving the illusion that these kinds of incidents happen all the time, all over Iraq.
Its great for Bruno's cannon fodder, and for his attempts to inflame the passions, and yes stoke the hatred, of a formerly repressed, and now war drained society, but it has little to do with fact.
[bruno] “If we think about this “America is protecting Iraqis from violence” story...”
[kryptonite] “I never said this.”
No, what you said was that “An American withdrawal will lead to increased bloodshed”. Hence you are making a case that the current Occupation is in fact protecting Iraqis from the violence that YOU say will occur from a withdrawal. Hence, my interpretation is correct.
Unfortunately for you, as I already demonstrated, Iraqis believe what I believe – ie – an American retreat will lead to DECREASED violence. You are basing your hypothesis on scaremongering – otherwise known as the “appeal to adverse consequences” fallacy. By pointing out exactly HOW the US is contributing to violence in Iraq, a case is made that dismantles your “violence will increase” fantasies.
Secondly, you said:
[kryptonite] “ As Iraq's security forces grow, they will be able to "protect" the Iraqi people. […] Violence amongst Iraqi [sic] is responsible for the overwhelming majority of violence.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that it is these very security forces that YOU SET UP that are responsible for many of the “disappearances” and corpses found strewn around the Iraqi landscape.
THE US supplied the death squads with their organisation, training, white Toyotas and Glock side-arms.
Bremer SET UP the FPS which has been implicated in many of the massacres.
THE CIA still controls the Iraqi intelligence services, which it staffed with radicals from the Badr Brigade and Ba’athists who were willing to sell their country to the devil.
I put it to you that THESE FORCES are responsible for a great deal of the violence in Iraq and that de facto US troops are in Iraq to protect these forces, who would otherwise be shredded by patriotic Iraqis. ( We all saw what happened the last time the death squads tried to enter Adhamiya. They got their asses handed to them. )
In other words, US troops are protecting and helping the very people who are terrorising the Iraqi people.
The very Iraqis responsible for Iraqi on Iraqi violence.
Now, get rid of your troops, and we also get rid of the real terrorists that shelter in the Interior Ministry.
That’s why a US withdrawal will decrease the violence in Iraq.
At 11:21 AM,
At 1:56 PM,
At 2:39 PM,
"Now, get rid of your troops..."
But, according to your poll, Bruno, only 35% of iraqis want an immediate withdrawal. Many fewer Shiites, and even fewer Kurds want an immediate withdrawal. You seem to believe the poll carries a lot of weight when it comes to certain factors but not others. You are fraught with contradictions, which is why no one trusts you.
At 7:13 PM,
which is why no one trusts you.
kryyyyypt, you are hardly qualified to speak for anyone but yourself. wait a minute, i don't even think you are qualified to speak for yourself!
anyway. i understand krypt doesn't trust bruno.
pause, deep thought
OH MY GOD.....YOU'VR GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. really, krypt , you keep coming up w/these amazing revelations about yourself. yawn
meanwhile, back in reality. i thought you might appreciate this link. it takes you to 3 pdf files, one being "Tentative Manual for Countering Irregular Threats: An Updated Approach to Counterinsurgency Operations." its the new guide for the marines, now that our focus is going to be fighting the 'little wars' , hey speaking of little wars, did anyone else read about the plans to 'encourage' regime change in cuba?' something about doing some tests for oil... ugh, poor cuba, for their sake i hope they don't find it..
anyway, about that new marine manuel. there are a few interesting segments. like
pg9, catalyst for insurgency "agent that serves as spark for insurrection"
12. causes of modern conflict...stagnat or deteriorating economies(now who is responsible for that), corrupt political institution, and competition over natural resources. most elements take on most or all, not one or the other.
now isn't that interesting... competition for resources.. hmm
13 future conflict local strife exploited for global influence. conflict entrepreneursmay wish to undermine or destroy gov control w/out replacing gov capability, undermine security and remain unmolested , create gap, create opportunity for sanctuary of non state actors
that would be us right? the non state actors?
17, the process can be viewed as a perpetual design, learn, redesign activity...
18,' kicking the anthill' to asses as a 'learning activity
hmm, that's quite a term, kicking the anthill. i wonder which ways we've used it as a learning experience?
32 info warfare, "one of the main weapons of anti insugents is to find and magnify internal differences" morale
you mean say, go into iraq and convince everyone they are all divided and instigate fighting amoungnst the different tribes and such? hmm, thats quite a stratedgy.
33 isolation extends beyond the borders... deliberately aimed at isolating export (45) 'views insurgents as outsiders" 'perception more important than reality.... marines must be cognizant of the deception activities in combat line of operations' maintain 'percieved legitimacy'
40, 41 don't call the rebels('unless we are supporting them') call them criminals and terrorists. use negative rhetoric to describe insurgent violence even if they see themselves as freedom fighters or patriots. don't speak of opposing actors in simple terms, focus on their behavior charactaristics of the adversary (ed note:ahh, they behead!)
42 a catalyst will probably not be enough to stir a rebellion against an indigenous government especially if the populous is generally stable and favorable conditions.
oh, yes those generally stable populous w/favorable conditions are going to require much more info warfare.. hmm.
43' WE SHOULD PLAY THE INSURGENT GROUPS OFF EACHOTHER IF AND WHEN IT IS IN OUR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO'.(surprise) cease tempo , adapt, keep them on the defensive, off balance tho intentionally aggressive adaptation represents a form of offense
45 "insurgents generally do not want to harm the population"
pg47 has some interesting parts where they try to encourage the marines to 'see the people as human beings'
wow, ya think?
anyway, unlike krypto professed 'evidence' up there that google has never heard of ,this read is new (6/6) and very revealing in terms of the types of conficts the marines might be engaged in, especially the ones where we need to use a catalyst when the populace is 'generally stable' nothing like kicking the ol anthill for the occupation. oh yeah, and don't call it an occupation, we are at the 'invitation' of the soveriegn nation (but not soveriegn enough to punish (some)people who break their laws, like burning and raping virgins) just soveriegn enough to act like they are in charge but the americans still control the news on the radio, remember, according to the manuel, its the 'percieved reality'oh i mean "perception more important than reality"
hear that krypto, you are failing.
the reality is still alive and kicking, but keep on working on your perception meme, somebody out there might be listening
At 9:35 PM,
Anonymous,
The "secret" publication you've "discovered" is available on the marine corps web site. LOL.
Even still, you've editorialized quite a bit here. For instance, you've implied that this manual instructs the US military to create civil strife between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. However, the manual says nothing about this. It merely says to find differences in the INSURGENT GROUPS and play them off against each other which, of course, makes perfect sense. We've distracted Al Qaeda that way, along with terrorist organizations operating within Iraq. However, I don't see anything in here about the general populace. Feel free to quote me a section of the book where it says this, though. I would be happy to be corrected.
