US Troops Accused of Mosque Massacre:

[bishop]

Quote by: nunez But yes, better in that desert than in Dallas, or at least one would expect united statians, Texans and people from Dallas to think this way.

another person pushing this straw man bullshit line... i'll ask you the question that rdnor dodged: pray tell, how would over 10,000 islamists suddenly appear in dallas - armed, ready and able to fight a guerilla war? i know you can't provide a rational and direct answer to that question, but i'd like to see you try.

over 3 years later, and iraq remains a cesspool of instability..

more dead americans & iraqis

with no end in sight.... *but duhhhh... i sure am glad we is killin 'dem sand niggers o'er there, instead of here in dallas!*



we already know that the war was a mistake, a blunder of titanic proportion... how long do you think it'll take until people will readily admit that our tactics are not helping; and, that the only real question to answer is when we should withdraw?

[jose]

The Americans insisted that the incident did not occur at all.

They said that Iraqi special forces attacked "a kidnap cell" nearby, killing 16 insurgents and saving an Iraqi hostage, but that no US troops were in the area and no mosques were entered.
(Filed: 28/03/2006)
Iraqi and American special forces who attacked an insurgent headquarters in Baghdad were not aware that their target contained a mosque until after the battle, America's most senior soldier said yesterday.
(Filed: 29/03/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
what a difference a day makes, first no US troops were involved,then they were

[bishop]

there must be some sort of standard policy where any action involving our troops and religious symbols/buildings must be vociferously denied - regardless of the allegations being true or false.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rdnor Yes yes I know . Saddam was just an aging dictator and his sons were little boy scouts.

No one is saying they were boyscouts, rdnor. The world is full of horrible, vicious dictators whose countries we have yet to invade. What we're saying is that, as vile as Saddam may have been, he was not attacking anyone, was not mobilizing to attack anyone, was not threatening anyone, and his military, after war with Iran, Desert Storm and 12 years of sanctions, was a shambles, and he had, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction , nor the means to create them.

So unless you're suggesting that America has the right to invade any sovereign nation we want, simply because their leader is an evil dictator who likes to stick his tongue out as us, then what's your point?

Quote by: rdnor For people that were never there you sure seem to be informed.

If you're referring to American soldiers on the ground in Iraq, since apparently 90% of them believe we invaded Iraq in retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11, then it would appear that, yes, I am vastly more informed than they are.

Quote by: rdnor If He had no weapons , why did he impede the UN inspectors and VIOLATE all those UN resolutions ?

No.1 -- there's no IF about it. Saddam had no weapons, nor the means to produce them.

No.2 -- we now know that Saddam was simultaneously trying to convince the West that he didn't have weapons while remaining coy enough about it to keep Iran from knowing for sure whether he was armed or not and thus off his back.

Quote by: rdnor FYI , Bush does many things that I do not like and will not get into now . After 9/11 the gloves came off , like it or not. END .

But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Are you actually suggesting that the United States has the right, if attacked, to invade and overthrow any country we happen to have a grudge against, whether or not they were involved in any way with the attack on us?

-------------------------------------------------------------

See how it works, rdnor? The key to seeming to be informed is to actually be informed.

.

[rmnunez]

The better in the desert than in Dallas quip has drawn fire from people who find it inconceivable 10 thousand insurgents could swoop into the Texan city. I agree, its very unlikely we will ever see something like this, but how about a couple of airliners crashing into some tall buildings?

In this discussion the critical left opposition 'fudges' a lot of things. The enemy in Iraq is described by critics as an insurgency animated by patriotic ideals natural in all of us. This is only partially true, the Coalitioneers have been attacked by terrorists in Iraq dubiously animated by patriotic ideals when they are not even from that country. If the Coalition pulled out of Iraq, they would no longer be attacked by the insurgency, but how about these terrorists? These are the ones I mean are better confronted by armed soldiers in Iraq than innocent civilians in western capitals.

