babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » "Terrorists" go pro...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "Terrorists" go pro...
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2005 05:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zarqawi group claims Iraq prison assault

quote:
"Your brothers in the Organisation of Al-Qaeda in the Land of Two Rivers (Saturday) attacked Abu Ghraib prison where Muslim men and women are detained," said a statement on an Islamist website.

At least 44 US soldiers and 12 prisoners were wounded in a concerted attack by 40 to 60 insurgents on Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, on Saturday evening, the US military said.

The attack involved firing "more than 39 rockets" said the Internet statement, whose authenticity could not be verified.

"It was followed by an attack using car bombs which forced open the main entrance gates. There followed a firefight with infidel forces," it said, promising to release video footage of "this blessed operation".

At least one rebel was killed in the 40-minute battle as insurgents fired rounds from nearby buildings on the jail, which was at the centre of a prisoner abuse scandal in April last year.


A co-ordinated small unit assault on a fortified position using sophisticated tactics and a multiplicity of weapons systems.

I'd be worried, if I were in the US army.

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 April 2005 03:14 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it isn't exactly Storming the Bastille, but the choice of targets is brilliant. Abu Ghraib has become a symbol of the injustice of the war, of the limits of Western power and morality and more - even in the West. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a clear step up.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 April 2005 05:14 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According to U.S. officials, this operation is "a sign of desperation".

quote:
"The insurgency has clearly dipped in recent months and that's because all the half-decent terrorists are behind bars. Whoever was behind the attack wanted to get the leaders out."

Oh, and the size of the attacks? That's a good thing too.

quote:
"Basically they've got to go big, otherwise they don't get the results they want," the officer said. "The good news is that they are going big and they still aren't getting the results they want."

Link.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2005 10:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well when the insurgents finally establish an open headquarters in Baghdad and start fishing around for diplomatic recognition from China, it will be part of their desperate last stand.

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just wait till.. boy oh boy.. that'll show em, oh man .
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 04 April 2005 10:09 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The good news is that they are going big and they still aren't getting the results they want.

Oh, aren't they? What are these results they want that they aren't getting? To my mind, the result they want is to create the impression that the US military is totally not in control of the Iraq situation, and destroy the will of the US public to continue this occupation. Slowly but surely, I'd say they're achieving their goals in spades.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah right.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2005 10:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you have point that you would like to elaborate on? Or does it take to much time to elaborate on issues, especially when you consider the time it takes to run sentences like the one above through the spell checker? Or is it that your fingers keep sliding off the keys because all the spittle frothing from your mouth?

Get your knuckles of the ground and type something (anything at all) over a sentence long to let us know that you are capable of it.

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 10:39 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball your reply is downright nasty. I simply will not dialogue with such as you unless you mend your discourteous ways. By the way I am still waiting for The Brutal Afghan Winter to turn The Arab Street into a Genocidal Quagmire but we all know that ain't gonna happen. You have allowed your ideology to cloud your reason consequently a debate on any issue would be futile.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavisMavis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7508

posted 04 April 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for DavisMavis     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
By the way I am still waiting for The Brutal Afghan Winter to turn The Arab Street into a Genocidal Quagmire but we all know that ain't gonna happen. You have allowed your ideology to cloud your reason consequently a debate on any issue would be futile.

So tens upon tens of thousands (probably more) of dead people and countless more suffering from lack of stable food sources, nonexistent security, torture, and what can only be described as collective punishment isn't enough of a genocidal quagmire for you? Word on the Arab Street is they don't like that kinda stuff too much. You can't just show up, leave posts like "yeah right" and then simply refuse to present any sort of logical argument because apparently our "ideology" has "clouded" our "reason". Where the heck do you get off?


From: the occupied territory of nova scotia | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 11:07 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear DavisMavis, Do you propose that the Iraqi people prefer the Mass Graves of Saddam? His poison gas attacks? His looting of the Oil for Food Program to rebuild his Armies? Are you attempting to argue that they are worse off today than under his murderous reign? Ah I see! The elections were rigged and all the hope and promise they bring merely a facade. Travel the web- I mean beyond leftist web sites and see what actual Iraqi's have to say. Knee-jerk Anti-Americanism just doesn't cut it.Please.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 April 2005 11:11 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
That's a just a cut and paste from Free Republic.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 11:13 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I neither cut nor paste thank you.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 April 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, I was being generous. I guess that piece of tripe is what you consider critical thinking and original thought.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland- go mau-mau one of your own.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 April 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
I neither cut nor paste thank you.

Not to be disrespectful or anything, but is this a comment on your laziness?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 April 2005 11:17 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pita: Travel the web- I mean beyond leftist web sites and see what actual Iraqi's have to say. Knee-jerk Anti-Americanism just doesn't cut it.Please.

OK.

Baghdad Burning

Free Iraq

Raed in the Middle

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Egalitarian American ]


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 04 April 2005 11:22 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
This does sound like a fairly significant operation. The occupation continues to reveal its inadequacy.