At 12:45 AM,
i don't believe i ever implied ot stated this was 'secret'.
besides my editorial comment, below the paragraphs after the page numbers, w/a few comments in parethasis, the text is quoted. because they are pdf i cannot, or do not know how to copy and paste them, therefore i spent quite awhile copying the text since i type w/2 fingers. if you go to those pages and check, you will see the text i presented. challenge me if you want, the text is there.
you've implied that this manual instructs the US military to create civil strife between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
i implied nothing, i quoted directly fro the text, it is your mind that made that assumption. here's the quote. the only thing i did was use capitals.
' WE SHOULD PLAY THE INSURGENT GROUPS OFF EACHOTHER IF AND WHEN IT IS IN OUR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO'
that is on page 23. my comment
(surprise)
cease tempo , adapt, keep them on the defensive, off balance tho intentionally aggressive adaptation represents a form of offense
here is how i editoralized.
'cease temp' ='cease the tempo'
'tho' = 'though'
wow, drastic.
I don't see anything in here about the general populace.
how about
" pg45 "insurgents generally do not want to harm the population""?
that is a direct quote
" pg47 has some interesting parts where they try to encourage the marines to 'see the people as human beings'" do you want the actual quote, go to the link, thats what they friggin say dude.
here... "marines must see the people as human beings as they would citizens of, dallas, los angeles, new york."
do you consider that 'the populace?
how about this , " pg42 'a catalyst will probably not be enough to stir a rebellion against an indigenous government especially if the populous is generally stable and favorable conditions"
or this
pg 13 future conflict local strife exploited for global influence. conflict entrepreneurs may wish to undermine or destroy gov control w/out replacing gov capability, undermine security and remain unmolested , create gap, create opportunity for sanctuary of non state actors,
local strife probably refers to the populace, ys think? if not who??
undermine security probabyt refers to the populace? ya think?
pg 33 what about the " 'percieved legitimacy' of the occupation, oh excuse me i mean the puppet, no i mean the 'new' gov. does that include the populace?
I don't see anything in here about the general populace.
yet? how about..
"create opportunity for sanctuary of non state actors"
involves the populace? ya think?
you say
However, I don't see anything in here about the general populace. Feel free to quote me a section of the book where it says this, though. I would be happy to be corrected.
those are the quotes and the pages.. so correct me if i'm wrong. or else comment directly on the quotes i used, and tell me how your assumptions implied the text meant
"this manual instructs the US military to create civil strife between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds."
really? how on earth would you extract that opinion from the quotes of the manual???????
(it is w/all my restraint that i repress instinct to spear thrashing fish)
[Kryptonite] “But, according to your poll, Bruno, only 35% of iraqis want an immediate withdrawal. […] You seem to believe the poll carries a lot of weight when it comes to certain factors but not others.”
That’s right, Kryptonite, that is what the poll says. I have NEVER disputed the numbers in it, only you have. It also says that 87% of Iraqis want a withdrawal timetable, yet the US government has refused point blank to set one, or even entertain the notion. That’s because the US government has NO INTENTION OF WITHDRAWING from Iraq. Not in 2 years, not ever. And Iraqis know this.
But hey, nice evasion from the subject.
Your complete inability to contest the fact that US troops are fuelling the violence in Iraq is noted.
Your inability to contest the fact that Iraqis KNOW that the US is responsible for the violence, and hence their conclusion that violence will decrease with a US withdrawal is also noted.
To recap: the US itself is sponsoring the worst of the sectarian militias and has organized them into paramilitary units under its command. If this tree of evil is struck at the root – ie – the US, then it stands to reason that its militia branches will wither and die.
[kryptonite] “The "secret" publication you've "discovered" is available on the marine corps web site. LOL.”
Just Kryptonite flailing at the air pretending to have some sort of point in order to bolster his sinking rhetoric. Nothing to see here.
[kryptonite] “For instance, you've implied that this manual instructs the US military to create civil strife between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. However, the manual says nothing about this. It merely says to find differences in the INSURGENT GROUPS and play them off against each other which, of course, makes perfect sense.”
Uuuuh. Duh.
Which country are we talking about?
Iraq.
Who would be fighting America?
Iraqis.
So, divide the Iraqis up, AS PER THE MANUAL, and we are left with a fragmented society not of Iraqis, but of Shia, Sunni and Kurds fighting with each other. This is EXACTLY what the manual implies, and precisely what the US has done in Iraq. Divide and rule. The Sadrists, theocratic tendencies aside, share exactly the same goals as the “sunni” resistance … yet these two groups are at each other’s throats.
Gee, ya don’t think that US strategy has anything to do with this? Gee, I wonder if the nice commandos running around disguised as Arabs with weapons and explosives in their vehicles have anything to do with fermenting civil strife? Nah, can’t be, even though the US COIN manual says they should.
In any case, yet again we have official confirmation that THE AMERICANS are the ones stirring up the violence in Iraq.
Yet again, we have AN AMERICAN WINGNUT who thinks that setting Iraqis against each other “makes perfect sense”.
Need we really argue further as to WHO is behind the incitement of the sectarian violence in Iraq, and WHO profits from it? After all, as Kryptonite says, it makes perfect sense to set Iraqis who would otherwise be killing US troops at each other’s throats.
[Anonymous] “I need to send a small package from here in the USA to Baghdad to a friend (Iraqi Citizen)”
You can try sending it direct, or otherwise if Iraqi post is too dodgy, send it to an intermediary in Jordan. That’s what I did last time and it worked 100%. Ask Iraqi Citizen if there is anybody he trusts in a bordering country.
Anonymous –
Thanks for the link to the COIN manuals. I collect these sorts of pdf’s and I don’t have these ones yet. There are also some other people who will probably be quite interested to have a gander at them. Shukran.
“ pg47 has some interesting parts where they try to encourage the marines to 'see the people as human beings' wow, ya think?”
LOL! A particularly telling blow.
Marine training involves desensitization to killing and involves dehumanization of the enemy. This makes perfect sense in a military context, where you want elite shock troops that hit really hard … but it’s a total bust when you want to use these killing machines to quash a guerrilla resistance, because they’re just gonna splatter everybody a la Haditha, creating more resistance.
Btw, I see I arrived after your demolition of Kryppie’s warped interpretation of the manual. I may be repeating your arguments, but with some people, ‘once’ is never enough …
At 5:43 AM,
"really? how on earth would you extract that opinion from the quotes of the manual???????"
I'm not extracting that opinion from the quotes of the manual. I'm extracted that that is your opinion. Am I wrong? You've extracted that opinion from the quotes of the manual. That is the point I was making. The manual says nothing about this, but you are implying that it does.