The idea religious buildings are sacrosanct and immune from attack is not Muslim. The use of a Mosque as a point from which to fire upon a perceived enemy would remove its immunity. In this incident a number of weapons were seized, these wouldn't be normally found in a Mosque, even if this is in Baghdad. A number of the captives have already identified themselves as elements in Sadr's (radical cleric) militia and plenty of witnesses (Muslims) describe heavy fire from all over the building. If we want unbreachable standards to apply to religious buildings I'd suggest forbidding any military attack on them, but also any insurgency or terrorist use of them too. We can demand recognized military abide by such conditions, but can't require as much from insurgents or terrorists. I think its an option the insurgency and terrorists can agree to at any time by mere conduct, if they refrain from attacking Coalitioneers from Mosques, these will not be attacked.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez I agree, its very unlikely we will ever see something like this, but how about a couple of airliners crashing into some tall buildings?

For one, I think it's safe to assume that it's not necessary for us to be in Iraq for terrorists to crash a couple of airliners into our tall buildings. Nor do I think that our being in Iraq in any way would prevent terrorists from again crashing airliners into buildings - should they actually be able to do so, considering that unlike pre-911, when even then we came heartbreakingly close to foiling the plot, our national security is now paying attention, ready and on the lookout.

It's not like we have every al-Qaeda terrorist bottled up in Iraq. They're simply there because that's where they can do the most harm to America, by keeping us bogged down in an unwinnable war.

Quote by: rmnunez The idea religious buildings are sacrosanct and immune from attack is not Muslim. The use of a Mosque as a point from which to fire upon a perceived enemy would remove its immunity.

Number one, if that's so, why doesn't the military simply come out and say so.

Number two, it's not that simple. If we'ere to have any hope of defeating the insurgency, we have to refrain from doing things that inflame the populace and motivate them to join it. Obviously, their mosques are a very sensitive point among Iraqis. You're absolutely right... insurgents are probably using mosques intentionally, but it's a win-win solution for them. If we don't attack, they have a sanctuary. If we do attack, we inflame Iraqis and drive them into the insurgent ranks.

It sucks, but hey... "War is all Hell", and shouldn't be entered into lightly.

.

[jose]

Quote by: rmnunez . The idea religious buildings are sacrosanct and immune from attack is not Muslim. The use of a Mosque as a point from which to fire upon a perceived enemy would remove its immunity.

US strikes raze Falluja hospital

The hospital was run by an Islamic charity
A hospital has been razed to the ground in one of the heaviest US air raids in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3988433.stm
American troops have lost the moral war a long time ago,attacking hospitals and places of worship, and classifing prisoners of war as terrorists and not even letting the red cross visit them,i´m starting to care less, in the words of your great leader,¨bring em on¨

[rmnunez]

Nor do I think that our being in Iraq in any way would prevent terrorists from again crashing airliners into buildings . . . It's not like we have every al-Qaeda terrorist bottled up in Iraq.

The terrorists in Iraq are not available for suicide missions in western capitals. Moreover, terrorists are much more likely to be killed when attacking armed forces than in attacks on civilians who cannot defend themselves. Furthermore, the force of the united statian reaction to 911 suggests similar military reaction would follow another major terrorist attack and this would dissuade. The published degradations terrorist suspects have endured also are probably dissuasory. I don't know what has helped more prevent a 911-like attack, whether it is improved monitoring of foreigners, the appeal of an opportunity to attack troops in Iraq or the killing of terrorists there. All three likely have impact though.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: grandpa http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...11-401,00.html I'm sure this will improve relations.

Is not that "the best solution" to erase U.S. from the world map ?
The rest of the world is simply perfect.

What these U.S. soldiers should do, then ?

[whoracle]

Quote by: rdnor Yes yes I know . Saddam was just an aging dictator and his sons were little boy scouts . For people that were never there you sure seem to be informed . Kind of like Micheal Moore is informed . So far , just hate Bush . If He had no weapons , why did he impede the UN inspectors and VIOLATE all those UN resolutions ? FYI , Bush does many things that I do not like and will not get into now . After 9/11 the gloves came off , like it or not . END .