The US invasion of Iraq. A bad policy, incompetently executed.

I guess i sound like the impossible restaurant customer, complaining that the food is terrible and in such small portions, but whatteryahgonnadoo?


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can play that too-Winds Of Change Egalitarian lol
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 04 April 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
I can play that too-Winds Of Change Egalitarian lol

"Please don't feed me"


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 11:29 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Papal I see a troll to you is anyone who disagrees with the party line- how typical, how sad, now grow up.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 April 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
I can play that too-Winds Of Change Egalitarian lol

Joe Katzman is an Iraqi, living in Iraq?

Oh, man, you are tooooo funny!


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 04 April 2005 11:35 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Egalitarian it was simply a quick link to a site not likely to be visited by habitues of this one- I should have made myself clear for you but yeah it is kinda funny lol.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 April 2005 11:48 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Shi'ite slate of candidates for the National Assembly, fresh from their apparently overwhelming victory at the polls, are demanding that the strictures of Islamic law be encoded in the new Iraqi constitution. According to a recent statement issued by the Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, a powerful Shi'ite cleric:

"All of the ulema [clergy] and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the permanent constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam."


Americans Die for Sharia in Iraq

Allah moves in mysterious ways.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 05 April 2005 03:04 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, well when the insurgents finally establish an open headquarters in Baghdad and start fishing around for diplomatic recognition from China, it will be part of their desperate last stand.

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


War on China, anyone?

To be honest, I wouldn't blame the USA were China to ally themselves with Zarqawi's terrorists.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 April 2005 03:16 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you ever wonder, Gir, what the Chinese think of all those US military bases that are springing up in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, never mind what the US has already deployed in Korea, Okinawa and Japan?

quote:
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the House International Relations Committee on Wednesday.

In addition to Kyrgyzstan, the war has led to basing agreements with Uzbekistan, where about 3,000 Americans are deployed near the Afghan border, and Tajikistan. Discussions are underway with Kazakhstan for use of an airfield there, according to Kassymzhomart Tokaev, the Kazakh foreign minister. The Defense Department also has been using three bases in Pakistan and across the Gulf region, most notably in Oman and Kuwait, which have emerged as major centers of U.S. military operations.

All told, more than 50,000 U.S. military personnel now live and work on ships and bases stretching from Turkey to Oman and eastward to the Manas airport, 19 miles outside of Bishkek and 300 miles from the Chinese border.


In a remote corner of Central Asia in a country that didn't even exist a decade ago, the U.S. Air Force is building a base that within months will be home to 3,000 personnel and nearly two dozen American and allied aircraft.

United States set up permanent military bases in Central Asia


Map of US military bases in Central Asia(From CNN, so please excuse the war boosting)

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 April 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

War on China, anyone?

To be honest, I wouldn't blame the USA were China to ally themselves with Zarqawi's terrorists.


So the Soviet Union would have been justified in lobbing nukes America's way when Reagan was funding the pre-cursors to Zarqawi's allies?

Gir, you're so credulous. You're what they count on.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 05 April 2005 03:44 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say it would be a good idea. I'm saying that I wouldn't blame Bush considering what a mess he's already in.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 April 2005 03:46 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You wouldn't blame Bush if he tried to get himself out of his quagmire in Iraq by starting a war with the world's largest standing army? Exactly how eager are you for Armageddon?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 April 2005 03:46 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You wouldn't blame Bush if he tried to get himself out of his quagmire in Iraq by starting a war with the world's largest standing army? Exactly how eager are you for Armageddon?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 05 April 2005 03:55 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You wouldn't blame Bush if he tried to get himself out of his quagmire in Iraq by starting a war with the world's largest standing army? Exactly how eager are you for Armageddon?

He already started a war with militant Islam. If China joins their side, what do you think is going to happen?

Giving full diplomatic recognition to a Zarqawi coup would be tantamount to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Keep in mind that this all depends on China being really stupid....


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 03:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Cueball your reply is downright nasty. I simply will not dialogue with such as you unless you mend your discourteous ways. By the way I am still waiting for The Brutal Afghan Winter to turn The Arab Street into a Genocidal Quagmire but we all know that ain't gonna happen. You have allowed your ideology to cloud your reason consequently a debate on any issue would be futile.

Absolutely it was nasty. Exactly the kind of response required by your silly passive agressive sarcasm. There was simply nothing curteous about any of your posts -- Quite the opposite. If you were half the human being you would like us to believe you are, you would comment on the substance of the thread, as opposed to throwing catty and childish one liners.

Ideologoy. Sure I have an ideology, but I have the guts to express it, as opposed to your cowering behind simple sarcasm, and one liners without content. Courtesy is not simply not being insulting, it is also about seriously considering and responding to points of view that you may not hold. You are obviously incapable of such.

As for my ideology clouding my reason, you have yet to test that, as you have yet to put forward a position based on reason, or provided any proofs for your "reasoning."