At 5:47 AM,
Oh, hello Kryppie, I see you popped by again. Still no defense of the fact that US troops are fuelling the violence in Iraq and that Iraqis know this, I see. Better to pick on obscure points such as somebody's opinion of the opinion of the manuals opinion ... or something. Is English not clear enough for you?
At 7:05 AM,
At 12:21 PM,
let's see who wins.
wins? wtf? nobody is going to be winning anything in 2 years.
13 future conflict local strife exploited for global influence. conflict entrepreneursmay wish to undermine or destroy gov control w/out replacing gov capability, undermine security and remain unmolested , create gap, create opportunity for sanctuary of non state actors
"that would be us right? the non state actors?"
Your editorials make little sense. Care to expound?
first of all, that comment i made is not an editorial, it is a question. the way you can tell it is a question is by the presents of a question mark.
expound? hm. well, in war lingo a theatre is the 'stage' of the war. i assume, but am not sure, the people would be considered actors. when this segment is applied to iraq, which i assume it is meant to, along w/all our future occupation plans thruout the world, the 'small war' they refer to, anyway when applied to iraq i suppose the state would be iraq. therefore state actors would be iraqi's. non state actors would be everyone in iraq who is not iraqi.
i don't really know how qualified i am to interpret.
I'm not extracting that opinion from the quotes of the manual. I'm extracted that that is your opinion. Am I wrong? You've extracted that opinion from the quotes of the manual. That is the point I was making. The manual says nothing about this, but you are implying that it does.
beside comments like wow, surprise and ya think the only comment i can find that might relate to what you have gleened as my opinion w/regard to your (not my)quote "this manual instructs the US military to create civil strife between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds." might be my response to this direct quote from the manual
"one of the main weapons of anti insurgents is to find and magnify internal differences"
here is what i said...
"you mean say, go into iraq and convince everyone they are all divided and instigate fighting amoungnst the different tribes and such? hmm, thats quite a stratedgy."
by all means , what might your interpretation of
one of the "main weapons"(by main, i assume they mean most common, or for example a main artery or main water source, main would mean , y'know MAIN, now the weapon part, a weapon in war is meant to kill your opponenets, or suppress them, rule over them,jail them, so a main weapon would mean the most or one of the most common devices to kill or win over your enemies) of the anti insurgents (thats us right?, i assume, insurgent means bad guy, were the good guys, so that make us against, or anti insurgents) is to find ( to seek out, to locate, think needle in a haystack or elephant in the room) and magnify (to make larger, bigger, even larger than real life i suppose. the term mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind, which may in fact be apropo with regard to the 'kicking the anthillmeme, and btw kryp i noticed you avoided THAT question but not very deftly) internal (probably not referring to non state actors here, this references iraqis, the ones krypt keep telling us who are fighting eachother and not us, the ones that weren't battling it out til we got there, the ones that intermarried lived amoungst eachother, them, the internal ones, not "Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria")differences (do we all know what a difference a day makes? difference is the opposite of sameness)
now, would someone else like to take a stab at what that sentence in the manual might mean? its a main weapon, if magnifies internal differences .
it is unfortunate that you can read quotes from the manuel and assess that i am implying something.the manuel implys it. or at least you read it that way. like everyone else who will read it. its the olderest war game in the book, its called divide and conquer.
also one of the goals of the neocons, to divide the middle east. how can that happen if we don't magnify internal differences. notice this is the exact opposite as unify the people.
At 4:34 PM,
earth to anonymous
Divide and conquer rule as well as propaganda was first applied by persian Darius, the west just borrowed from his manual.
Do you imply that great great great grandchildren of Darius forgot all their ancestor taught them and are worse at that game that western newcomers, not to mention (quite new) neocons?
At 5:32 PM,
Do you imply that great great great grandchildren of Darius forgot all their ancestor taught them and are worse at that game that western newcomers, not to mention (quite new) neocons?
i implied nothing ella. ella who never feels solumn.ella who calls me a fool and twists my words. i thought i was very straight forward. by all mean i would like to see the manual of the great great great grandchildren of Darius. i imagine they are quiet proficient at all these games which is why i do not think we are prepared or were prepared to be kicking any anthills in this part of the world. i also resent a president who told us he had no intention of nationbuilding to be dragging us into the longwinded occupation w/no end in sight regardless of the 'perceptions' we are supposed to be having. i quoted that word because if you read the manual you can see our perceptions are what matters according to the masters of the agenda, not the reality. no implications here. very straighforward. i fell the same way about iran. the sable rattling has started.
why do you ask? do you think AQ was ready to invade iraq before we got there and start divideing and conquering? why don't you tell me what kind of dividing and conquering was going on in iraq before we arrived that was so friggin pressing we just had to go there. or better yet, according to the manual..
12. causes of modern conflict...stagnat or deteriorating economies(now who is responsible for that), corrupt political institution, and competition over natural resources. most elements take on most or all, not one or the other.
ella , i wonder what you think of the rape, burning and murder of the 15 yrs old. do you think this is equally horrific as cutting someones head off?
what about my post wasn't direct enough for you that you think i am implying anything.
fool right back at you. are you showing up to save the pathetic krypple. carrying water for the masters of war? did you see my response to your dribble guessing i am some college student. ha!
so, is burning body racist , gang member military making you angry today you who never fell solumn?
At 5:43 PM,
let me rephrase that, are burning body murdering racist gang members of the military making you angry today, you who never feel solumn
ps solumn(according to oxford dictionary)
Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.
Somberly or gravely impressive. See synonyms at serious.
Performed with full ceremony: a solemn High Mass.
Invoking the force of religion; sacred: a solemn vow.
ella:" I am angry but never solemn. "
are they? are we feeling a litlle angry because recruiters are scrapping the low rung seeds of the population to fight an illegal uncalled for pre emptive unneccessary war and our normal adjusted youth are not for the life of them signing up to fight this atrocity w/ great great great grandchildren of Darius that most likely didn't forget all their ancestor taught them and are probably alot better at that game that western newcomers?
At 6:18 PM,
"therefore state actors would be iraqi's. non state actors would be everyone in iraq who is not iraqi."
LOL. The words "state actor" and "non state actors" are terms of art. A state actor is a government entity, like the US Department of Agriculture, or the US military, or the Iraqi government, or Saddam Hussein. A state actor is a group or individual who acts on behalf of a state as its representatives. Private citizens (the Iraqis) are not "state actors." You are wrong.
A non-state actor is a non-governmental entity that may or may not take on a political agenda. For example, terrorists or insurgent groups.