Maybe I'm missing the point...or maybe you are? When exactly was Saddam's hand in the cookie jar during 9/11? I'm not saying he was a great guy. Sure he was a militant and amoral bastard. But at the time, what did that have to do with the issue at hand? Nada. If anything we should have deployed intelligence there. How can you expect to win a war of this magnitude. Religion/Attrition makes for quite different circumstances than standard warfare. More blood has been shed in the name of God than any other cause, yet we went headlong into it and are surprised its not yet over.

You're right, the gloves are off, but the gloves are theirs not ours. Sure we have the means and the firepower, but what does that really get us when they actually look forward to death? It's almost impossible to gain the upper hand in that situation.
Meanwhile...where the fuck is Osama? Or did I miss that point as well?

[whoracle]

Not to run on...but has anyone brought up the fact that we supplied arms to Osama and his *Freedom Fighters*?
Maybe some of you are not old enough to remember, but the movie Rambo First Blood was actually dedicated to the piece of shit.
Not to mention his links with the Bush family and our allowing his family safe passage out of the country while all flights were grounded.
But it's a big surprise when we go after someone totally irrelevant to the situation...
And maybe I'm going off on a tangent...irks me though.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez he terrorists in Iraq are not available for suicide missions in western capitals.

Rm, I think it should be obvious that mideast terrorism is definitely not lacking in suicide bombers. In fact, it's my understanding that, after training them in Iraq, al-Zarqawi is actually exporting terrorists into neighboring Muslim countries.

But like I said... al-Qaeda is fighting us in Iraq because that's where, in the long run, they can hurt us the most.... by exhausting our military in an never ending war, draining our economy, alienating us from the Muslim world, undermining our global leadership and sapping American confidence in their own government.

Quote by: rmnunez Moreover, terrorists are much more likely to be killed when attacking armed forces than in attacks on civilians who cannot defend themselves.

Which is exactly why they rely on roadside bombs, hide behind mosques, women and children, and melt away whenever our military mounts a major offensive. They have no intention of fighting our military straight up. That would be real suicide.

They're not out to win, just to keep us from winning until we're exhausted from trying.

Quote by: rmnunez Furthermore, the force of the united statian reaction to 911 suggests similar military reaction would follow another major terrorist attack and this would dissuade.

Is that right? Tell me, with our military forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, exactly what major military attack do you imagine the U.S. could mount?

Quote by: rmnunez I don't know what has helped more prevent a 911-like attack, whether it is improved monitoring of foreigners, the appeal of an opportunity to attack troops in Iraq or the killing of terrorists there. All three likely have impact though.

Simply paying attention, I suspect. Think about it... even when the last thing anyone in America expected was a massive terrorist attack, an attack that took 5 years to plan, we came heart-breakingly close to uncovering it. And as dramatic and painful as the attack on 9/11 was, in terms of bang-for-the-buck, al-Qaeda is doing far more real damage to America by keeping us bogged down in Iraq then by any dramatic but basically symbollic attacks on our own shores.

.

[whoracle]

can you explain to me why, if what you say is all true, why we're there fighting the good fight on terror and not say...where the taliban actively is?

and even if suicide bombers were only doing it to save their families lives...does that not still make them a bit more gung ho mentally than we are?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rdnor how about a little training complex in Salman Pac ? Somthing about training hijackers ..I believe.

Oh goodie, here we go again. Salmon Pak, is it now? And this is based on... of course, two Iraqi defectors, Sabah Khodada and Abu Zeinab, brought out of the cold by... you guessed it... one Ahmed Chalabi.

Salmon Pak was not a terrorist training camp, it was a counter-terrorist training camp because Iraq wasn't in collusion with al-Qaeda, it was being tormented by them. The only al-Qaeda connected terrorist camp in Iraq was that of Ansar al-Islam, in Kurdish northern Iraq hear the Iranian border, supplied by the Iranians, virilantly opposed to Saddam Hussein... and protected from Baghdad by the American no-fly zone.