Furtrhermore your ability to reason is seriously in doubt, as the topic of this thread is not, "do I or do I not support the invasion of Iraq," but "is the insurgency becoming more sophisticated?" You missed that, I guess. Given that you have missed the subject topic entirely, I would ask you: who is it whose powers of reason are more in doubt?

(Hint: Read the post below for an idea of what thise thread is about.)

Basicly, nothing you have said can be tested logically, either yea or ney, as your posts are sarcastic objections, not argument. Argument is fine, simple objection, is boring. I wonder: Do you even know what an argument is?

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 05:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Assault on Abu Ghraib May Signal New Tactics
quote:
Ground fighters among the insurgents advanced only after the mortar and rocket assault had ended and attacked the prison from two directions simultaneously. The smaller of the thrusts was apparently a feint to divert attention from the main attack, Rudisill said, who cited both tactics as evidence of sophisticated planning.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 05:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW: Al Q. Your quoted article identifies Ulema as meaning "clergy." The Ulema (or Ulama) is the body of the Muslim people as a whole.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavisMavis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7508

posted 05 April 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for DavisMavis     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Dear DavisMavis, Do you propose that the Iraqi people prefer the Mass Graves of Saddam? His poison gas attacks? His looting of the Oil for Food Program to rebuild his Armies? Are you attempting to argue that they are worse off today than under his murderous reign? Ah I see! The elections were rigged and all the hope and promise they bring merely a facade. Travel the web- I mean beyond leftist web sites and see what actual Iraqi's have to say. Knee-jerk Anti-Americanism just doesn't cut it.Please.

Do I believe they are worse off? I sure do. Especially from a feminist perspective. With prospects of an Islamic regime on the horizon, women in Iraq have been shouldered with the burden of finding food and water, trying to take care of families alone if their husbands have been killed, they cannot walk the streets safely without worrying about being raped and mugged so they are prisoners in their own homes, would you like me to continue? Don't even get me started on the "liberation" of Afghan women. Anyway, I'm done feeding the troll, I just had to get that out.


From: the occupied territory of nova scotia | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 05 April 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the article

quote:
The U.S. military reported one rebel killed and dozens wounded.

Dozens wounded? How the hell would they know? Apparently all the attackers pissed off. They don't appear to have caught any. They haven't got a clue how much they did to the attackers, they just can't afford to let it look like the attack did more to US soldiers than they dealt in return.

Meanwhile, note that "44 wounded" sounds like a bunch of guys with flesh wounds who will be OK with some bed rest. Given that likely your basic cuts and dings went completely unreported, I'd be willing to bet that 44 wounded means at least a dozen of those maimed for life, out of the war and into the tender mercies of post-cuts veteran care, poor bastards. As effective as killing them for the insurgents.
It would still take more than ten thousand such attacks to maim every American soldier in Iraq. But the Iraqis aren't going anywhere and at, what, 60% unemployment, they have little else to do.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 05 April 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Successful attacks also increase the will of the insurgency and perhaps even their numbers.

So is the video posted? I'd love to see it.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 April 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He already started a war with militant Islam. If China joins their side, what do you think is going to happen?

Giving full diplomatic recognition to a Zarqawi coup would be tantamount to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Keep in mind that this all depends on China being really stupid....


If Iraq is anything to go by, China doesn't have to do much at all to provoke the US Empire, and keep in mind that the Bushniks have repeatedly proven their stupidity.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Insurgent Attacks- read attacks by Al-Queda indoctrinated foriegners and Saddamites- have declined overall. Iraqi government forces are coming on stream and playing an ever increasing role in securing their nations democracy. Iraqi's citizens are now fighting back-Baghdad Shopkeepers Kill Three Militants and here-Iraqi's responding to terrorism. Bravo I say.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

He already started a war with militant Islam. If China joins their side, what do you think is going to happen?

Giving full diplomatic recognition to a Zarqawi coup would be tantamount to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Keep in mind that this all depends on China being really stupid....


Listen Gir, please recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment.

First of all, from what I have seen there is nothing in Zarkawi that has the mark of a statesman, at worst he is a psychotic criminal, as best an efficient guerilla commander. No, the real leadership of the Iraqi resitance has still to come forward.

Secondly, China has every reason to resist Islamic fundamntalist revolution as the United States. There efforts to quell rebellion in their own country and in neighboring Afghanistan, have been more subtle to those of the American's but every bit as ruthless.

It is often forgotten that one of the chief victims of the Brezinski foolhardy meddling and support for the Islamic fundamntalist in Afghanistan was China.

I thought, in the light of China's long standing opposition to the Wahabists, that my comments would be seen in the sarcastic light in which they were intended.

None of this is worthy of consideration.