"you mean say, go into iraq and convince everyone they are all divided and instigate fighting amoungnst the different tribes and such? hmm, thats quite a stratedgy."
so, this is your interpretation of what the manual says? again, this is what i was alluding to before, and you wrote if off like i came up with your interpretation...very strange argument strategy on your part. Basically, you are now confirming my original point, which is that you are editorializing the manual to suggest that the US marines has a strategy of "divide and conquer" with respect to the different ethnic / religious groups in Iraq (Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds which is what i said to begin with). However, the manual doesn't say this. it refers specifically to insurgent groups, not to the population generally. Obviously, the enemy of the US is not the iraqi people, but the insurgent and terrorist groups in iraq fighting for the reestablishment of a totalitarian regime. by all means, an excellent strategy to use on our enemies is, of course, the generic "divide and conquer." obviously, this would apply to insurgents, but not the iraqi people generally.
At 8:54 PM,
"kryp i noticed you avoided THAT question but not very deftly"
LOL. I didn't avoid anything. Its just that, you and Bruno have a tendency to vomit all the ludicrous thoughts running through your head onto these pages, and I don't really have the patience to all of your fabrications - I just choose a few and move on.
At 9:39 PM,
that would be us right? the non state actors?
how very helpful of you by answering my original question w/a question. and how convenient of you to disregard by expressions of naivette i suppose , i assume, but am not sure, which i assume it is meant before claiming your big 'win'
i have since found out that non state actors can include..
According to Article 6 of the Cotonou Agreement, non-state actors include: ? civil society in all its diversity, according to national characteristics; ? economic and social partners, including trade union organisations and; ? the private sector. In practice, it means that participation is open to all kind of actors, such as community-based organisations, women's groups, human rights associations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), religious organisations, farmers' cooperatives, trade unions, universities and research institutes, the media, the private sector, etc.
i was wrong in assuming a non state actor is any person who is not part of 'the' state of operation, in this case iraq. because we are part of our state. and you are right that terrorists can be (but not limited to) non state actors, a terrorist by definition can and has been applied to many states.
either way you have taken the non state actor comment out of the reference
"one of the main weapons of anti insurgents is to find and magnify internal differences"
"you mean say, go into iraq and convince everyone they are all divided and instigate fighting amoungnst the different tribes and such? hmm, thats quite a stratedgy."
so, this is your interpretation of what the manual says?
lets see, that was my response to that statement in the manual, not the entire thing nor one you tried to spin it into w/regard to non state actors
since you are so smart, tell me what you think this means."one of the main weapons of anti insurgents is to find and magnify internal differences" maybe a little salvador option
"Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won?t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."
speaking of shahwani, i am curious of what 'state' he is a 'state actor ' of. ""What's more interesting is how on both fronts--security and politics--the United States is setting up insurance policies for enduring influence in Iraq"
"Shahwani is the head of an Iraqi intelligence structure (or, if you prefer, secret police) which is independent of the interior or defense ministries. And funny thing about that: He took his job under the Iyad Allawi interim administration, meaning he's kept his job despite two changes of government. Why might that be? Well, when last anyone checked in--anyone being the intrepid Hannah Allam and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder--it was because the CIA refused to turn over Shahwani's intelligence bureau to Iraq's elected Shia officials. According to Allam and Strobel, CIA paid Shahwani's salary and kept funding his agency, largely out of the fear that it didn't want to turn over intelligence assets to a government with ties to Iran. I have absolutely no information that Shahwani is still on CIA's payroll. But after a year and yet another change of government following Knight Ridder's story, Shahwani--unique among Iraqi officials--is still in place. Hmm.
"Shahwani, in charge of an unaccountable intelligence service--he contended that ex-PM Ibrahim Jaafari had no power to fire him, which would presumably hold true for Maliki as well--nudging Iraqi politicians closer to a position that the United States would prefer to see them take. Expect this to continue, for--well, for as long as there is an Iraq, regardless of whether U.S. troops are there, and regardless of U.S. rhetoric about democracy."
"I prefer to call it the American Intelligence of Iraq, not the Iraqi Intelligence Service," al Ameri continued during an interview last week at his heavily guarded home in Baghdad. "If they insist on keeping it to themselves, we'll have to form another one."
At 10:04 PM,
actually it was in googling the The Iraq memory Foundation and Makiya that i followed some links and ended up w/more info on Shahwani that i bargained for . also curious about " the same day that U.S. forces raided Ahmed Chalabi's house in Baghdad, the CIA descended on Makiya's home"
i thought of all the records taken from his home, why, how they were used. all very curious w/regard to "one of the main weapons of anti insurgents is to find and magnify internal differences"
probably doesn't mean anything. just me snooping around and wondering.
At 10:18 PM,
At 10:25 PM,
"one of the main weapons of anti insurgents is to find and magnify internal differences"
obviously, this means creating rivalry and envy between two leaders in an insurgent/terrorist group, for example.
also, the catanou agreement? the CATANOU agreement? dude, you can't just pull out obscure authorities and claim it defines a word the way you want it defined. There is precedent for the term of art "State Actor." Look in any international politics textbook. Arguing about this is a total waste of time.
At 8:57 AM,
obviously, this means creating rivalry and envy between two leaders in an insurgent/terrorist group, for example.
so one example derived from the newsweek article ( "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation." )i linked to above about the incorporation of death squads into the "theatre of war" in iraq might be say, the sunni population?
since anyone who rebels against the puppet or excuse me legitimate gov and the occupation by definition is an insurgent that generally encompasses a wide swath of the population i seriously question how your definition is any different than mine. especailly since the word 'internal' does not exclude members of the society (non state actors) who are not violent. btw, you may want to brush up on your definition of NSA, according to legal dictionary and many other sources it becomes clear the term is not limited to VNSA. V standing for violent. as demonstrated
here, here ,here, here ,here ,here ,here , and here
Evidently, the term "non-state actors" amalgamates a large number of very different actors with distinct roles in societies in conflict. Non-state actors include armed groups, NGOs, corporations, educational institutions, private donors, religious organizations, the scientific community, private individuals, the media and, increasingly, the internet community. Their few shared characteristics result from their distinct "unofficial" nature as compared to state actors, their greater flexibility and often unaccountability under national and international laws. There is an acute need to distinguish better the various types of non-state actors.
LOL. Yes, all our governments classified documents are available on google. what an idiot.
your point little knit tool, that your master is holding all the cards?
At 9:35 AM,
kicking anthill
i recommend checking out the link for the full monte
US forces in Iraq have launched a series of bloody attacks on Shia militia forces in and around Baghdad, killing or wounding 30 fighters and provoking widespread anger in the Shia community.
Iraqi government security forces, backed by the US troops and aircraft, moved into the vast Shia slum of al-Sadr City in eastern Baghdad at 3.15am yesterday in an attempt to arrest a commander of the Mehdi Army, the main Shia militia, called Abu Diraa. Iraqi police said nine people were killed including a woman. An Iraqi officer said the Americans had provided lists of people to be arrested in al-Sadr City.