--"a former CIA station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people... Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain's MI6. The CIA offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. "We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison," the former station chief told me."--

--"The agent relied on an interpreter supplied by Chalabi's people. Last summer, the DIA report, which was classified, was leaked. In a detailed account, the London Times described how the defector (Khodada) had trained with Al Qaeda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at secret camps in Iraq, how the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and how the defector was given a new identity and relocated. A month later, however, a team of CIA agents went to interview the man with their own interpreter. "He says, 'No, that's not what I said'," the former intelligence official told me. "He said, 'I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn't Al Qaeda.' He never saw any chemical or biological training." Afterward, the former official said, "the CIA sent out a piece of paper saying that [the previous reporting] was incorrect. They put it in writing." But the CIA rebuttal, like the original report, was classified. "I remember wondering whether this one would leak and correct the earlier, invalid leak. Of course, it didn't."--

--"The former intelligence official continued, explaining one of the reasons why he quit his job was his sense that the people around Bush "were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fit their agenda." If it didn't fit their theory, they weren't interested, he added."--

Here's the relevant extract from the US Senate Committee on Intelligence report. That's the Republican led, pro-Bush, US Senate Committee...

--"The Salman Pak facility outside Baghdad was an unconventional warfare training facility used by the IIS and Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen troops to train its officers for counterterrorism operations against regime opponents. The facility contained a village mockup for urban combat training and a derelict commercial aircraft."--

A Russian built Tupolev 154, by the way, not a 707. So once again, what we have is the false information brought to the administration by Ahmed Chalabi, over the objections of our own CIA.

But heck, don't believe me, rdnor. Just ask yourself the following question: With things going so badly in Iraq, with American's disapproval of Bush's War in Iraq up to 65%, with the administration desperate to justify the continuing conflict...

...how come we haven't heard diddlyspit about Salmon Pak, except on conservative chat boards?

Quote by: rdnor Do not fall for the antiamerican anti Bush BS being spouted by al jazeera and the American press . People that do, fall in the category of Lennin's useful idiots .

Yep, they sure do. The useful idiots fell for all of Bush's false BS about why we should invade Iraq and what a swell idea it was.

Oh, and rdnor, it's bin Laden, not binlain. If you're going to speculate on someone, you might want to get his name right. People might think you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

.

[whoracle]

Sonart articulates himself so much better than I. That, and I often don't wish to invest myself that heavily.

Stop with the making me feel inferior thing, man!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: whoracle can you explain to me why, if what you say is all true, why we're there fighting the good fight on terror and not say...where the taliban actively is?

We are where George Bush wanted us to go, nothing else. If nothing else the info from the Brits bears THAT out.

and even if suicide bombers were only doing it to save their families lives...does that not still make them a bit more gung ho mentally than we are?

Yes and no, I think. You apparently have to be pretty damned gung ho to want to blow yourself up in any case. If you contrast that with the fact that out military is trained to kill while keeping themselves alive it would seem they ARE more gung ho. However, it has been a long time since our troops actually fought for OUR very lives and I feel if this became the case you would see a lot more "gung ho" attitude on the part of our people than beating up on Iraqis who never had much of a grudge against us.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Whoracle Stop with the making me feel inferior thing, man!

Nah, I just have waaaay too much time on my hands.

.

[rmnunez]

Sonart:

You suspect, or seem fairly certain, just “paying attention” (monitoring better) has effectively prevented another 911, but the DHS and its “ICE” are notoriously prone to screwup. Remember Cat Stevens, the recurring Christmas delays over LA? Combat aircraft are launched to intercept commercial flights all the time over New York and Boston. Transatlantic flights are routinely detoured into delayed flight patterns, stuck on the ground as passenger manifests get held up in countless verifications, additional searches, novel technology misapplications, biased profiling, inadequate training and excited (some think even Bush-induced) paranoia. You think this is effective?