But I guess its part of the bipolar (pun intended) USophile right wing conception of the world, that the world is seen as having two axis, US (and our allies) and THEM. In that view China falls into THEM so the ludicrous idea of China recongizing or having anything to do with bin Laden et. al appear somehow logical within the paranoid bipolar state of mind.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 07:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
But Insurgent Attacks- read attacks by Al-Queda indoctrinated foriegners and Saddamites- have declined overall. Iraqi government forces are coming on stream and playing an ever increasing role in securing their nations democracy. Iraqi's citizens are now fighting back-Baghdad Shopkeepers Kill Three Militants and here-Iraqi's responding to terrorism. Bravo I say.

I see you are producing evidence to support your point of view. That is a step forward.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The truth wins out everytime Cueball.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 07:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say I agreed. I said that it is nice to see you contributing to the thread in a positive manner. I too can go find some articles that directly contradict your articles, just to fit my pre-determined POV.

In fact I have read both those articles before.

I think, in general, that your perspective lacks a grand scheme historical perspective, and instead looks toward the historical version of the "sound bite" -- lets call it a reality bite. To you, these few articles justify everything in the short time frame view, but in my view they do not counter what seems to be an overall trend, adn be aware, I am thinking about these events, not in terms of what will be said on Faux-News tomorrow but in terms of what will happen in the Arabian peninsula in twenty years.

For instance, in this case a temporary lessening of random chatoic activity seems to have coalesced into more focussed and directed activity. If you had spent any time studying revolutionary movements you would see that often random "terrorism" is replaced by more focussed activity as the movement progresses. A case in point is of course the American revolution.

Sparodic bursts of random violence, is replace by more strategically concentrated activity as the movement developes a hierarchy and a structure. In other words, it seems that the Iraqi resistance has begun to think, rather than simply react.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball you cannot in any way shape or form compare the American Revolution to Al-Queda/Saddammite insurgent activities. My views lacking an historical perspective? What History have you read to advance so silly an argument as that? History cannot be explained by Marxist theory.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes Cueball historically there is process whereby insurgencies refine their techniques and develop advanced tactics but the Al-Queda/Saddammite alliance (for lack of a better term)does not enjoy the widespread support necessary to carry the day. Theirs is not a revolt against tyranny, but an insurgency in support of tyranny.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: PitaPlatter ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 08:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was not comparing the two ideologically, I was talking about revolutionary movements as military operations, whatever the cause.

In the overall, I would say that events both in Afgahnistan and Iraq are of serious implication to the goal of US hegemony over the next twenty years. I recall a particular comment made once about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: The USSR was forced to attempt through violence to achieve a position Russia had been struggling to achieve, quite succesfully, by diplomacy for a hundred and fifty years.

The reality is that up until recently the US was able to achieve its foreign policy goals in the Middle East without resort to direct intervention. This is no longer the case, and these inteventions smack of desperation as opposed to true strength and authority. This is true whether or not Zarakwi is a nice guy, or a bad guy, or even succesful. I don't care. But what really concerns me is that these interventions are made at a great cost to the US itself, and like the USSR before it, these ongoing adventure are very likely to have grave implications and possibly destabalize the US in the long haul.

And what Marxist theory are you talking about? Or perhaps you associate complex paragraphs structure and detailed argument with Marxism. The confusion about such is not terribly hard to understand as Marxist do use complex paragraphs and detialed argument,as well. Perhaps you could explain what "marxist" theory you are speaking about to me and how it relates to what I have said?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball I simply cannot agree with your apparent world view- Does the US wish to impose hegemony over the middle east? Why not simply turn it to glass or have Israel act as its proxy? Let Hill & Knowlton handle the Spin. The foreign policy goal was pretty straight forward- hunt down Al-Queda, in the process,remove the Taliban, remove Saddam. Make a bold and necessary statement backed by action. What course of action was open to the US? The UN-no thanks. Diplomacy- as practised by the Democrats? War was declared by Islamo- Fascists who simply underestimated US resolve. The US has done far more good in this world than bad. When I look at their enemies I choose to be their friend.

By the way the "Marxist" crack was a cheap shot my apologies to you. As a child I was bitten by a Marxist- it has left me scarred-lol.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2005 08:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Yes Cueball historically there is process whereby insurgencies refine their techniques and develop advanced tactics but the Al-Queda/Saddammite alliance (for lack of a better term)does not enjoy the widespread support necessary to carry the day. Theirs is not a revolt against tyranny, but an insurgency in support of tyranny.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: PitaPlatter ]


You see my fundamental disagreement here is a logical one. On the one hand you have posited that the insurgency does not enjoy widespread support it needs to be successful. Fair enough, and I think there is some evidence to back this up, such as the anecdotal material you provided in the press clipping you linked too. In theory the insurgency should peter out, through lack of support, or merely die off as radical cells are eliminated one by one.