The US army is masking the fact that it is increasingly at war with the Iraqi Shia militias by referring to both Sunni and Shia as insurgents. Thus, after the raid into al-Sadr City, the US military said in a statement: "The captured individual heads multiple insurgent cells in Baghdad whose main focus is to conduct attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces." This conceals the fact that the US is fighting the Mehdi Army, which is controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose party is an important part of the Iraqi government.
At 11:36 AM,
"btw, you may want to brush up on your definition of NSA, according to legal dictionary and many other sources it becomes clear the term is not limited to VNSA."
I never said it was limited to "violent" groups. Another lie. Non-profit organizations, like the American Red Cross, for example, are "non-state actors."
From the military's point of view, though, when identifying party's with whcih they are at war, a "non-state actor" refers to a terrorist or insurgent group, not your average iraqi citizen trying to move on with his/her life.
At 1:59 PM,
anonymous @5:32
Who is twisting whose words. If you imply that I called you a fool that's your interpretation of my words. I never said that, you said this.
Frankly there are couple of manuals on the internet, some are even Al Qaeda and/or jihadists manuals dealing with media and propaganda. Just put western public i/o insurgents, something like WE SHOULD PLAY THE (western public) OFF EACHOTHER IF AND WHEN IT IS IN OUR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO and you will get similar staff.
Oh, and anonymous you may have arrived in Iraq but I am not an american and neither I am british. So do not presume.
Cheers.
At 5:45 PM,
I never said it was limited to "violent" groups. Another lie.
i wasn't talkin to you bigshot, i was talking to your cohort, down dog down. i was referring to this comment.
dude, you can't just pull out obscure authorities and claim it defines a word the way you want it defined.
ella Who is twisting whose words. If you imply that I called you a fool that's your interpretation of my words. I never said that
the last time i recall you addressing me was here at 10:56 here's what you said claiming i was "quick to qoute the Islam Memo." which i most certainly not, only after i had ask after the escalation in violence in ramadi, not responded to, only found on report at msm, got critiziced for it , then did i say, 'oh would you rather i get my news here....."
I am angry but never solemn.
Solemnity I leave for people who think that attrocities are usually committed by their compatriots, who seem to think that american main-stream newspapers and television often lie, but all others, like Islam Memo do not................ .
fool
what a bunch of crap you are. you can go there and read my response to your drivel. btw that rapist is not my compatriot and i feel very very solum about a 15 year old girl tied up raped/burner and murdered.
btw
From the military's point of view, though, when identifying party's with whcih they are at war, a "non-state actor" refers to a terrorist or insurgent group,
thanks for the info
not your average iraqi citizen trying to move on with his/her life.
i don't think moving on w/their lives is something average iraqi citizens can do right now. fwiw
At 7:49 PM,
At 9:49 PM,
i knew you were going to say that. you are so predictable. btw, its not only the insurgents. prior to the occupation they were mobile. the markets were open etc. i know these nuances are hard for you to grasp.
WE SHOULD PLAY THE (western public) OFF EACHOTHER IF AND WHEN IT IS IN OUR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO
are you screaming because you think you are so brilliant ella. ever think about all the jounalist who have died trying to bring us the news from iraq. most of them killed (oh yeah an accident) by the us military? something tells me we would all be hearing about the good news if there was any. you're a bore ella
tell perception managment you need a replacement.
At 11:11 PM,
At 11:20 PM,
Oh
And anonymous/annie you really should quote my whole answer which is as true now as it was then.
"fool
Hmm.........no reasonable answer, calling names.
There are two nice saying of prophet Isa which I think will suffice for an answer:
"Don't judge, so that you won't be judged "
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?""
At 1:42 AM,
jeez ella, no i did not drag the entire thread over here, but i read your drivel . this will be the last time i will be responding to you, i think mt earlier response says it all so i will repeat it.
i know what propaganda is, media is written by humans, they all have agendas and over 90 journalists have died in this war. "Don't judge, so that you won't be judged "
take your own advice, you are certainly no less critical than me. you harp harp harp.you call me a fool and then lecture me about calling names in the next sentence, what a joke . hypocrite.
i purposely chose 3 paragraphs that shed no blame, focusing on the victims. you on the other hand chose to cherry pick lines that support one viewpoint that seems to justify your position of who equals evil. give it a rest. i am smarter than your petty trap.
get off my back bitch, you accuse me of judging? here's who i have no problem judging, people who get paid to hang out on blogs and incite animosity, people like you . tool
take it personally if i ignore you, like i said earlier, you bore me
At 9:04 AM,
[Kryptonite] “Still no defense of the fact that Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Baathists, and homegrown Iraqi opportunists and terrorists are fuelling the violence in Iraq?”
Since US reports from supposedly captured documents revealed that Zarqawi complained that he only had 200 men left in the whole of Iraq, I somehow doubt that AQ is fuelling the violence there. And the majority of jihadis by far are Egyptian and Saudi Arabian … NOT Syrian or Iranian.
I do however concede that the Baathists like Adnan Thabit and homegrown radical opportunists like “Abu Waleed”, both of whom (together with their murderous goons) WORK FOR THE USA RIGHT NOW … are fuelling sectarian hatred and random violence in an effort to deflect violence from US troops onto Iraqis.
Even Ella agrees with this assessment : [Ella] “Divide and conquer rule as well as propaganda was first applied by persian Darius, THE WEST JUST BORROWED FROM HIS MANUAL.”
[Kryptonite] “However, the manual doesn't say this. it refers specifically to insurgent groups, not to the population generally. Obviously, the enemy of the US is not the iraqi people, but the insurgent and terrorist groups in iraq fighting for the reestablishment of a totalitarian regime.”
This is just more re-categorising of people to suit the American agenda. The problem is that there IS NO DISTINCTION between the “Iraqi people” and the Resistance fighting to eject you from Iraq. The same Resistance that calls for a withdrawal timetable, and the same Iraqi people that calls for a withdrawal timetable. The US saw the danger of a united Sunni-Shia front, and it has acted most effectively to stir up sectarian violence to implode this unity before it posed a serious danger. The enemy of the US IS THE IRAQI PEOPLE, this is clear, since the Iraqi people want you to leave, and since you don’t want to leave.
Anonymous –
Your mastery of Google is commendable.
Your ritual dismemberment of these fools was a pleasure to read.
Isn’t it amusing to note the paucity of arguments to contest the facts from the side of the war nuts?
It’s interesting noting that they are reduced to quibbling about details such as the definition of “state actor” or picking out spelling errors in a (futile) effort to hide the reality that they are unable to dispute the facts on the ground in any fashion whatsoever. Whether these facts be the recruitment of Saddamite legbreakers into the new intelligence services or the divide and rule tactics that they implemented from the very start, reinforced yet again by the writings in the Marine COIN manual.