The united statian intelligence community may be better integrated and share information at deeper levels to coordinate and focus under DHS oversight, but this has naturally simply yielded more leads as sources get included. Twenty six or more Federal Criminal and Intelligence entities contributed over 350 thousand Muslim names to their collective database last year, a 15% increase over the previous year’s output, I suspect there are some repetitions. You think false leads from documented mistaken identities, similitudes in spellings, cultural bias and Byzantine bureaucracies have somehow helped make the US safer? How many terrorist attempts have been actually foiled thanks to the disclosure of all sorts of outlandish plots derived in many cases from coerced confessions extracted even under torture in documented instances? The critical left tells us few or none. The folks at DHS are now selling the united station over one thousand kilometers of fabulously expensive, but very fancy and sophisticated Israeli prefabricated Muslim repellent walls to keep them from sneaking in via Mexico (which is 98% Catholic, has no terrorists and cultural bias against Muslims).

al-Zarqawi is actually exporting terrorists into neighboring Muslim countries.

This is fine and dandy, neighboring Muslim countries are within “Desert” in the expression “better in the desert than…” Better over there, part of the new military dynamic is taking hell to them, rather than letting them get near.

Which is exactly why they rely on roadside bombs, hide behind mosques, women and children, and melt away whenever our military mounts a major offensive. They have no intention of fighting our military straight up. That would be real suicide.

Terrorist attacks in other Muslim countries are a net benefit if this is a religious war, given the diversity of their nationality, more terrorists in Damascus, Aman, Islamabad and Jakarta is still better than more 911-like events over western capitals. For the insurgency in Iraq, each time a slew of compatriots gets slaughtered they lose human capital from which to gain adepts. Is the generalized fear and despair of the civilian population more productive of recruits? With more Muslim terrorists across the region, Islamic fundamentalists hope to destabilize their own local tyrant (probably a united statian puppet if he is ugly enough) so critical lefties should endorse the idea of fostering terrorism in the Middle East, particularly since they see it as a hotbed of anti-Zionism and this is the preeminent united station client-state.

But like I said... al-Qaeda is fighting us in Iraq because that's where, in the long run, they can hurt us the most.... by exhausting our military in an never ending war, draining our economy, alienating us from the Muslim world, undermining our global leadership and sapping American confidence in their own government.

A war of attrition? This is an innovative take on terrorism/insurgency tactics. Traditionally the rebel and guerrilla type military confrontations against regular armed forces have applied Che’s “foco” doctrine and concentrated on sudden surprise and mobility to overcome the enemy’s numerical and firepower superiority. Plenty of critical lefties will have you know this is “asymmetrical warfare” and it notoriously involves the ambush and urban warfare. Wars to draw out and sap the strength of an enemy over time require comparable numbers, it’s a game of patience. A fifteen year plan involves all sorts of contingencies and at the rate they are going it will take about 20 more years for the US to reach Vietnam levels.

Terrorism entails intolerance and bloodshed, this is why the Coalitioneers (and sensible leaders in the international community) seek its eradication forcefully.

our military forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, exactly what major military attack do you imagine the U.S. could mount?

There are plenty of scenarios; Iran, North Korea and Syria offer potential. The US could easily scramble 70-120 combat jets heavily armed and inflict thousands of casualties, including civilians, from Iraqi installations in any neighboring country. I have no particular insight into their military manpower but would estimate the US could move 50 to 70 thousand more men into combat within 10 days, it wouldn’t take much more than this in Iran, unless Persians predictably are presumed more combative than Arabs and other Muslims have been upon these infidel invasions.

Whoracle:

Maybe I'm missing the point... When exactly was Saddam's hand in the cookie jar during 9/11? ... what did that have to do with the issue at hand? Nada.

You are missing the point, it’s a “war on terrorism” not a “war on those behind 911”. Direct involvement and a hand in 911 itself need not be shown for a terrorist terrorist threat to arise. Even the critical lefties know Al Qaeda is made up of independent cells, each in pursuit of their caliphate using whatever resources they can draw from and the circumstances of their environment.

Saddam's ties to terrorism have been documented and there certainly are terrorists deployed in Iraq now. Recently released military intelligence indicated Saddam trained most of the captured insurgents/terrorists in Iraq.

How can you expect to win a war of this magnitude. Religion/Attrition makes for quite different circumstances than standard warfare.

This is not a war of great magnitude, a couple thousand casualties in three years is not an enormity, with due regard to the fine men and women lost in the effort. We need to know how many insurgents/terrorists have been killed. The Mosque raid produced about 20 terrorist casualties, each carbomb (sometimes there are more than one on a given day) typically involves at least 1 dead terrorist. I think the average is over 2 insurgents/terrorists per day, so they probably would need about 140 thousand jihadees over the next 15 to 20 years. I suppose this won’t be a problem since they have religious motivation, all other things remaining the same (no new military technology and no changes in force deployments or their use).

More blood has been shed in the name of God than any other cause, yet we went headlong into it and are surprised its not yet over.

This is not a religious war for the Coalitioneers, it is only so to the jihadees, their Islamic fundamentalist leadership, and the critical lefty peanut gallery.

the gloves are off, but the gloves are theirs not ours. Sure we have the means and the firepower, but what does that really get us when they actually look forward to death? It's almost impossible to gain the upper hand in that situation.

Not at all, the variables over an extended war of attrition are numerous. Some of the more readily recognized include civilian to military casualty ratios, pace of reconstruction, stability of government, regularization of local forces and border security. An “upper hand” may be gained through improvements in any of these. The Coalitioneers have managed to reconstitute a 50 thousand man Iraqi regular force with all sorts of tactical capabilities, some think they may even have rapid-intervention air-mobiles. The Coalitioneers have identified border access points and can easily deploy more forces there without diminishing their control of occupied areas and current sporadic Sunni triangle initiatives.

Meanwhile...where the fuck is Osama? Or did I miss that point as well?

Yes again, you missed the point, OBL is probably bunkered in some hidden cave near or in the disputed Indo-Pakistani Kashmir region. The status quo, with OBL safely contained within this no-man’s land of indeterminate jurisdiction allows him to recruit anxious aspiring martyrs through sporadic rants. The cream of the crop among these well-motivated jihadees are propelled to attack the infidels, especially their military in Iraq. Thanks to the timely disclosure of the depraved and humiliating torture of their brethren, martyrs are better animated to take on the armed Coalitioneers in Iraq. This is an advantageous strategy for Coalitioneers to follow given a preference for taking the war to them.

Arabic-speaker Professor Gilles Kepel, one of France's leading experts on al Qaeda, published last week "Al Qaeda dans le Texte," an analysis of the public and (intercepted) private utterances of the two Z's -Ayman al-Zawahri (Osama bin Laden's No. 2) and Abu Musab Zarqawi, al Qaeda's insurgency honcho in Iraq. Stripped if its complexities, al Qaeda's strategy, Mr. Kepel explains, is to defeat the US in Iraq, use this victory to roll over traditional oil-rich regimes in the Gulf that are security wards of the US, and then focus on Israel.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...3951-9939r.htm

[whoracle]

Quote by: rmn You are missing the point, it’s a “war on terrorism” not a “war on those behind 911”. Direct involvement and a hand in 911 itself need not be shown for a terrorist terrorist threat to arise. Even the critical lefties know Al Qaeda is made up of independent cells, each in pursuit of their caliphate using whatever resources they can draw from and the circumstances of their environment.

Don't you think it's quite the kaweenkiedink that we decided to launch said war immediately after the attack?

[rmnunez]

kaweenkiedink? Is this like an unlikely coincidence?

Do remember Iraq intervention took place two years after 911, Afghanistan was the one that followed 911, but it wasn't immediately thereafter, there was a substantial delay as I saw it.

I certainly don't find unusual an immediate focus on erradicating international terrorism after 911 at all unnatural or suspicious, nor 'kaweenkiedink-like' -I think.