But I assert the very nature of this attack in particular undermines this view. We have to acknowledge that the sophistication of this attack speaks of existence of a complex background infrastructure and at least tacit support of a substantial portion of the population -- however that support is achieved, through threat of violence, or persuation, most likely a combination of the two. In other words rather than petering out, this insurgency seems to following the path of succesful revolutionary movements, not the contrary, and that this attack examples some kind of basis of support, which undermines your statement that there is no basis of support and that it will fail because of that.

Of course, many unsuccessful revolutionary movements have gotten to this stage and then failed, but that does not contradict the fact that this attack establishes that there is at least some support, and that the insurgency has not been beaten. If it has not been beaten, and there is some level of support, then it can not be predicted that it will fail.

You seem to be arguing from the kind of purist ideological based politics that envigorated the Leninist's who predicted a world revolution, entirely because they believed the world would naturally see their moral superiority and fall into line. They persisted in this belief despite overwhelling evidence that many people did not see their overall superiority, and their dreams were shattered. It seems like a kind of a neo-conservative pan-global idealism in a Leninist absolutist vein.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball the attack was a desparate measure, one that appeared to be staged in the hope that it would garner as much media attention as possible, it was an attempt to discourage the American home front. The fact is the MSM is being held accountable for its war reportage- and yes they are under much tighter control by the Military... yada yada yada. There will be no repeat of the Vietnam era where the US was successful in the field but lost the American public.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 05 April 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez what a thread.

Yes the US did pick a war with Islam - which has no nuclear weapons - yet.

But the US and China are on a showdown course and its over the Central Asian oil fields. China isn't being stupid by any degree. But they need access to that oil. The Americans are doing what they are doing because they need that same oil as well. That's what this is all about. No more, no less. Who gets to control the flow of the what's left of the world's major oil reserves. The Chinese are willing to play nuclear chicken on this issue - they've only recently tasted modernization. They believe when push comes to shove, the US will blink.

Don't believe me? Fine. Sit back and watch it happen.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 April 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There will be no repeat of the Vietnam era where the US was successful in the field but lost the American public.

There used to be a lot of that sort of talk in the Weimar Republic.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 11:46 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There used to be a lot of that sort of talk in the Weimar Republic.

al-Qa'bong- Ah yes America and its role in the cradle of National Socialism- yup America was right there supporting free elections, rebuilding Germany's infrastructure, instilling a sense of hope and freedom to a demoralized people- why just like today in Iraq. Boy! Oh wait that was post World War II Germany oh yeah the Marshall Plan thingy- hey wait a minute are you tryin to pull a fast one? al-Qa'bong your team is losing bite the bullet any attempt to compare America to Nazism is not just inane but repulsive.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 April 2005 11:52 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Egalitarian-China is a Paper Tiger- their infrastructure and Military are nowhere near modern and just as in the former Soviet Union the entire fascist house of cards will come crashing down. Will there be tension- certainly, will the western democracies triumph you betcha.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 April 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's the current trade imbalance between China and the USA, PP? Who is the debtor and who is the creditor in this relationship? China holds the economic cards right now, and has the world's most robust economy - something that the USSR never had.

As for this: "Ah yes America...repulsive," your comments do not negate the similarities between the Weimar-era "stabbed in the back" excuse and what you claimed about Vietnam.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 April 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Egalitarian-China is a Paper Tiger- their infrastructure and Military are nowhere near modern and just as in the former Soviet Union the entire fascist house of cards will come crashing down. Will there be tension- certainly, will the western democracies triumph you betcha.

China has nukes and can launch them in the Far East "theater" as the military types call it. American troops are stationed in Afghanistan, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan and Kirghizstan. If you think for one second China wouldn't use nukes on those detachments you have another think coming.

Yes, China's leaders aren't as nuts as Kim Jong Il, but if provoked, they just might decide it was worth it to fire back in an overwhelming way to point out who is boss in the Far East.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 06 April 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr. Conway- I believe that China is simply another myth the left has chosen to cling too. They are at heart a wise and pragmatic people. Egalitarian made a good point that they have tasted modernization- the markets will prove a more effective counter measure to military action, that genie is out of the bottle.
Al-Q in large part the trade imbalance is due to the exchange rate- China's robust economy is largely due to its access to export markets, especially the US, and foreign investment.As in every emerging industrialzed nation labour is initially cheap and plentiful, capital naturally flows there. China has already begun to suffer shortages.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 April 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Cueball the attack was a desparate measure, one that appeared to be staged in the hope that it would garner as much media attention as possible, it was an attempt to discourage the American home front. The fact is the MSM is being held accountable for its war reportage- and yes they are under much tighter control by the Military... yada yada yada. There will be no repeat of the Vietnam era where the US was successful in the field but lost the American public.

You sound like Adolph Hitler pushing moving around flags on maps in 1945. You assert victory but offer nothing but ideology to support your view.