They've put on a poor show indeed.
At 7:27 PM,
"The enemy of the US IS THE IRAQI PEOPLE, this is clear, since the Iraqi people want you to leave, and since you don’t want to leave."
LOL. Bruno, wake up and smell the coffee. There is quite a difference between your average iraqi eager to move on with his life after the nightmare that was Saddam, and the Iranian or Al Qaida aligned extremist fixated on the supposed "US conspiracy to kill and enslave muslims." Stop the lies.
[kryptonite] “There is quite a difference between your average iraqi eager to move on with his life after the nightmare that was Saddam, and the Iranian or Al Qaida aligned extremist”
Again, you are reframing the definitions of debate. The fact is, ANYBODY who wants the US to leave Iraq is viewed as an opponent by the US. Peaceful protests have not worked, they have been met by deadly force. At Fallujah 16 unarmed protesters were mown down with automatic weapons when they called for US forces to leave and when they protested the occupation of a school.
The fact is: 87% of the Iraqi populace want a timetable for your withdrawal, and you refuse to set one.
The fact is that you have no intention of ever withdrawing.
The fact is that Rumsfeld on the 12th July 2006 re-affirmed that “he doesn’t talk deadlines” despite the fact that a withdrawal timetable removes the number one reason that fuels resistance.
The fact is that this de facto makes the Iraqi people your enemy, who are to be divided and set against each other AS PER THE MANUAL in order to facilitate a prolonged occupation of Iraq.
At 10:07 PM,
"The fact is, ANYBODY who wants the US to leave Iraq is viewed as an opponent by the US." Well, then half of all americans would be viewed as "opponents" by the US. Are you really so stupid as to think that anyone who voices an opinion suggesting that the US should leave Iraq now is an "enemy"? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Further, the Americans are in constant dialogue with several insurgent groups in an effort to get them to lay down their arms and join in the reconstruction process. At what point do these people stop being America's "enemies"?
I'm sure there will be a long term relationship between the Iraqi government and the US military, as there is with Korea, Japan and Germany, along with other countries who have benefited from such a relationship. Other countries, such as the Phillipines, have cut ties with the US military. Through their government, the Iraqi people have a say in the matter. However, decisions won't and should not be made through popular polls because the large majority of Iraqis are not privy to information that the Iraqi government is privy to.
Further, the relationships between two governments, and the military relationships between two governments, are extremely complex, and you could hardly hope to resolve the issue with the poorly thought out blogs you post here. Of course no one wants a long term military presence in Iraq. No one wants any US soldiers in Iraq. Unfortunately, because of certain decisions that Saddam made, there was little other choice in the matter. Now, because of certain decisions being made by Al-Qaida, Sadr, Badr, and former Saddamites, the US has a little more work to do before leaving - unless Iraq descends into all out civil war, which would cause an immediate US exit, America should stay in Iraq for 2 to 3 more years, and longer, depending on the security situation and other factors.
The important thing right now is to allow reconstruction to happen. Unfortunately, America's true opponents, the groups and individuals committing acts of sectarian violence in Iraq, are preventing this from happening. While there may be a true patriotic insurgency fighting against imperialist America, they are of little significance to the United States, and obviously are not a large enough group to inflict any kind of substantial damage.
[k] "Well, then half of all americans would be viewed as "opponents" by the US."
Fact is, I’m aware of the constant demonising of those Americans who do want to see the US leave Iraq within your society. I’m aware of their harassment and of the constant criticism of their lack of patriotism. Your remark is substantially correct.
[kryptonite] “Further, the Americans are in constant dialogue with several insurgent groups in an effort to get them to lay down their arms and join in the reconstruction process. At what point do these people stop being America's "enemies"?”
At the point where they do, in fact, accept American military presence.
[kryptonite] “the large majority of Iraqis are not privy to information that the Iraqi government is privy to.”
Ah, get off it. This is the same “secret information” bullshit that was used by your government to justify the invasion of Iraq. I guess that, no, common Iraqis don’t know how much in bribes the Iraqi politicians receive, nor the extent of their protection from retribution that the US affords them.
[kryptonite] “The important thing right now is to allow reconstruction to happen.”
Haven’t you heard? The reconstruction process has been declared nearly finished! A fabulous job the US has done.
[kryptonite] “Unfortunately, America's true opponents, the groups and individuals committing acts of sectarian violence in Iraq, are preventing this from happening.”
Last I heard the Badr Brigade was in the employ of the US-advised and armed Interior Ministry.
And the last I heard, 30000 casualties counts as "substantial damage".
At 3:30 PM,
"And the last I heard, 30000 casualties counts as "substantial damage"."
This is a lie. Submit evidence that 30,000 American troops have been killed.
"Last I heard the Badr Brigade was in the employ of the US-advised and armed Interior Ministry."
Also a lie. Submit evidence that the US has employed or encouraged the employment of the Badr brigade to do anything. Another ridiculous and outrageous claim that you repeat over and over in hopes that everyone will just take your word for it.
"Ah, get off it. This is the same “secret information” bullshit that was used by your government to justify the invasion of Iraq." Secret information? Not necessarily, its just like anything else. The general population of any country doesn't have the expertise to make reasonable, intelligent decisions regarding the complex military relationships between two countries, just like it doesn't know how to build a rocket ship, or perform brain surgery. Certain decisions require technical expertise that your average Iraqi does not have, nor do you.
"At the point where they do, in fact, accept American military presence."
Also a lie. The US military has many relationships with groups and individuals in Iraq, and the united states, who do not accept the US military presence in iraq. They are not viewed as enemies, but as reasonable critics. On the other hand, those who kill American troops, or other Iraqis, or who try to propagate war against the US, are considered enemies. There is a difference that requires some intelligence to recognize. Evidently, you do not have that intelligence.
well, i think i have torn you apart enough for one day. Go ahead and lick your wounds and lets see what other ridiculous nonsense you come up with.
[kryptonite] “The general population of any country doesn't have the expertise to make reasonable, intelligent decisions regarding the complex military relationships between two countries”
I see. Sort of like the average dictator justifying his rule because the general population is unqualified to make its own decisions. You keep rooting for Saddam, y’hear?
[kryptonite] “The US military has many relationships with groups and individuals in Iraq, and the united states, who do not accept the US military presence in iraq. They are not viewed as enemies, but as reasonable critics.”
Which is, of course, why you mow them down with machine guns, right?
[bruno] "Last I heard the Badr Brigade was in the employ of the US-advised and armed Interior Ministry."
[kryptonite] “Also a lie.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FUL20060626&articleId=2696
This link clearly and unambiguously illustrates the link and cooperation between the Interior Ministry (then under the Badr Commander Jabr’s care) and US soldiers such as Colonel Gordon B. ‘Skip’ Davis and Colonel Jeffrey Buchanan.
[bruno] "And the last I heard, 30000 casualties counts as "substantial damage"."
[kryptonite] ”This is a lie. Submit evidence that 30,000 American troops have been killed.”
The best for last. Clearly, you have NO IDEA what the word “casualty” means in military parlance. I suggest that you brush up on your terminology before hitting the “lie” button and embarrassing yourself next time.
At 6:34 AM,
LOL. casualty doesn't mean casualty and kill doesn't mean kill, right? the laymen's understanding of the word "casualty" is that it means death. Please, Bruno, tell us what your preferred definition of casualty is. The fact remains, far fewer US troops have died during this war than any other of similar scope and duration. you didn't define casualty. you said there were 30,000 casualties, hoping that someone with little knowledge of the subject would look at your "fact" and assume that 30,000 american troops had been killed. You are a LIAR.
[kryppie] “casualty doesn't mean casualty and kill doesn't mean kill, right? the laymen's understanding of the word "casualty" is that it means death. Please, Bruno, tell us what your preferred definition of casualty is.”
No, the moron’s understanding of “casualty” is that it means death.
I’m assuming you can figure out by yourself who I’m referring to.
Wikipedia:
“ In military usage, casualties usually has a more specific meaning, and refers to all persons lost to active military service, which includes those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical or mental injuries, captured, deserted, and missing. ”
Since we are talking about a military action, I kind of hoped that you’d be kind enough to keep up with the terms of debate. As usual I’m disappointed.
Nevertheless, your continued inability to discuss the facts that matter is noted, as is your reduction to playing tricks with definitions of words as a means of debate … which is more telling about the bankruptcy of your position than anything I could say.
At 6:42 AM,
okay, bruno...sure that's what you meant. i'm SURE you wanted to have an intellectual discussion and just didn't think through how the word "casualty" is perceived. How many "casualties" have your insurgent's market and mosque bombings inflicted? And again, i'm not just counting deaths, but all the people affected by the terrorist actions that you condone. How many Saddam casualties are there? I know you've never acknowledged his casualties - do some research on it. ONLY THEN will we be able to have a discussion on what the word "casualty" means.
I note and guffaw the fact that you are as yet unable in any way whatsoever to dispute the fact that the US and the Badr brigade are in cahoots with each other. I note that you are as yet unable to dispute the murderous nature of the US in Iraq.
That your argument is reduced to saying “what about Saddam” when he was your pet that you nurtured and protected for so many years.
That your argument is reduced to equating sectarian killings with Resistance violence – even as the organs WHICH YOU SET UP, being the Interior Ministry and the FPS are proven to be involved in the sectarian violence and massacres.
In other words, you are citing deaths which occurred as a result of the forces which you support – as being the responsibility of resisting Iraqis!
So: yet again your mendacity is revealed, together with your ignorance of the meaning of common English terms such as 'casualty'.
How surprising.
At 7:07 AM,
"I note and guffaw the fact that you are as yet unable in any way whatsoever to dispute the fact that the US and the Badr brigade are in cahoots with each other."
I'm not going to dispute something that does not exist. The US does not support the use of militias for anything, except as a temporary means of assuaging the local population. Since day one, the US has trained Iraqis to develop a national Iraqi army and has said, over and over, that the dismantling of militias is a cornerstone of unifying IRaq. As yuo are well aware, Baathists, Sadrists, Badrists come in many shapes and sizes. The IRaqi people have used these groups as a means of protecting themselves during this chaotic time of which you contribute. To make a sweeping statement like the US is in cahoots with the Badrs is completely disingenous - saying we are in "cahoots" with Badrists means we are also in cahoots with Baathists, Sadrists, Badrists, Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas and every terrorist organization. In reality, we negotiate with people who have ties to people who have ties with one of these terrorist organizations. You equate a tenuous connections with being in "cahoots." Its a total LIE, again.
[kryptonite] “The US does not support the use of militias for anything, except as a temporary means of assuaging the local population.”
So in other words, YOU ADMIT the US supports the use of militias.
That’s what it really boils down to, isn’t it?
Thanks.
[kryptonite] “To make a sweeping statement like the US is in cahoots with the Badrs is completely disingenous saying we are in "cahoots" with Badrists means we are also in cahoots with Baathists […] You equate a tenuous connections with being in "cahoots." Its a total LIE, again.”
The fact is, I have already demonstrated amply how the US has integrated Badr members into the Interior ministry, how it has trained, armed and deployed them. Your feeble bleatings to the contrary do NOT in any way a refutation make. The facts have been stated. You cannot refute them with contrary evidence. That’s just the way it is.
And speaking of being in cahoots with the Baathists:
I refer you to:
The Way of the Commandos
By PETER MAASS - May 1, 2005 – New York Times
"There are far more Americans in Iraq today -- some 140,000 troops in all -- than there were in El Salvador, but U.S. soldiers and officers are increasingly moving to a Salvador-style advisory role. In the process, they are backing up local forces that, like the military in El Salvador, do not shy away from violence. It is no coincidence that this new strategy is most visible in a paramilitary unit that has Steele as its main adviser; having been a key participant in the Salvador conflict, Steele knows how to organize a counterinsurgency campaign that is led by local forces. He is not the only American in Iraq with such experience: the senior U.S. adviser in the Ministry of Interior, which has operational control over the commandos, is Steve Casteel, a former top official in the Drug Enforcement Administration who spent much of his professional life immersed in the drug wars of Latin America.
[…]
Last summer, with the security situation deteriorating, some Iraqi and American officials began to argue that the time had passed for a ''clean hands'' policy that rejected most of the experienced people who had fought for Saddam Hussein. The first official to take action was Falah al-Naqib, interior minister under the interim government of Ayad Allawi. In September, Naqib formed his own regiment, the Special Police Commandos, DRAWN FROM VETERANS OF HUSSEIN'S SPECIAL FORCES AND THE REPUBLICAN GUARD. As its leader, he chose General Adnan, not only because Adnan had a useful collection of colleagues from Iraq's military and security networks, but also because Adnan is Naqib's uncle.
[…]
PETRAEUS DECIDED THAT THE COMMANDOS WOULD RECEIVE WHATEVER ARMS, AMMUNITION AND SUPPLIES THEY REQUIRED. He also assigned Steele to work with them. In addition to his experience in El Salvador, Steele had been in charge of retraining Panama's security forces following the ousting of President Manuel Noriega. When I asked him to describe Adnan's leadership qualities, Steele drew on the vocabulary he learned in Latin America. Adnan, he said approvingly, was a caudillo -- a military strongman.” //end excerpt
Now that is hardly “a friend of a friend” or a “tenuous connection”. That is the Americans directly dealing with Baathists at the highest military levels, directly arming, advising, and aiding them.
Man, oh man, are you getting trashed here or what?
If you want your vaporous refutations of reality to take on a more solid form you will have to: cite sources with information to the contrary, and make reference to how those sources have relevance to what you are saying.
At 5:43 AM,
"The fact is, I have already demonstrated amply how the US has integrated Badr members into the Interior ministry, how it has trained, armed and deployed them."
Have I denied this? As I've said many times before, there aren't enough Americans in Iraq to screen everyone Iraqi that seemingly wants a government job to determine what militia they were once a member of, or have some tenuous connection to. You present it as though there is some big American tent set up in Iraq, where Badr members are recruited by Americans to join the Interior Ministry's security forces to kill Sunnis. This, again, is a lie. We don't specifically recruit former Badr members to be in the security forces. We may fail to screen them out, but that would be a far cry from your suggestion that America has actively recruited from Shiite militias to fight Sunnis. You are a liar.
There is a huge difference between SUPPORT and simple aloofness. I don't know how many times the US Ambassador to Iraq has to denounce militias for you to get it through your stupid head that the US does not support militias. I would never admit that they do.
Your brain seems to have a very difficult time recognizing the complexities of this conflict. The US gives in to certain groups to avoid fighting certain battles at certain times. We more or less stopped fighting the Mehdi army a couple years ago because there was a greater threat from Sunni inspired terrorists to worry about. Does that mean the US supports the Mehdi army? Of course not. You are dumber than a tree stump.
[kryptonite] “We don't specifically recruit former Badr members to be in the security forces. We may fail to screen them out … ”
This link, which I have provided on numerous occasions, makes it clear that you are wrong. I would say you are a LIAR but, heck, since even the plants are more intelligent than you, it would be an exaggeration on my part to impute that you possess enough knowledge on the subject to be actively deceitful:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FUL20051110&articleId=1230
The key extract is:
“ On 9 June rightwing US think tank the Council for Foreign Relations published a paper devoted to Iraqi militias (CFR), simultaneously repeated in the New York Times. In a series of FAQ-type entries, the report reiterated many of Allam’s insights about the Wolf Brigade, as well as offering some additional tidbits:
What is the Wolf Brigade?
The most feared and effective commando unit in Iraq, experts say. Formed last October by a former three-star Shiite general and SCIRI member who goes by the nom de guerre Abu[l] Walid, the Wolf Brigade is composed of roughly 2,000 fighters, mostly young, poor Shiites from Sadr City.
However, the paper went further in emphasising the units’ sectarian Shiite character, stating that ‘ONE OF BADR'S RECENT OFFSHOOTS IS A FEARED, ELITE COMMANDO UNIT LINKED TO THE IRAQI INTERIOR MINISTRY CALLED THE WOLF BRIGADE’ “//end excerpt
As has been clearly established, the US DOES cooperate with and DOES support the Wolf Brigade, and the US has directly advised the Interior Ministry through people like Steele and Casteel on counterinsurgency matters. And that is precisely what the Wolf Brigade is about: counterinsurgency.
Even if I’m extremely generous and assume that the US did not help found and set up these units – which is a practically a given since the Iraqi intelligence apparatus still reports to the CIA – the fact remains that the US HAS CHOSEN to work with them, pay them and support them.
Your argument is like saying: “We never founded the Nazi Party, but we work closely with them.”.
And the US has been working with the personnel of the Badr Brigade for a long time now, ever since Jabr was the head of the Interior Ministry … and possibly even before, since there is a Chalabi – Badr connection as well.
At 6:48 AM,
Again, the US has similar reltaionships with other militias, and with former Baathists. That is Iraq. There aren't a lot of people with the expertise to deal with local populations who do not have ties to militias or Saddam. One of the difficulties of establishing order in the country, thus further establishing the need for US troops to remain in Iraq. Once again, your evidence of a conspiracy is nothing but a tenuous connection. Thanks for the info though - very helpful.
[kryptonite] “Again, the US has similar reltaionships [sic] with other militias, and with former Baathists.”
Your acknowledgement of the relationship between the US and forces such as the sectarian militias and the Baath is all I needed. In other words: the US is fighting alongside the very people it invaded Iraq to supposedly free Iraqis from. My work here is done.
At 3:54 AM,
Regarding the exchange way upthread about the AFP article by Deborah Pasmantier, I'm amazed at the way people treat Google.
There really was such an article released by the AFP wire on Sept. 30, 2003. Using Lexis-Nexis, I was able to find it in about three minutes.
The fact that the article text isn't currently indexed by Google does not mean that it is a "fabrication", "opinion", or "outright lie". The article is probably not freely available on the internet, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist!
Your local library probably has a computer with a subscription to Lexis-Nexis. If you want to verify that the article exists, use Lexis-Nexis to search News Articles with Category "News Wires", Source "All available wire reports", and search for "Deborah Pasmantier" in field "Author" during date range "September 30, 2003" - "September 30, 2003".
Not that this necessarily has any bearing on the insurgency today... I just hate to see lazy people treating Google as the ultimate arbiter of reality.
At 10:33 AM,
"In other words: the US is fighting alongside the very people it invaded Iraq to supposedly free Iraqis from. My work here is done."
LOL. God you are a lazy dummy. Yes, yes...its the same. Negotiating with militias to get them to join the government is the same as "fighting alongside the very people it invaded Iraq to supposedly free Iraqis from." Another lie. But, go ahead and give up..."your work is done."
At 10:36 AM,
"Not that this necessarily has any bearing on the insurgency today... I just hate to see lazy people treating Google as the ultimate arbiter of reality."
AGREED!!! But, this is not a formal debate, and i'm not going to waste my time doing the proper citations for an egomaniac like Bruno, who is convinced that, becuase he can find some obscure article from some obscure writer on google, his case is proven.
I wonder if the result from Saddam's trial will bring any change to Iraq.
24, Do you think that executing Saddam, or prison, will affect any change in Iraq or just be the end to a dark book in Iraq's history.
I wonder if the resitance still hopes to bring Saddam back or what. I would have much more respectfor the resitance if they were more open about there agendas, wore uniforms, and maybe united. I heard there is a new shiite reesitance that is only targeting coalition troops. Here's that article.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SHIITE_INSURGENTS?SITE=WRKO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I think this is just counterproductive to their goal. Attacking the occupation only means they will stay longer. I think a objective met timetable for withdrawal suits everyone. Then after the U.S. is given a chance to leave, we will see if they go or stay, then they can be legitamte targets.
But this is for the Iraqi government to decide and not the resitance groups. If the government wishes for the US to stay and be it's allie, with a small troop presence, then there can be bases and a embassy.