First of all the idea that the US was succesful in the field in Vietnam is highly doubtful. Secondly, your assertion that the US quit vietnam was because of public pressure is also doubtful, in that it can also be shown that actual cost of the war made the war untenable. Or for instance, that tightly controlling the media has an absolute bearing on maintaining moral. You know the body bags still come home and the maimed fill up the streets in their wheel chairs. The Soviet Union collapsed in part due to the public mood around their sill war in Afghanistan, and I can assure you the media was very tightly controlled there.

The US went into Vietnam with as much confidence as you are displaying here, yet you assure me that this will be different. That is what the Nazi's told the German's on the eve of World War Two. I think you are living in fools paradise. I am sorry the Vietnamese kicked your butt, but there is no shame in that as they have kicked everyone butt at one time or another, just ask the Chinese, who have been trying to occupy that slice of property for the last 5000 years. Anyway, get over it.

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 06 April 2005 12:31 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball the US was never defeated in the field when they went head to head with the NVA. Democractic government- that is why the US left Vietnam -the very institution despised by the left ended the war, with tragic results for the millions killed by their communist liberators- oops sorry- thats the part the left likes to forget about, my bad. The US is succeeding in Iraq, liberal democracy is a worthy ideal, the Iraqi people have shown their faith. As for comparing me to Hitler now that is bush league.

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: PitaPlatter ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 06 April 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At any rate I really have an early day tomorrow. Thanks for the chat all it has been fun.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 06 April 2005 12:41 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...Germany...Hope...America?

Wait, a second...Didn't the American people kick Woodrow Wilson out of office because he was too soft on Germany? Helping the regimes of France and England to destroy the economy wasn't enough with the treaty of Versailles. Neither was starving and freezing the Germans to death? No wonder America was the rallying point catalyst for fascism. Not only did they aid in the creation of conditions perfect for fascism, men like Henry Ford and Prescott Bush willingly funded the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Now, let's look at the quagmire that is Iraq. Do I see hope? If I did, I wouldn't see growing numbers of insurgent groups. If I saw hope I'd see an active infrastructure.

As for Cueball comparing you to Hitler. I doubt he was comparing you to him. He was comparing your argument styles to that of the National Socialists during that era.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 April 2005 12:56 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Democractic government- that is why the US left Vietnam -the very institution despised by the left ended the war, with tragic results for the millions killed by their communist liberators- oops sorry- thats the part the left likes to forget about, my bad.

Anyone care to extract some meaning from this syntactic train-wreck? I sure can't.

quote:
The US is succeeding in Iraq, liberal democracy is a worthy ideal, the Iraqi people have shown their faith.

"Success" in Iraq would be the establishment of a reliable and stable US client-state in Baghdad, which would guarantee US control over the oilfields while serving as an experimental laboratory for imposing extremist neocon economic ideology (privatization, et al) on a helpless populace. With, of course, a thin veneer of powerless Iraqi "democracy" -- parliaments, elections, etc. -- for PR purposes, to placate the gullible patriots back in Nebraska. What the Brits used to call an "Arab facade".

As of yet, there's no indication that any of that will happen. The wheels have come off this grand neocon project, and as this latest attack seems to indicate, the occupiers are entirely in reactive mode. So Pita might want to postpone his victory-cartwheels for the time being.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 April 2005 09:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Cueball the US was never defeated in the field when they went head to head with the NVA. Democractic government- that is why the US left Vietnam -the very institution despised by the left ended the war, with tragic results for the millions killed by their communist liberators- oops sorry- thats the part the left likes to forget about, my bad. The US is succeeding in Iraq, liberal democracy is a worthy ideal, the Iraqi people have shown their faith. As for comparing me to Hitler now that is bush league.

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: PitaPlatter ]


Here's a book, by Henry Kissinger, that you can order through the Nixon Foundation about it.

For further reading about the defeat of the US army in the field in Vietnam, I suggest you also read The Rise and Fall of a US Army, by Shelby Stanton, one of the few really thorough unit by unit histories of US invovlement. Here is a section of the review from Gruntsonline:

quote:
Stanton imparts to the reader a clear sense of the problems faced by the US in attempting to find, fix and destroy such elusive enemies as the NVA and Viet Cong. One feature of this is the constant redeployment of units around the various Tactical Zones in keeping with a new kind of warfare based on mobility and to an extent no longer limited by considerations of terrain or the historical boundaries of established front lines. Despite all their mobility however, one is left with the sense that the US underwent terrific amounts of activity which only occasionally resulted in large scale battles - on the whole it is small unit actions which exemplify the fighting - whilst the sense of frustration at not being able to bring large enemy formations to battle is almost palpable.

In other words they would have won had the Vietnamese played fair. And I am recommending it to you because Shelby Stanton is no communist sympathizer, but a Ret. US army Captain, who more or less agrees with some parts of your arguement but is also enough of a realist to know a defeat when he sees one.

As for the post war slaughter of millions of Vietnamese by the communists, please find me a reputable source that will testify to this. I am all ears.

However, in a post war discussion (which apparently almost came to blows) with his Vietnamese adversary General Vo Nguyen Giap, Former US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara does not blush when recounting the slaughter of the Vietnamese by US military action, Here is what he says:

quote:
"You lost ... 3,200,000 people," McNamara told Giap. "We lost 58,000." He said the conference would help "ensure that our nations and other nations learn how to avoid such conflicts in the future."

He elaborated to reporters afterward: "The major questions are: Could we have avoided a tragedy -- a tragedy for them and a tragedy for us -- or could we have minimized it?"


Another book you might want to try and find is Ho Chi Minh, by William Duiker, another former US official who sought real answers about the US defeat, and he does not simply atribute the loss to a sedicious press, but to the fighting qualities of the US adversaries in VietnamInterview with William Duiker:

quote:
I first became interested in Ho Chi Minh in 1964-1965 while I was stationed at the U.S. Embassy in South Vietnam as a foreign service officer with the Department of State. At that time the government in Saigon was at the point of collapse and the Johnson administration was preparing to send U.S. combat troops to prevent a communist victory there. I became convinced that the U.S. effort would not succeed because of the lack of conviction in the Saigon government compared to the discipline and sense of self-sacrifice among the Viet Cong. I did not feel - in President Kennedy's words - that we could win the war for them. When I sought the reason for the dedication shown by the enemy, it seemed to me that the leadership and charisma shown by Ho Chi Minh was a major part of the answer. At that time I decided that after returning to the US to pursue an academic career I would eventually study the life of Ho Chi Minh to find the secret of his success. It took over thirty years to amass the necessary information to publish the biography.

The difference between you and someone like McNamara, or Duiker is that they lived it, and know it. They are also a realists. You are not, prattling on "liberal democracy" while applauding government control of the press.

That said, I am glad that you have entered into the discussion in the spirit of an exchange of ideas as opposed to simple sarcastic objection.

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 06 April 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraq rebels hit back after US offensive

quote:
The US military claimed a fresh victory in its offensive against Iraq's insurgency yesterday, striking a militant hideout with helicopter gunships and artillery.

But the insurgents kidnapped a senior Iraqi general, one of their most notable coups in the past two years, and detonated bombs across the country.

The violence seemed typical of the seesaw security situation recently. US gains in the coalition's struggle to impose its authority were balanced by setbacks elsewhere. Two Iraqi battalions mounted an operation to search for weapons in eastern Diyala province on Monday but insurgents returned fire from well-entrenched positions. Fighting lasted most of yesterday.


This bit is key:

quote:
Forty US servicemen were killed in March, the lowest monthly total since February last year, as rebels focused attacks on members of the Iraqi security forces. But a senior American officer said that the fighters had again stepped up attacks on coalition targets this week.

Nine US soldiers have been killed in five days and 44 were hurt in an assault on Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad at the weekend.

There has been no respite in attacks against Iraqi military targets.


By the way did anyone else find the smiley-faced fascism of this post to be pretty repulsive?

quote:
The fact is the MSM is being held accountable for its war reportage- and yes they are under much tighter control by the Military... yada yada yada. There will be no repeat of the Vietnam era where the US was successful in the field but lost the American public.

Free press? What free press?

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 April 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A Sadr is back.

quote:
Throughout southern Iraq, Shiites loyal to the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who called for the demonstration, began driving north toward Baghdad. Mr. Sadr has led two uprisings against the American occupation and interim government. He still controls a militia, but he has been quiet in recent months after agreeing to sponsor candidates for Iraq's new national assembly.

The demonstration was set to start Saturday morning in Sadr City, the impoverished Shiite district in northeast Baghdad, and end with a rally in Firdos Square, where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by Iraqis and American soldiers two years ago on April 9.

More violence broke out today as Shiites began converging on Baghdad for the protest. Gunmen fired on a convoy from Karbala as it arrived in the capital's southern district of Doura, wounding Fadhil al-Showki, an official with Mr. Sadr's organization in Karbala, the police said. One of Mr. Showki's aides was also wounded.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 April 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Large-Scale Assault Is Second Within 2 Weeks; Contractor Abducted

quote:
BAGHDAD, April 11 -- Insurgents claiming links to al Qaeda tried to overrun a U.S. Marine base near the Syrian border Monday using gunmen, suicide car bombs and a firetruck loaded with explosives, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

The assault was the second time in less than two weeks that foreign insurgents have massed an organized, military-style offensive, U.S. officials said. Insurgents typically have staged smaller-scale bombings and attacks.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 12 April 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The raid Monday was on Camp Gannon, a U.S. base at Husaybah, a few yards from the Syrian border near the Euphrates River.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 12 April 2005 09:28 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quote: The raid Monday was on Camp Gannon, a U.S. base at Husaybah, a few yards from the Syrian border near the Euphrates River.

Coming soon to a theatre of war near you: US bombs Syria.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 13 April 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Insurgents opened fire when the U.S. troops began their raid on the smuggling ring Tuesday, and several militants, including at least one suicide bomber, were killed, the U.S. military said in a statement. No Americans were injured, it said.


Residents reported violent clashes before dawn Tuesday in and around Qaim, although it was unclear if the violence was related to the raid.


Hamid al-Alousi, director of Qaim hospital, said his facility had received nine corpses and nearly two dozen wounded in the violence. Residents of a small village just north of Qaim said more than a dozen more people were buried in the area and not taken to the hospital. Residents and hospital officials said the victims appeared to be civilians.


Globe

A slightly different account.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 April 2005 04:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Citing 50 bodies, Iraq president keeps story alive

quote:

The pronouncement came on a day when 20 Iraqi troops were taken from their trucks near the western city of Haditha, dragged to a soccer stadium and lined up against the wall and shot, according to an Interior Ministry official

Question: Isnt it the people who are in charge who are supposed to use the sports facilities for mass executions?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 21 April 2005 11:21 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess we know who's in charge, then.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 April 2005 02:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Whose in command here?

"I thought you were."

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 April 2005 03:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraqi insurgents launch co-ordinated attacks, killing at least 21

quote:
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraqi insurgents staged carefully co-ordinated bombings in Saddam Hussein's hometown and a Shiite neighbourhood of the capital Sunday, killing at least 21 people. An American soldier was killed in a separate attack.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 April 2005 02:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once taboo words 'civil war' now spoken in Iraq

quote:
BAGHDAD, April 26 (Reuters) - Civil war. It's a phrase everyone in Iraq has strenuously avoided for the past two years.

Yet now, with no government formed three months after elections, and tensions deepening between Iraq's Muslim sects and other groups, it's on many people's minds.

Several clashes between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in events apparently unrelated to the two-year-old anti-U.S. insurgency have highlighted the danger in recent months.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 April 2005 02:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
US admits Iraq insurgency undiminished

quote:
Gen Myers also insists the US and coalition forces are winning the war and is confident of military victory.

"I'm going to say this: I think we are winning, okay. I think we're definitely winning. I think we've been winning for some time," Myers told reporters.

Gen Myers said the number of attacks has increased slightly recently but maintained that was a poor measure of the insurgency, noting that half the attacks are thwarted.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 27 April 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"We are winning, this we know. General Harkins tells us so. In the delta, things are rough. In the mountains, mighty tough. But we're winning, this we know. General Harkins tells us so. If you doubt that this is true, McNamara says so too."

Wietnam press ditty, spring 1963


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 03 May 2005 10:39 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Wait, a second...Didn't the American people kick Woodrow Wilson out of office because he was too soft on Germany? Helping the regimes of France and England to destroy the economy wasn't enough with the treaty of Versailles. Neither was starving and freezing the Germans to death? No wonder America was the rallying point catalyst for fascism. Not only did they aid in the creation of conditions perfect for fascism, men like Henry Ford and Prescott Bush willingly funded the rise of Adolph Hitler.


Well no, that election was about the economy, like most American elections. And about the adjustments that came from having taken part in the tail end of WW1. Most American's wanted nothing to do with the League of Nations not because of any treaty, but because they were still isolationists as far as events outside of the America's were concerned (inside the Americas was a different story, they took the Monroe Doctrine seriously).

The Great War just reminded them they wanted nothing to do with European Politics, and Wilson (whose health was iffy at best) couldn't change that mindset. It had been the default American attitude almost from the revolution, and lasted until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Before that even a president as popular as Roosevelt could struggled without success to get American's to care about what was happening across the oceans. Different country before WW2 ... it'd be nice if they went back to that way of thinking.

As well, America in those days was barely a first rate power, let alone a dominant world power. Relative to their population, their military was tiny, and none of the big powers took it seriously.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 May 2005 11:24 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wait, a second...Didn't the American people kick Woodrow Wilson out of office because he was too soft on Germany?

Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 and re-elected in 1916.

He did not run in 1920 because he had been struck by a debilitating stroke (and because custom confined Presidents to two four year terms.)

During the period of his stroke, the actual President of the country was either his wife, or his close advisor, Col. House.

No one really knows who actually made the decisions for the last year or so.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2005 06:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Insurgents Post Sniper Training Exercises Online

quote:
The Web site also features a training exercise game called "Who Would You Shoot?" It's the first time U.S. analysts say they have seen an interactive Web site aimed at Iraqi insurgents.

"If you had only one shot," the site asks, "who should you kill?"

Users can choose from several options, and then they are told the "correct" answer.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 24 May 2005 09:44 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I hope the Palestinians find that site!

From the same article:

quote:
U.S. intelligence officials also fear this type of interactive Web site may prove successful in attracting younger militants.

Maybe what the American Empire needs is some sort of spokesanimal, to appeal to the younger generation of militant. Possible slogans:

"Give a hoot, don't shoot me in the head!"

"Quisling the Quail says: pumping oil is fun!"

"Zionist-neoconservative rule. Grrrrreat!"


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca