and thats the type of news they cant show on a daily daily basis for american tv. I mean even the BBC shows more truth and less water down version of news. Michael ware , gets more showtime over here, then in the states. Why is that?
Nothing new here. The US has often used extremist death squads to further our foreign policy objectives. About a year or so ago Bush regime officials and supporters made a tacit admission to this fact when they called for the "El Salvador" option. Why do you think John "Death Squad" Negroponte was sent to Iraq?
I don't know what to say. These people really hate each other. Better for us to support the side we like and let them fight it out than for us to do the fighting for them. This is all going to happen anyway. May as well get out of the way.
Amazing how religion can make people hate so much.
can we count on this piece of shit president to import these thugee cacksuckers oner to here for working us over ? bring em on george boy i got something for them!
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 21:02 — Angry One (not verified)
For those who may have missed it, the official Bush White House & RNC approved list of Republican talking points on Iraq has gotten a bit of a make-over in the past few days.
President Bush's staggeringly incoherent surge interim progress report last week returned "We're Making Progress" to GOP mouthpieces everywhere. Then, the Senate Republicans' successful filibuster of the Levin-Reed after all night debate brought the Rove stamp of approval for "Political Stunt." (This turn of events signaled the death of a previous GOP favorite, "Up or Down Vote.") And now, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman has updated John Boehner's "Embolden the Enemy" with a twist of his own, "Reinforces Enemy Propaganda."
I don’t know what to say. These people really hate each other. Better for us to support the side we like and let them fight it out than for us to do the fighting for them. This is all going to happen anyway. May as well get out of the way.
Amazing how religion can make people hate so much.
Do you realize what you just said? Not to be rude but are you fucking retarded?
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 21:19 — Tim in Japan (not verified)
Anyone who thinks that the Sunnis armed by America aren't going to use those weapons on U.S. troops is delusional.
It's sickening how little the white house cares for it's own military.
"The side we like" is now Saddam's (remember that guy?) Sunni's, who we liked, and then didn't like and now like. "The side we like(d)" was the Taliban against the (godless) USSR. and so on..... When are we going to rebuke violence itself? Religion is just a cover for the purly economic reality of more people and fewer resources. Ask an Easter Island Native what happened to their people. As the Island grew more populated, resources thined. Human nature, being what it is, compelled the factions of Easter's people to determine that the spoils are "ours" not "theirs" because "our god is bigger than their god". "Look over there at that statue facing the horizon! It really *is* bigger than theirs!" What do you do when your god is thus humiliated? Go to war and show those "Bigger god" people what for! Of course, the statue building and wars were resources squandered that could have been used to balance a comfortable survival of all people on the island.
One need only research the Mujahideen of Afghanistan. In the Reagen years they were financed, armed and trained as one of our surrogate armies to take on the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Reagan called them "Freedom Fighters". The only little problem with this misadventure is the funding and training of one Mujahideen fighter in particular -- OSAMA BIN LADEN !
That's right folks, Osama is the product of CIA training. Our tax dollars at work against us again. I wonder who will emerge from this little pile of crazies to haunt us years from now?
I made the decision recently to take some gun courses and have begun to purchase a few weapons for personal safety reasons.
I now see that was a good idea. This administration is taking this nation down a very dangerous path. I guess we all must decide at what point what side we are on and are we willing to fight for that side.
These images bring me back to that fateful day a couple years ago when Jon Stewart interviewed Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Vonnegut's insight is coming to fruition, and I am saddened that our troops are being asked to aid and abet such antidemocratic genicidal tendencies of tribal groups in Iraq. -Kevo
So the Sunni militias are used to counter our "friendly" Shia government in Iraq, because they may be too close to Iran. Brilliant. Reminds me of a tune...
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and wiggled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly -
Perhaps she'll die.
The US Higher ups didn't know about them roughing up prisoners or killing them. Yeah right! Sell us another bridge.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The problem with that statement is the new enemy of my enemy is our enemy. Are you confused yet?
Besides all of that. If they are fighting al Qaeda for us, why can't we leave? This whole freakin thing started because Saddam was our enemy then our friend (we supplied the gas he used to kill thousands with) then our enemy. Rinse Repeat. Deja vu anyone?
this is the same kind for fucking bullshite our govt has used to get it's way in almost every case in foreign encounters. look at south and central america. all the despots we used then decided they were our enemies after the govt has finished with them. sadam is a prime example. gwh bush hires him and gw bush fires(murders) him. we sit in our arrogance and luxury while our govt commits horrible crimes to keep us safe. for all our freedoms we are hypocrites.
I agree with Snowball. This is the dark side of American Foreign Policy which has been going on for years like in Central America. We back a group which later becomes our enemy which may later side with another enemy which at one time may have been an ally. The CIA funded Osama bin Laden's rebels at one time.
This is why I feel like gagging when I keep hearing people say the troops or whoever are "fighting for our freedoms." That is such a joke. The US government isn't fighting for our freedoms anymore. They are fighting for their own egocentric policies to protect their own greedy interests.
As Iraq falls further into turmoil more groups will want their share of the pie and when we won't give it to them look for another terrorist attack further down the road.
and what is the evidence that those people are al Qaeda and not just some Shia shopkeepers or teachers? Oh, yeah, the trustworthy people that used to plant IEDs and stopped for a US contract.
I can see why republicans support this now. They are the party of 'moral values' and this is the 'morals' which best represent the party and the president. Onward christian soldiers!
The real fact is that al Qaida in Iraq still only represents an insignificant part (less than 5%) of the insurgency. Also, a new study finds that the majority of suicide bomber attacks are made by Bush regime allies from Saudi Arabia. There's much more here than meets the eye. Cheney and his cronies are planning a state of permanent war as a pretense for the suspension of democracy in the US.
So I was watching the morning news in a state of pre-coffee muziness, and the utter absurdity of our position in Iraq suddenly struck me. We are supporting Sunni insurgents who oppose the Iraqi government which we support, which is in turn supported by militias backed by Iran, who we oppose. The administration is calling this the path to victory. Screw the coffee, where did I hide the whiskey?
I agree willy; who's to say they aren't Shi'a. The thing that I sense is different between this fight and the fight in Afghanistan of the 80's is that likely Sunni's who were secular Ba'athists are fighting Al Qaeda. The Mujahadeen were fighting a perceived religious battle. It looks to be moving more towards the money and power grabs of Hamas and Fatah than a radicalization of a new Al Qaeda.
Almost 5 years and Bush says half of Baghdad is secure.
Half of ONE city is secure, over 3600 American casualties, hundreds of thousand Iraqis dead, after 5 gawddamn years! Impeach the SOBs.
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 22:15 — john in california (not verified)
Similar things happened in Vietnam and, like, Vietnam, 'they' have better intelligence on 'us' than we can ever have on 'them'. The US is on a treadmill of violence and if we wish to get off we have to make a radical departure from the 'usual suspects'. That's why I support Kucinich. He sees through the madness to the obvious. War is not out natural state. It is not even a economically efficient way to get resources. It is just dumb.
Wingers always bring up "What about Hitler?" Well, what about Versailles. A little generosity then would have save the world a lot of pain later We can get off this crazy ride. We, the so-called left can get behind the only guy that will turn this ship in a different direction, Kucinich..
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 22:18 — I Am A Banana (not verified)
Remember that infamous 16mm footage of that S. Veitname police (or soldier I don't remember which) just lifts his revolver to a blindfolded prisoner's head and pulls the trigger?
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 22:22 — I Am A Banana (not verified)
So it's all smoke n' mirrors. When GW says the surge (rolls eyes) is working...he means, the malisha's that were attacking the U.S. military is now going after AlQuaida. Great! Think they're gonna give up those arms easily after they're done securing their neighborhoods? I smell a new blood bath coming soon.
Jesus! This was the same pretext under which we started our friendly relationship with Saddam back in the 80’s (which Drunksfeld went to Iraq to start). This is also how we started our friendship with Bin Laden during the cold war with the USSR. Want to bet it will create yet another monster in the coming years? When are the idiots in DC going to learn from history?
Bush thinks he can buy his way to success in Iraq like he bought his way to the White House . Someone tell me how this isn't going to backfire like it did in South America?
Nice, every gun that these "American allies" called "Iraqi anti-Al-Qaida militants" carry are paid by US tax-dollars, fractions, probably the hundredth of a cent per piece, but it doesn't change the fact that step by step this nightmare called the Iraqi War is impoverishing one American family after another, and soon these families will be counted in millions. If one Danish soldier = one Iraqi refugee with legal papers to live and work freely in Denmark per the recent Danish humanitarian proposal, it looks like the American people will have to soon prepare for a similar sacrifice. If not by offering a one way ticket and green card then maybe by compensating what a life in America for a foreigner with the legal work authorization would usually cost, and to be blunt, the price tag is counted in hundreds of thousands per one life span of a man or a woman. Do Bush and Cheney have an alternative solution? Surely they do, better kill them than pay for them.
Anyway, Hussein as "bad" as he was, managed to control and rule his nation by setting one simple law that everyone understood, he was the ruler, he had the authority, there were no bloodsheds, there were no killings even immeasurably remotely similar to what’s going on now, and since he had no WMDs, the UN, but most importantly, the US, should have let this nation develop and modernize to better the Iraqi lives in the ‘90s and this millennium, since there were no WMDs, there is another disgrace in itself built upon this disastrous war, but thinking about the scope of this double tragedy won't help now to change a damn thing.
What can we hope for? We can hope that the Iraqi politicians won’t pass the oil law as presently written and won’t give away their national treasures to the US companies that will better the Iraqi lives just like the Global Warming movement betters the lives of Africans, by promoting and selling solar panels because a factory in Africa just doesn’t make f****g sense in this day and age, and the “affordable” solar panels are the way to go for the developing nations and billions of people waiting for a f*****g break. We may hope that this proud attitude demonstrated by the Iraqi rulers will eventually make the greedy, clueless US rulers stop thinking about energy thievery and they will finally let go. Maybe these bastards will realize that one can’t just steal somebody’s property and wealth, because he or she can, having the US Army young boys and girls doing the dirty work, waiting for the promised college tuition reimbursements, serving their 4th tour of duty, missing another year in college, now being 25, whose start in life wasn’t meant to look so f******g bleek, yeah, the DC political elites and twisted minds surely coulda, having these proud yet downhearted by the experience US soldiers watching their f*****g backs. How one could have been so f****g shortsighted and blind. Geez.
Theres always blowback. Winning WWII ultimately gave us David Hasselhof.
But buying allies is a pretty good strategy. We bought the men who turned in Saddam and his sons and we bought our way to victory in afghanistan by delivering suitcases full of cash to certain mujahudeen leaders (who apparently prefer US cash to allah).
The good news element of the story is that the americans have found a carrot to dangle over the sunni militias, that of contracts. Now those militias have something invested in mopping up al-qaeda and see some future beyond focusing soley on their loss of power to the shiites.
Do we have to spin everything as bad news? Oh no, more al qaeda were killed, what terrible news. The sunnis in Anbar have stopped attacking americans! Will the bad news never end? Iraq is certainly a mess but Im just curious if for some the only possible news is bad news. Ive never found the world to be quite that simple myself.
51 bubba says: Do we have to spin everything as bad news? Oh no, more al qaeda were killed, what terrible news. The sunnis in Anbar have stopped attacking americans! Will the bad news never end? Iraq is certainly a mess but Im just curious if for some the only possible news is bad news. Ive never found the world to be quite that simple myself.
No we don't have to spin everything coming out of Iraq. We better look closely everything is what they say it is out of Iraq.
Bush needs Al Qaeda to be in Iraq, so he can stay there. This has been developing for the last 7 months or since the surge was announced in January 2007. Now that he has Al Qaeda in Iraq, he's making the claim, again, Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
No one should be a dido monkey for someone's propaganda, and I mean no one. If we are not going to be a dido machine, we must look at the motives for all the stories coming out of Iraq.
The good news element of the story is that the americans have found a carrot to dangle over the sunni militias, that of contracts. Now those militias have something invested in mopping up al-qaeda and see some future beyond focusing soley on their loss of power to the shiites.
Do we have to spin everything as bad news? Oh no, more al qaeda were killed, what terrible news. The sunnis in Anbar have stopped attacking americans! Will the bad news never end? Iraq is certainly a mess but Im just curious if for some the only possible news is bad news. Ive never found the world to be quite that simple myself.
Who is trying to spin? The fact is that our government is engaging and arming groups that are acting above the law.
(Yes, there is still law in Iraq. Afterall, we have heard over and over how great it was for the people of Iraq to be able to hold democratic elections. Bush even invited some to the State of the Union with their purple thumbs to prove it.)
Further these Sunni militia have been known to target innocent civilians just because they are Shia. Supported this form of terrorism undermines the Iraqi government while further dividing the groups from one another. Did you know that back in February, 6 helicopters were downed in a matter of two weeks? ALL 6 of those helicopters while flying over Sunni controlled areas. Who would have thought the very weapons and equipment we are arming the Sunni with could actually be used to kill our own soldiers?
"3 Snowball Says: Nothing new here. The US has often used extremist death squads to further our foreign policy objectives. About a year or so ago Bush regime officials and supporters made a tacit admission to this fact when they called for the “El Salvador” option. Why do you think John “Death Squad” Negroponte was sent to Iraq?
EXACTLY RIGHT!
Insurgents or Blackwater...can you tell the difference?
Couldn't get very far on the vid. I'm just so damn tired of living in a reality that would never pass a publishers desk as a screenplay...
People who have been killing our soliders, are now being armed and supported by us, chasing a previously non-existent immaginary enemy fabricated by our neocon leaders to justify the occupation, and giving crazy men over there a chance to hurt and kill others...
And over here we have Chertoff, the head of das Fatherland Security, one week ago saying he has a "gut" feeling of new attacks (by the made-up terrorists) and now predicting simultaneous "dirty bombs" going off in SF and LA http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/210707Chertoff.htm and the creepiest thing is...
As George Bush is in Canada Aug 21st to seal the deal on the North American Union with Mexico and Canada (behind an 18 mile buffer zone) the NWO is dropping fear "rumors" that August 23 or 8/23, which adds up to their weird 13 obsession on our money, etc., is the hit day.
The good news element of the story is that the americans have found a carrot to dangle over the sunni militias, that of contracts. Now those militias have something invested in mopping up al-qaeda and see some future beyond focusing soley on their loss of power to the shiites.
Do we have to spin everything as bad news? Oh no, more al qaeda were killed, what terrible news. The sunnis in Anbar have stopped attacking americans! Will the bad news never end? Iraq is certainly a mess but Im just curious if for some the only possible news is bad news. Ive never found the world to be quite that simple myself.
Who is trying to spin? The fact is that our government is engaging and arming groups that are acting above the law.
(Yes, there is still law in Iraq. Afterall, we have heard over and over how great it was for the people of Iraq to be able to hold democratic elections. Bush even invited some to the State of the Union with their purple thumbs to prove it.)
Further these Sunni militia have been known to target innocent civilians just because they are Shia. Supported this form of terrorism undermines the Iraqi government while further dividing the groups from one another. Did you know that back in February, 6 helicopters were downed in a matter of two weeks? ALL 6 of those helicopters while flying over Sunni controlled areas. Who would have thought the very weapons and equipment we are arming the Sunni with could actually be used to kill our own soldiers?
Nothing in this world is clean and pure, least of all war. To win WWII we had to ally with Joseph friggen stalin. He killed more than Bush and Al Qaeda combined. What faction within Iraq isnt tainted? Which faction has no blood on its hands? There are no virgins at this point. Given the current circumstances though, some success in previously out of control province might be seen as good news. Even Michael Ware describes it as a success in this closing remark.
why in the world would the sunnis turn on the al-Qaeda fighters if al-Qaeda were killing amerikans ( and pretty successfully ) ????
if the sunnis think that they alone will be able to drive out the Occupation Oil Stealing nazi storm troopers, they are dreaming.
idiots.
the Occupation Oil Stealing nazi storm troopers are going to stay in Iraq FOREVER ( or until the last drop of OIL is sucked out of Iraq by amerikan Oil companies ).
How funny. This is what Osama bin Laden used to be. The "enemy of our enemy" in Afghanistan.
BTW, I have no problem with this type of treatment of any member of al Qaeda. I have no doubt that any of those men would do that and more to any one of us if given half an opportunity. You look at them in the video, looking all scared and helpless, but they would cut your throat on video in a second!!
Don't cry for our enemies. They don't deserve it and it plays right into the Cons' nonsense about the left hating America and siding with our enemies.
If Iraq invaded my country, and encouraged me to get rid of their "enemy", at some point I would turn on the Iraqis with the weapons they gave me, and kick them out of my country. You see, I don't like foreigners putting their boots on my head.
Fucking Republican idiots should all be drafted to fight their own fucking war.
Maybe we'll have our own "civil" war right here: Rich vs. Poor?
We've seen this before in Afghanistan, arming the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to fight against the USSR, the common enemy of those days of lore. And now look at us busy crafting a new common enemy for our children to fight once more.
The current levels of success in Iraq are Dependant upon the success of the insurgency.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And when that enemy is killed,
What then becomes of my friend?
And so we've come full circle. NO?
And just remember, this example is how we are supporting terrorism.
Why do we hate us for our freedoms?
I noticed there was NO footage of bullets hitting the man being executed.
I also detect a flavor of propoganda in all of this. It's the style of the report . . video, voice over . . narration . . . it's NOT attributable, either, for the most part . . . it's some English Accent narrating over video of people with masks, guns, in trucks . . . not real credible, IMHO.
The INTERVIEW parts, could easily have been staged, or, edited to fit . . .
I'm not sure what to believe, but, there are OTHER sources and reports that might uphold this news report's claims, and those that refute it.
GUYS GUYS GUYS - there is NOOOOOOOOOOOOO al-qaeda threat here. Michael Ware has obviously been strictly told by CNN that he is to repeatedly substitute 'iraqi shiite' for the PR-friendly talking point phrase 'al qaeda'.
Basically, the US are now more overtly in league with the sunni groups that are essentially receiving all of their funding secretly by saudi arabia.
This way - the usa can officially help out their saudi friends by saying that the sunni militia are now fighting 'al qaeda', when it's really just the usa fomenting more civil war between shiite and sunni groups.
This is nothing more than controlled pr messaging [despite how much i like mike ware, he obviously is frustrated at the bullshit cnn makes him comform to on-air]. this is also nothing more than a 5 year plan from the americans of divide and conquer.
if you can get iraqi's to kill each other from the inside, you make things easier for your troops and your puppet politicians in iraq to keep pushing for a 3 state system. once you break up iraq in pieces, the smell of lucrative oil contracts will essentially bring each state under full and absolute western control.
al qaeda means nothing more than what the white house don't want you to know - ie - it's merely shiite groups or otherwise known as... iraqis.
What depresses me most about that piece by CNN is the media's continual refusal to challenge and critique the most basic and crucial information.
Not once did the reporter (who is Australian, not English) challenge the notion that the people being attacked by the militia were Al-Qaeda. They were Al-Qaeda, simple as that....says who?
And many people just take it in, not bothering to challenge it, to ask whether maybe they were just Iraqis, defending themselves against an invading foreign army, or defending themselves against these helpful militias. But as long as they are Al-Qaeda, that doesn't matter.
When a report fails on that basic level, i despair, and cannot help but depressingly conclude that parts of the media are not just observing the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths but have their hands on the trigger as well. Just amplifying and feeding people with the propaganda and ideology that the US administration needs people to swallow.
For if the media were truly objective, balanced and fair, there is no way people in American would have started this, and would now be screaming for it to end.
BTW, I have no problem with this type of treatment of any member of al Qaeda.
Don't cry for our enemies. They don't deserve it and it plays right into the Cons' nonsense about the left hating America and siding with our enemies.
Yes, IF they were indeed Al Qaeda. US forces did kill a number of civilians in Vietnam to meet their quotas. If a guy was killed by US forces, he was Vietcong. And you are confident these Sunnis are better than the US military of then?
As I watched that I thought of the redneck state that I live in. Most of the redneck Repubs I know would cheer at this violence and drawl between spits, "Good. The only good al-Qaeda is a dead al-Qaeda." This is their mindset. They cheer at the death and suffering of another human being if it means they can get another gallon of gas for their Hummer.
I'd like to think people of conscience would rise up against this kind of inhumanity, but people cry more over a dead puppy than a dead human being - especially a dead human being accused of being our enemy.
We have become a hard hearted and stiff necked people.
This is questionable under international law (not that Bush gives a shit about any law). But it also lays waste to "Teh Argument" that we need to stay there, because "if we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here". The sooner we leave, the sooner the Iraqis will order their own house, in whatever way suits them as a sovereign people. It is a major agenda item of the Iraqi Sunni groups to rid the country of foreign fighters and occupyers. I suspect al queda - such as it really exists, would face grim prospects once they no longer served a purpose. All our presence is doing is prolonging the misery and satisfying al queda's recruiting quotas.
Nothing in this world is clean and pure, least of all war. To win WWII we had to ally with Joseph friggen stalin. He killed more than Bush and Al Qaeda combined. What faction within Iraq isnt tainted? Which faction has no blood on its hands? There are no virgins at this point. Given the current circumstances though, some success in previously out of control province might be seen as good news. Even Michael Ware describes it as a success in this closing remark.
I never implied it was clean and pure. War should be uses as a last resort. This invasion clearly did not need to happen. The faction that isn't tainted are the innocent civilians who just happen to be living in the middle of all this bullshit. Also, Russia was attacked by Germany thus they were in it for the long haul. I don't recall the United States having to buy them off. How many American soldiers were killed by the Red Army firing on Amercan soldiers? Whenever I hear of talk about success which seems to imply we are winning somthing. What in the hell are we trying to win in Iraq anyway? General Patreus said this conflict cannot be won militarily, so why are we continueing to arm vigilantes that apparently cannot be trusted and would kill our soldiers just as soon as they would Amercan soldiers. The American people have been told that we are training Iraqi forces. When they can stand up, we will stand down. Imagine yourself as a soldier in Iraq now. While the different groups are killing each other at least they share similar characteristics in how they look. They can blend in to any group to the eye of an American soldier. Which one of them are you willing to give a gun to and say come on follow me?
Seriously, those guys looked more like US street gangs than "militias", but can you blame them for taking US support? Let's look at it from their perspective: they get guns, ammo, and money from us. First they use that stuff and our blind eye to kill off their enemies; then they can turn the guns, ammo, and money on us without having to worry about being shot in the back by the Shiites. It's perfect...unless you're a US enlisted man. We should be ashamed, not for our evils in Iraq, but for our incredible stupidity and lack of foresight. Our Dear Leader, a modern day Sir Edmund Hillary, scaling up the heights of folly.
If I could have it my way, we would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. But since that is a moot point now, I would like alternatively to leave as soon as possible. But if that's not EVEN possible I would AT LEAST like to have the US government compromise with reality!!
Utilitarianwise it's would have been a lot better to have had a government who from the getgo would have made these dirty compromises nessecary to stabilize Iraq. Like not disbanding the military, like not cleansing the society of middle level Baath party members and like not restructure the whole bureaucracy from the bottom up and so on.
What is happening with this new coalition of US military and Sunni militias is really a late recognition of the sheer incompetence-based mistakes made in the start of the occupation for which Rumsfeld and Bremer is especially responsible.
Unfortunately it's a much moore dirty and unsettling compromise now than it would have been in the start, - but at least it's a blow to the CORE of neoconservatism, namely a blow to their closed intrepretation of reality.
Few people understand why neocons are such a formidable foe. They are not that IN SPITE of their combination of free world-values and a skewed understanding of history. They are incredible dangerous BECAUSE they combine correct ultimate values with a completely uncorrect factual understanding of the world. The sane part of the political world has not yet gotten used to this new ideological strategy, and are therefor even now humiliated by it on a daily basis.
Theres always blowback. Winning WWII ultimately gave us David Hasselhof.
But buying allies is a pretty good strategy. We bought the men who turned in Saddam and his sons and we bought our way to victory in afghanistan by delivering suitcases full of cash to certain mujahudeen leaders (who apparently prefer US cash to allah).
According to Sibel Edmonds, Dennis Hassert received suitcases of cash. Bumper poppie crop this year!
We are providing ammunition to these groups. But, I saw a story linked from antiwar.com today saying we are low on ammo and are gettting it from Israel. So, are these groups using Israeli bullets to kill other Muslims? Just a thought.
Well, its all being done in the name of America, Freedom & Democracy. Just remember that.
Creating terrorist groups to kill off terrorist groups. I'm sure these militia all use a formal investigation & court of law before determining someone is an al-qaeda member & killing them in the desert somewhere. I'm sure no kills have been made for other reasons like sectarian differences, simple revenge & being drunk on power. Of course, once all the al-qaeda fighters are killed, the militias will just smile & hand over all their weapons back to American forces & go out for a coffee. Its all so simple, easy & foolproof.
The thing is, I don't really believe there is a degree of separation here. The US forces may claim to not indulge or support the militia methods, but like blackwater, they are being commissioned to do a job for Uncle Sam. Us. You & I. Whomever they abuse, whomever they kill, they are doing it in OUR name because OUR government has paid them to do it.
Sometimes, the only thing I believe is positive about such an appalling situation is that it is coming out in the open. Yes, the US has partaken in such atrocities in the past and it was kept well hidden until more recently. At least this time, the disgusting reality of what America does to protect its interests is being seen whilst it is happening. I can only hope that, because more people understand what war, provocation, destabilisation or whatever influence the US exerts actually means more people will find it unacceptable in the future.
why is it we have to choose between a dead puppy or a dead human, ?god damit arent both a waste and inhuman? it makes you wonder if the mentality of the american people is such that we cant walk and chew gum at the same time!
The sadist and most telling aspect of our misadventure in Iraq is that Bush snatched a shameful legacy from the hands of a glorious win in Afghanistan. The man could have been a legend in his own time had he continued the fight in Afghanistan and completed the following objectives, which were possible.
1. Kill or capture Osama and his real #2. Bush was incredibly close to doing this. One can only conclude the US purposefully backed off. I believe because of Bush family ties to the Bin Ladens.
2. Wipe the Tallaban from Afghanistan and work with an international force to keep them out as the country rebuilds.
3. Provide humanitarian relief and build the infrastructure of the country, provide for educating a new generation, provide for health care, and generate real pro-American sentiment due to our deeds and not our propaganda.
4. Make Afghanistan a model for Muslim women. Give Afghanistan women opportunity in education, business, and government.
5. Eradicate the growing of poppies which is a huge source of income world wide for terrorist organizations. Bottom line for less than one billion we could just buy the entire crop from Afghanistan farmers. Believe me we waste far more in spending on drug enforcement and lives in dealing with this crop after it is harvested and processed. But again, I believe Bush family business interests are enjoying the record poppy harvests coming out of Afghanistan since the US military has been protecting the fields.
Five objectives which if he never spent a dime in Iraq were all obtainable. He personally and the GOP in general would have been honored world wide for many years to come. Not to mention that this would have also provided our military with a number of new bases which would even put a smile on your neighborhood Neo-Con. It wouldn't be the whole pie, but it would have given them a slice. But Cheney worked night and day to get Bush to throw it all away. I don't believe Bush gives a crap about the outcome of anything really. Cheney has dreams of world domination, Bush's only thought is where he'll be mountain biking today.
U.S. Sponsored Death Squads?? Really is not that shocking that a neo con staple has been brought back from Reagan's grave. It is pitiful and will contribute to the mess that is Iraq.
Sat, 07/21/2007 - 10:42 — Mr. Hoffman (not verified)
Sunnis fighting along side US forces with the aid of US air and ammunition?? The question begs to be asked. Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer break up the Iraqi army when the US first arrived in Iraq?? It seems now that if the US had left the Sunni security forces in tact that perhaps the Terror threat in Iraq would not be a fraction of what it is today...
This isnt the only news report on this subject, its been all the place for the past month plus. The US has somehow managed to flip many of the tribal leaders in Al-Anbar into going after foreign fighters. Whatever they were promised this does seem to be the case. If you want to deny it thenk, imo, you are entering tin-foil hat land and for what? Because your internet-fueled view of the war will collapse if the army and gwb have *any* success in doing anything? Even a broken clock is right twice a day, why try and argue that there is no clock during those episodes? It just makes you look unhinged in my opinion.
I listen to NPR every morning and hear about the goings on in Al-Anbar quite often. Is NPR a Bush shill as well? ;) Some of these al-qaeda in iraq are foreign fighters, some are locals recruited by the umbrella groups, but does everything have to be bad news?
Haven't the neo-con thugs tried this technique several times with disasterous results - most notably, consider Mr. ben Ladden, armed by President Ronald McDonald to fight the Soviets. How's that worked for us, Rummy & Cheney? Why is it Herr Rumsfeld maintaining an office at the Pentagon?
Michael Ware is an opponent of the war, not just a journalist. Hes made his feelings very plain. Now of course, as a war opponent/journalist, he's up do date with the "success in al anbar" storyline thats been getting play for the past month. So its only natural that he gravitates to it to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the way he presents the story.
He doesnt ask how the locals know when someone is al qaeda is iraq because he wants you to think they dont know. That impression is helpful to his storyline. Even he grudgingly admits the operation is a success in his closing lines but listen carefully to that line. I dont think Ive ever heard someone say the word success with more distaste. The tone is so mournful.
Setting aside the issue of whether there is or is not success in al anbar, I found his reporting to be a little shaky. Obviously he's a war correspondent who has taken a position but I really think he needs to try and tell a more complete story. His role is to keep us informed, not advocate.
These are the sort of people the Bush Administration has associated itself with. The are the true colors of the WarPigs. What sort of deal has he cut with them? How much money, the nations money(?) does he pay them? This is the true face of our so-called Christian president.
War is ugly. There is no way around it. In WWII we backed the Joe Stalin with supplies and intelligence. He killed more innocents than GWB, Al Qaeda, Saddam, Israel and the Khymer Rougue combined. The only pretty wars come from Hollywood.
This report is troubing to me for two conflicting reasons:
1) The Al-Qued is much more brutal and psychopathic than this group. Additionally, be it vendettas or other, Al-Queda is being severely impacted, with less recruiting among Irais in this region. Tat is inded good news for the Iraqis. Also, war is not pretty. No war is pure, and 90% of what really happens in a war is never seen or heard by the public. In that regard, this video gives me a bit of a comfort feeling, seeing that the "evil" is being fought by "evil".
2) The conflicting reason is the knowledge, that we (the USA) is supporting group akin to the Al-Queda. If this group can turn away from Al-Queda this easily, what is to stop thm from turning back to the Al-Queda and cooperating with them to kill our trops? This is indeed a very short sighted attempt at gaining control, merely for political reasons by Bush and co.
All in all, i am mixed about this video. My two cents worth.
We side the Iraqis... It's simply numbers... The Americans, with a trillion dollars killed 600,000 of them in a Occupation.
The freedom fighters have killed 3000+ invaders and wounded several thousand others.
In America, they will record it different and make some song abut the "sacrifice" or something...
But the rest of the world will just witness another attempted genocide of brown people by american military forces... Just like Vietnam, just like Cambodia. Just like Nicargua, just like Guatemala, just like Grenada, just like Columbia.... etc... etc... etc...
I'm sorry. You guys get to sleep in the bed you made.
AS you are still technically "in charge" of your country and the President serves at your request, then yes, by definiation you are allowing your country to preform warcrimes and therefore every one of you are guilty. Or that is how our (the rest of the worlds) military forces will be taught...
If you are lucky, we will try and "liberate you" from your oppressive fascist torture regiem, however, at this rate, the population is becoming guilty by apathy.
If Iraq invaded my country, and encouraged me to get rid of their "enemy", at some point I would turn on the Iraqis with the weapons they gave me, and kick them out of my country. You see, I don't like foreigners putting their boots on my head.
Fucking Republican idiots should all be drafted to fight their own fucking war.
Maybe we'll have our own "civil" war right here: Rich vs. Poor?
It's been going on since the 50's trying to "sell the capitalist story" and you guys bought it hook line and sinker.
The Business class needs to rule because the people are too stupid to know what they need... So you have been told for 50 years.
Nothing new here. The US has often used extremist death squads to further our foreign policy objectives. About a year or so ago Bush regime officials and supporters made a tacit admission to this fact when they called for the "El Salvador" option. Why do you think John "Death Squad" Negroponte was sent to Iraq?
Our double-dipping is precisely why it is that I'm sick and tired of the United States having anything to do with the middle east anymore...
2) The conflicting reason is the knowledge, that we (the USA) is supporting group akin to the Al-Queda. If this group can turn away from Al-Queda this easily, what is to stop thm from turning back to the Al-Queda and cooperating with them to kill our trops? This is indeed a very short sighted attempt at gaining control, merely for political reasons by Bush and co.
All in all, i am mixed about this video. My two cents worth.
In a positive, surface-deep light, it is short sighted. In an ulterior sense, having Sunnis go crazy on "al Qaeda" (which at any given time could end up shifting to just being well-hated Shiites) will annoy Iran, and Iran will want to get involved in Iraq's affairs, and it will not be harmonious with America's PR plan with recruiting Sunni militia, and it will be just one more reason why we need to "do something about Iran"...
I couldn't care less what they're doing for as long as Saudi Arabia stays conspicuously out of the news. I wonder what's holding Osama Bin Laden back from explaining to the world why it is Bush still hasn't captured him...
We side the Iraqis… It’s simply numbers… The Americans, with a trillion dollars killed 600,000 of them in a Occupation.
The freedom fighters have killed 3000+ invaders and wounded several thousand others.
[quote]In America, they will record it different and make some song abut the “sacrifice” or something…
But the rest of the world will just witness another attempted genocide of brown people by american military forces… Just like Vietnam, just like Cambodia. Just like Nicargua, just like Guatemala, just like Grenada, just like Columbia…. etc… etc… etc…
I’m sorry. You guys get to sleep in the bed you made.[/quote]
Sorry bud but if you are going to lie like that, maybe you can tell us what third world pig sty you were educated in? Numbers dont like being bent that badly.
Your "Freedom fighters" have done the lions share of that killing of 600k+ people. The US has seen very little combat action to account for the thousands who have turned up dead with drill holes in their heads over the past year. I mean get your rhetoric straight, there either is a civil war or there isnt. When it suits you, there is, when it doesnt, there isnt and every death is magically caused by the US.
I understand not liking the war but your reasoning is kaka.
I mean do they seriously not realized we've tried this kind of tactic before? When the Russians invaded Afghanistan they backed local Afghan tribes with weapons and training. They went so far as to train and young Saudi who would go on to lead and guerrilla war against the Russians that eventually drove them out. Of course he also turned around and started attacking America with the same training and small army he'd gathered with US backing.
Damn, what was that guy's name again? Osama something?
Michael Ware is an opponent of the war, not just a journalist. Hes made his feelings very plain. Now of course, as a war opponent/journalist, he's up do date with the "success in al anbar" storyline thats been getting play for the past month. So its only natural that he gravitates to it to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the way he presents the story.
He doesnt ask how the locals know when someone is al qaeda is iraq because he wants you to think they dont know. That impression is helpful to his storyline. Even he grudgingly admits the operation is a success in his closing lines but listen carefully to that line. I dont think Ive ever heard someone say the word success with more distaste. The tone is so mournful.
Setting aside the issue of whether there is or is not success in al anbar, I found his reporting to be a little shaky. Obviously he's a war correspondent who has taken a position but I really think he needs to try and tell a more complete story. His role is to keep us informed, not advocate.
The point of the story wasn't a question of whether the tactics worked nor did he insinuate that those accused of being al-queda weren't. They point was "Look. This is the type of shit you want them doing in YOUR name?" It's a very valid question and my answer and seeing the half hearted "Oh, we don't condone that type of thing" (despite the fact they don't do shit to step in and stop it) on the part of American commanders my answer is a resounding NO.
Well, the amusing thing about Ware's report is that he cast such a wide net to discredit this "success". He didnt just report to the american people that such and such tactics are being used. After this portion of the report he then went to the shiites and asked them what they though about it. ;) As if he was brainstorming as many ways possible to fuck up this "good news". FOX reporters arent the only one who try to spin stories in a chosen direction.
And of course the really amusing thing is that so many people here didnt even seem to know about the Al Anbar successes. Its been all over the news for some time but its not the kind of news that filters down to the liberal-leaning blogosphere unless, like this report, there is some dirt to throw on it. Im a liberal but Ill admit that the FOX news juicer isnt the only one in town.
Well, the amusing thing about Ware's report is that he cast such a wide net to discredit this "success". He didnt just report to the american people that such and such tactics are being used. After this portion of the report he then went to the shiites and asked them what they though about it. ;) As if he was brainstorming as many ways possible to fuck up this "good news". FOX reporters arent the only one who try to spin stories in a chosen direction.
And of course the really amusing thing is that so many people here didnt even seem to know about the Al Anbar successes. Its been all over the news for some time but its not the kind of news that filters down to the liberal-leaning blogosphere unless, like this report, there is some dirt to throw on it. Im a liberal but Ill admit that the FOX news juicer isnt the only one in town.
As someone who's actually studied journalism as I'm sure you haven't, I can tell you what my professors told me. There is no such thing is impartial. As a human being with thoughts and emotions you will always have a perspective you're coming from, that's inevitable. Your job isn't to necessarily be impartial, but to be FAIR, ie give equal sides of the issue. Ware did that. He made it quite clear that attacks in Al-Anbar were down.
But see there's a bigger question. HOW is it this "success" happened? Do the ends really justify the means? Apparently you believe they do which, being said, I don't think makes you nearly as liberal as you seem to think. If you can stand up for summary executions brought on by a bloodlust for the same kind of revenge that fuels the downward spiral that gives this "sectarian strife" it's main point of locomotion and bash someone who has the balls to stand up and say perhaps America, which claimed they wanted to win Iraqi hearts and minds and bring them freedom, shouldn't be arming the very people who in all likelihood will turn right around and roll through the towns in the dead of night executing people as part of death squads and attack and kill/injure American men and women in uniform I dare say you're as bad as any neocon.
Perhaps Mr. Ware had such disdain from the notion of success because, if what he documented was the road to success NO ONE should be striving for it at that cost. Gee, I guess there are some reporters out there with scruples. Who'd have thunk it?
Well, the amusing thing about Ware's report is that he cast such a wide net to discredit this "success". He didnt just report to the american people that such and such tactics are being used. After this portion of the report he then went to the shiites and asked them what they though about it. ;) As if he was brainstorming as many ways possible to fuck up this "good news". FOX reporters arent the only one who try to spin stories in a chosen direction.
And of course the really amusing thing is that so many people here didnt even seem to know about the Al Anbar successes. Its been all over the news for some time but its not the kind of news that filters down to the liberal-leaning blogosphere unless, like this report, there is some dirt to throw on it. Im a liberal but Ill admit that the FOX news juicer isnt the only one in town.
As someone who's actually studied journalism as I'm sure you haven't, I can tell you what my professors told me. There is no such thing is impartial. As a human being with thoughts and emotions you will always have a perspective you're coming from, that's inevitable. Your job isn't to necessarily be impartial, but to be FAIR, ie give equal sides of the issue. Ware did that. He made it quite clear that attacks in Al-Anbar were down.
But see there's a bigger question. HOW is it this "success" happened? Do the ends really justify the means? Apparently you believe they do which, being said, I don't think makes you nearly as liberal as you seem to think. If you can stand up for summary executions brought on by a bloodlust for the same kind of revenge that fuels the downward spiral that gives this "sectarian strife" it's main point of locomotion and bash someone who has the balls to stand up and say perhaps America, which claimed they wanted to win Iraqi hearts and minds and bring them freedom, shouldn't be arming the very people who in all likelihood will turn right around and roll through the towns in the dead of night executing people as part of death squads and attack and kill/injure American men and women in uniform I dare say you're as bad as any neocon.
Perhaps Mr. Ware had such disdain from the notion of success because, if what he documented was the road to success NO ONE should be striving for it at that cost. Gee, I guess there are some reporters out there with scruples. Who'd have thunk it?
:) I'm not as liberal as I think I am? Well, Ill see your omnicience and raise you a crate of "who made you the sheriff of liberal town, hoss?". I understand that you dont agree with me so you feel the need to either lash out in anger or play your passive aggressive instincts for all they are worth but lets try to communicate like adults.
Michael Ware is not an unknown quantity. This is they guy who heckled McCain (deserving or not, its not usually the standard of professionalism) and the guy who said on Bill Maher that the invasion of Iraq was a train wreck, etc, etc. That said, you may be agreeing that Michael Ware has expressed anti-war viewpoints but that this report was on the whole balanced. I obviously disagree though I dont think its badly distorted. I just detect a certain bias to both his tone and choice of questions.
I also object to your focus on the "arming" of these people as if they were really so hard up for weapons and ammunition before throwing in with the US. What were they firing at us before this alliance? The promises made likey involve something more substantial than arms as Ware himself noted.
And in case your obviously extensive and much lauded (by you) education in journalism didnt provide you with a grounding in history: We allied with Joe Stalin in WWII. It was required to defeat the Nazis. He was a far dirtier guy than any two-bit tribal leader in Al-Anbar.
:) I'm not as liberal as I think I am? Well, Ill see your omnicience and raise you a crate of "who made you the sheriff of liberal town, hoss?". I understand that you dont agree with me so you feel the need to either lash out in anger or play your passive aggressive instincts for all they are worth but lets try to communicate like adults.
Michael Ware is not an unknown quantity. This is they guy who heckled McCain (deserving or not, its not usually the standard of professionalism) and the guy who said on Bill Maher that the invasion of Iraq was a train wreck, etc, etc. That said, you may be agreeing that Michael Ware has expressed anti-war viewpoints but that this report was on the whole balanced. I obviously disagree though I dont think its badly distorted. I just detect a certain bias to both his tone and choice of questions.
I also object to your focus on the "arming" of these people as if they were really so hard up for weapons and ammunition before throwing in with the US. What were they firing at us before this alliance? The promises made likey involve something more substantial than arms as Ware himself noted.
And in case your obviously extensive and much lauded (by you) education in journalism didnt provide you with a grounding in history: We allied with Joe Stalin in WWII. It was required to defeat the Nazis. He was a far dirtier guy than any two-bit tribal leader in Al-Anbar.
Let's break it down 1 by 1...
1. You can't really claim liberalism when you're spouting neocon talking points.
2. While I've heard tale of this quote, unquote heckling they only thing I saw from the video presented is Ware asking McCain a question and people trying to cut him off claiming he was heckling. And on a side note, the war in Iraq is a damn train wreck and just because he didn't pull a Jeff Gannon and lob softballs for leadership to swing at rather than hard questions for them to choke on doesn't make him unprofessional. Perhaps if the media had done that before hand we wouldn't be in this mess.
3. I don't give a crap what they were firing at us before we handed over arms to them. What's your point? They had guns so it's ok that we give them more? They blew peoples heads off with their own bullets before so no biggy if we're the ones providing them now? Ware made the score obvious, that what they wanted was political clout and power despite the fact that we're more or less helping to set up a well armed, well financed faction outside the purview of the official Iraqi government this administration is depending on so badly. I'm sure that won't become problematic in a country in the midst of a civil war or that when their alliance with us becomes inconvenient to their lust for power they won't turn right around and use that money, influence and all that apparently terribly unimportant weaponry around and use it on American soldiers. You know, like they were for years before this?
4. Many pardons for finding the very idea that we would have anything to do with the very same people who have slaughtered not only countless numbers of their own people but American soldiers as well repugnant. Many more pardons for being able to look down the road and see the obvious results of this action, which is to create a faction that will turn right around and kill American troops as well and vie violently for power against the rightfully (though inept) Iraqi government.
Did we have to cooperate with Stalin to win WWII? Well whether we had to or we didn't I do know we did. I know it solved an immediate problem. Didn't do much for the decades of hostility that followed where the US and Russia basically pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war though. I guess working with Stalin is kinda like the US working to arm, train and finance Osama Bin Laden's fledgling Al-Queda group to push Russia out of Afghanistan in the 80's. I guess it's just a good thing that never came back to bite us in the ass.
1. Get over yourself. You sound like a broken down version of the Harry Potter sorting hat.
2. Maybe he didnt heckle McCain and it was misunderstood but Ware is on record as being against the war. My only point is that his report seemed slanted. You disagree. Great!
3-4. So you dont want to work with anyone who is sullied but your "rightful Iraqi government" is full up with shiite militiamen and their sympathizers. They have done as much as anyone to plant headless corpses up and down the alleys of baghdad. Given that its widely described as a civil war, who exactly in Iraq is clean? Which faction doesnt have blood on their hands? Are we not allowed to talk to anyone at this point because they are morally inferior?
Sure, we created conditions for Osama and Al-qaeda to flourish but their philosophy and animosities predate the afghan war. History isnt calculus. You can point to examples where we worked with the disreputable and gained as well as lost and it doesnt make it any easier to predict the results of the next wager. And one way or another, a wager is required. There is no way to predict with certainty which course saves more lives. Did we need to aid Stalin? Well, we cant count every delivered tank and bullet and replay the war but if the soviets had fallen we would have been in big trouble.
1. Get over yourself. You sound like a broken down version of the Harry Potter sorting hat.
2. Maybe he didnt heckle McCain and it was misunderstood but Ware is on record as being against the war. My only point is that his report seemed slanted. You disagree. Great!
3-4. So you dont want to work with anyone who is sullied but your "rightful Iraqi government" is full up with shiite militiamen and their sympathizers. They have done as much as anyone to plant headless corpses up and down the alleys of baghdad. Given that its widely described as a civil war, who exactly in Iraq is clean? Which faction doesnt have blood on their hands? Are we not allowed to talk to anyone at this point because they are morally inferior?
Sure, we created conditions for Osama and Al-qaeda to flourish but their philosophy and animosities predate the afghan war. History isnt calculus. You can point to examples where we worked with the disreputable and gained as well as lost and it doesnt make it any easier to predict the results of the next wager. And one way or another, a wager is required. There is no way to predict with certainty which course saves more lives. Did we need to aid Stalin? Well, we cant count every delivered tank and bullet and replay the war but if the soviets had fallen we would have been in big trouble.
1. How bout instead you piss off?
2. Fine, we'll agree to disagree.
3-4. That's kind of my point. All sides of this issue are screwed up. It seems like America is always trying to play both ends against the middle and in the end everyone including us gets burned. All sides, the rightfully elected and those fighting in the streets for their piece of the pie. I mean everyone calls it a civil war, but I call it a gang war. There are a few big factions with a million smaller factions within those factions slaughtering people for their piece of the pie. The thing is, in order for the conflict to come to an end one side or another is going to have to take control and by setting up other factions outside the government they already have with money and weapons that only promises to make the gang/civil war that much longer and bloodier than it absolutely has to be (cuz there's no doubt it'll get worse before it gets better). Playing both ends in this case is only going to get more people killed in the wake of our pullout which is basically inevitable.
As for the philosophy of Bin Laden and his lot predating the Afghan war, that much is obvious, but I can't let you pull and O'Reilly/Hannity whereby when someone makes a specific point that's hard to refute you take the argument back to some much broader, nebulous issue. I don't give a crap about the 1000 years of history that built Al-Queda's philosophy, I'm concerned with the recent history of this country's underhanded attempt to fight a war by proxy that wound up building Al-Queda's infrastructure which, in turn, eventually came back to haunt this country in the here and now. And even if I was talking about that history, perhaps if someone had studied it they'd have known how stupid it is to try to make deals with religious zealots.
Basically I'm just tired of the hypocrisy. We call terrorism enemy #1 (which it is in truth) only we've sponsored plenty of terrorism around the world. Central America/School of the Americas anyone? An American backed and armed Saddam Hussein anyone else? In the end, in nearly all cases, all we accomplish with these tactics is making the most prominent borderline sociopath we're backing at the time rich and powerful enough to be a serious threat to us in the future. Call me an idealist if you want to (though most would call me an idealistic realist), but some shit is just fucking wrong. Some shit just has so many ridiculously obvious chances of blow back that it's stupid to even ponder. Some shit I don't want my country doing in my name and when they do I'm gonna say the shit is wrong.
And as I'm sure you probably don't agree and I'm sure I definitely don't care the convo is over as far as I'm concerned.
The assumption by the newscaster that all the guys the militias are holding in this video are AQ is typical. "Nobody much cares what happens to AQ militants". More likely these are tribal or personal enemies that are being cleared out by the militias.
The final conclusion that this is a success story is insane. Once again, we're arming people who will be shooting at us next week.
Login or Register to post comments.
DUDE!!!! its UGLY!!
and thats the type of news they cant show on a daily daily basis for american tv. I mean even the BBC shows more truth and less water down version of news. Michael ware , gets more showtime over here, then in the states. Why is that?
Nothing new here. The US has often used extremist death squads to further our foreign policy objectives. About a year or so ago Bush regime officials and supporters made a tacit admission to this fact when they called for the "El Salvador" option. Why do you think John "Death Squad" Negroponte was sent to Iraq?
I don't know what to say. These people really hate each other. Better for us to support the side we like and let them fight it out than for us to do the fighting for them. This is all going to happen anyway. May as well get out of the way.
Amazing how religion can make people hate so much.
Winning hearts and minds... Bush style
Divide and conquer, anyone?
can we count on this piece of shit president to import these thugee cacksuckers oner to here for working us over ? bring em on george boy i got something for them!
This story is so unutterably depressing, I just don't know where to begin.
I do not understand why all America is not on its feet, screaming for the impeachment of these criminals. That is unutterably shameful.
This was NOT a news tidbit. It was an expression of our national psychopathology.
The chimp should have to travel with his new squad for a day and perform an execution to get some street cred.
He could perform one of his old college cheers in front of the offender causing the terrorist to choke to death on his own vomit.
For those who may have missed it, the official Bush White House & RNC approved list of Republican talking points on Iraq has gotten a bit of a make-over in the past few days.
President Bush's staggeringly incoherent surge interim progress report last week returned "We're Making Progress" to GOP mouthpieces everywhere. Then, the Senate Republicans' successful filibuster of the Levin-Reed after all night debate brought the Rove stamp of approval for "Political Stunt." (This turn of events signaled the death of a previous GOP favorite, "Up or Down Vote.") And now, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman has updated John Boehner's "Embolden the Enemy" with a twist of his own, "Reinforces Enemy Propaganda."
For the full list of the latest GOP approved Iraq falsehoods, smears and hallucinations, see:
"The Official Republican Iraq Talking Points."
FUBAR
Biggus Diggus Says:
I don’t know what to say. These people really hate each other. Better for us to support the side we like and let them fight it out than for us to do the fighting for them. This is all going to happen anyway. May as well get out of the way.
Amazing how religion can make people hate so much.
Do you realize what you just said? Not to be rude but are you fucking retarded?
Anyone who thinks that the Sunnis armed by America aren't going to use those weapons on U.S. troops is delusional.
It's sickening how little the white house cares for it's own military.
Biggus Diggus,
I am astonished.
"The side we like" is now Saddam's (remember that guy?) Sunni's, who we liked, and then didn't like and now like. "The side we like(d)" was the Taliban against the (godless) USSR. and so on..... When are we going to rebuke violence itself? Religion is just a cover for the purly economic reality of more people and fewer resources. Ask an Easter Island Native what happened to their people. As the Island grew more populated, resources thined. Human nature, being what it is, compelled the factions of Easter's people to determine that the spoils are "ours" not "theirs" because "our god is bigger than their god". "Look over there at that statue facing the horizon! It really *is* bigger than theirs!" What do you do when your god is thus humiliated? Go to war and show those "Bigger god" people what for! Of course, the statue building and wars were resources squandered that could have been used to balance a comfortable survival of all people on the island.
One need only research the Mujahideen of Afghanistan. In the Reagen years they were financed, armed and trained as one of our surrogate armies to take on the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Reagan called them "Freedom Fighters". The only little problem with this misadventure is the funding and training of one Mujahideen fighter in particular -- OSAMA BIN LADEN !
That's right folks, Osama is the product of CIA training. Our tax dollars at work against us again. I wonder who will emerge from this little pile of crazies to haunt us years from now?
Bushco has tried and tried and tried to distance the perception of this war from the ingrained images of Vietnam.
Once again they have failed miserably.
The image of that execution brings back this hauntin' memory:
http://www.vietnamwar.com/vietcongofficershootsman.jpg
It is time for our involvement in Iraq to end. Now- right now!- and forever.
I made the decision recently to take some gun courses and have begun to purchase a few weapons for personal safety reasons.
I now see that was a good idea. This administration is taking this nation down a very dangerous path. I guess we all must decide at what point what side we are on and are we willing to fight for that side.
Da Spyda @ 11:
That pretty much says it all.
...
These images bring me back to that fateful day a couple years ago when Jon Stewart interviewed Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Vonnegut's insight is coming to fruition, and I am saddened that our troops are being asked to aid and abet such antidemocratic genicidal tendencies of tribal groups in Iraq. -Kevo
So the Sunni militias are used to counter our "friendly" Shia government in Iraq, because they may be too close to Iran. Brilliant. Reminds me of a tune...
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and wiggled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly -
Perhaps she'll die.
The US Higher ups didn't know about them roughing up prisoners or killing them. Yeah right! Sell us another bridge.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The problem with that statement is the new enemy of my enemy is our enemy. Are you confused yet?
Besides all of that. If they are fighting al Qaeda for us, why can't we leave? This whole freakin thing started because Saddam was our enemy then our friend (we supplied the gas he used to kill thousands with) then our enemy. Rinse Repeat. Deja vu anyone?
There had better be words, and that soon.
sunni militias, our al-Qaeda of tomorrow. the cycle continues and we will never learn.
That's right folks, they're outsourcing Blackwater contracts. Zealots rarely charge for the OT.
I watch in wonderment as the snake devours it's own tail.
this is the same kind for fucking bullshite our govt has used to get it's way in almost every case in foreign encounters. look at south and central america. all the despots we used then decided they were our enemies after the govt has finished with them. sadam is a prime example. gwh bush hires him and gw bush fires(murders) him. we sit in our arrogance and luxury while our govt commits horrible crimes to keep us safe. for all our freedoms we are hypocrites.
I agree with Snowball. This is the dark side of American Foreign Policy which has been going on for years like in Central America. We back a group which later becomes our enemy which may later side with another enemy which at one time may have been an ally. The CIA funded Osama bin Laden's rebels at one time.
This is why I feel like gagging when I keep hearing people say the troops or whoever are "fighting for our freedoms." That is such a joke. The US government isn't fighting for our freedoms anymore. They are fighting for their own egocentric policies to protect their own greedy interests.
As Iraq falls further into turmoil more groups will want their share of the pie and when we won't give it to them look for another terrorist attack further down the road.
These are called vigilantes. They are judge, jury and executioner. Or, Unitary Executive power, if you will.
Arm them on Monday, shootin' at us on Tuesday. I think this is a sizeable victory for us. Time to pull the troops out.
Basically we're winning the war in Iraq by turning the Sunnis into another terrorist organization.
Ok. Just so we're clear, this is exactly what we did with Suddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden when we put them into power.
and what is the evidence that those people are al Qaeda and not just some Shia shopkeepers or teachers? Oh, yeah, the trustworthy people that used to plant IEDs and stopped for a US contract.
I wonder if they're selling al Qaeda members to the US forces at $5,000 a head?
I can see why republicans support this now. They are the party of 'moral values' and this is the 'morals' which best represent the party and the president. Onward christian soldiers!
[...] House Link to Article iraq Iraq “success” story’s ugly side » Posted at Crooks and Liars on [...]
Does this really surprise anyone? This has been standard procedure for the US for a while now.
Here's an interesting from UPI story that debunks the claim that Iraq will fall into al Qaida's hands if we leave Iraq:
Expert: Al-Qaida can't conquer Iraq
http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/07/20/expert_alqaida...
The real fact is that al Qaida in Iraq still only represents an insignificant part (less than 5%) of the insurgency. Also, a new study finds that the majority of suicide bomber attacks are made by Bush regime allies from Saudi Arabia. There's much more here than meets the eye. Cheney and his cronies are planning a state of permanent war as a pretense for the suspension of democracy in the US.
From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish yesterday.
I agree willy; who's to say they aren't Shi'a. The thing that I sense is different between this fight and the fight in Afghanistan of the 80's is that likely Sunni's who were secular Ba'athists are fighting Al Qaeda. The Mujahadeen were fighting a perceived religious battle. It looks to be moving more towards the money and power grabs of Hamas and Fatah than a radicalization of a new Al Qaeda.
Almost 5 years and Bush says half of Baghdad is secure.
Half of ONE city is secure, over 3600 American casualties, hundreds of thousand Iraqis dead, after 5 gawddamn years! Impeach the SOBs.
Salvadorian option on the march
Biggus Diggus @ 4:
That's not true. People hate and use religion as a tool. Religion isn't the cause - it's the excuse.
Reagan would be proud.
nice model of "freedom" let's franchise the concept worldwide!!!!
Similar things happened in Vietnam and, like, Vietnam, 'they' have better intelligence on 'us' than we can ever have on 'them'. The US is on a treadmill of violence and if we wish to get off we have to make a radical departure from the 'usual suspects'. That's why I support Kucinich. He sees through the madness to the obvious. War is not out natural state. It is not even a economically efficient way to get resources. It is just dumb.
Wingers always bring up "What about Hitler?" Well, what about Versailles. A little generosity then would have save the world a lot of pain later We can get off this crazy ride. We, the so-called left can get behind the only guy that will turn this ship in a different direction, Kucinich..
"Guardian Angels" --where is Curtis Sliwa red and his beret?
Remember that infamous 16mm footage of that S. Veitname police (or soldier I don't remember which) just lifts his revolver to a blindfolded prisoner's head and pulls the trigger?
Kinda reminds me of that.
All in all, it's too little too late.
Bush Wars: Who's on first. What's on second. I don't know is on third.
The U.S., over stepping it's authority? Nah, that couldn't be right, could it?!?
So it's all smoke n' mirrors. When GW says the surge (rolls eyes) is working...he means, the malisha's that were attacking the U.S. military is now going after AlQuaida. Great! Think they're gonna give up those arms easily after they're done securing their neighborhoods? I smell a new blood bath coming soon.
Jesus! This was the same pretext under which we started our friendly relationship with Saddam back in the 80’s (which Drunksfeld went to Iraq to start). This is also how we started our friendship with Bin Laden during the cold war with the USSR. Want to bet it will create yet another monster in the coming years? When are the idiots in DC going to learn from history?
Bush thinks he can buy his way to success in Iraq like he bought his way to the White House . Someone tell me how this isn't going to backfire like it did in South America?
Nice, every gun that these "American allies" called "Iraqi anti-Al-Qaida militants" carry are paid by US tax-dollars, fractions, probably the hundredth of a cent per piece, but it doesn't change the fact that step by step this nightmare called the Iraqi War is impoverishing one American family after another, and soon these families will be counted in millions. If one Danish soldier = one Iraqi refugee with legal papers to live and work freely in Denmark per the recent Danish humanitarian proposal, it looks like the American people will have to soon prepare for a similar sacrifice. If not by offering a one way ticket and green card then maybe by compensating what a life in America for a foreigner with the legal work authorization would usually cost, and to be blunt, the price tag is counted in hundreds of thousands per one life span of a man or a woman. Do Bush and Cheney have an alternative solution? Surely they do, better kill them than pay for them.
Anyway, Hussein as "bad" as he was, managed to control and rule his nation by setting one simple law that everyone understood, he was the ruler, he had the authority, there were no bloodsheds, there were no killings even immeasurably remotely similar to what’s going on now, and since he had no WMDs, the UN, but most importantly, the US, should have let this nation develop and modernize to better the Iraqi lives in the ‘90s and this millennium, since there were no WMDs, there is another disgrace in itself built upon this disastrous war, but thinking about the scope of this double tragedy won't help now to change a damn thing.
What can we hope for? We can hope that the Iraqi politicians won’t pass the oil law as presently written and won’t give away their national treasures to the US companies that will better the Iraqi lives just like the Global Warming movement betters the lives of Africans, by promoting and selling solar panels because a factory in Africa just doesn’t make f****g sense in this day and age, and the “affordable” solar panels are the way to go for the developing nations and billions of people waiting for a f*****g break. We may hope that this proud attitude demonstrated by the Iraqi rulers will eventually make the greedy, clueless US rulers stop thinking about energy thievery and they will finally let go. Maybe these bastards will realize that one can’t just steal somebody’s property and wealth, because he or she can, having the US Army young boys and girls doing the dirty work, waiting for the promised college tuition reimbursements, serving their 4th tour of duty, missing another year in college, now being 25, whose start in life wasn’t meant to look so f******g bleek, yeah, the DC political elites and twisted minds surely coulda, having these proud yet downhearted by the experience US soldiers watching their f*****g backs. How one could have been so f****g shortsighted and blind. Geez.
Theres always blowback. Winning WWII ultimately gave us David Hasselhof.
But buying allies is a pretty good strategy. We bought the men who turned in Saddam and his sons and we bought our way to victory in afghanistan by delivering suitcases full of cash to certain mujahudeen leaders (who apparently prefer US cash to allah).
The good news element of the story is that the americans have found a carrot to dangle over the sunni militias, that of contracts. Now those militias have something invested in mopping up al-qaeda and see some future beyond focusing soley on their loss of power to the shiites.
Do we have to spin everything as bad news? Oh no, more al qaeda were killed, what terrible news. The sunnis in Anbar have stopped attacking americans! Will the bad news never end? Iraq is certainly a mess but Im just curious if for some the only possible news is bad news. Ive never found the world to be quite that simple myself.
bubba @ 51:
Ad hominem and a dodge. hmmm, which of us is the troll? Im sure you can present your position in a more adult fashion.
Is anyone else reminded of Robocop 3?
Fuck ME! Better yet, Fuck BUSH!
51 bubba says: Do we have to spin everything as bad news? Oh no, more al qaeda were killed, what terrible news. The sunnis in Anbar have stopped attacking americans! Will the bad news never end? Iraq is certainly a mess but Im just curious if for some the only possible news is bad news. Ive never found the world to be quite that simple myself.
No we don't have to spin everything coming out of Iraq. We better look closely everything is what they say it is out of Iraq.
Bush needs Al Qaeda to be in Iraq, so he can stay there. This has been developing for the last 7 months or since the surge was announced in January 2007. Now that he has Al Qaeda in Iraq, he's making the claim, again, Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
No one should be a dido monkey for someone's propaganda, and I mean no one. If we are not going to be a dido machine, we must look at the motives for all the stories coming out of Iraq.
Joseph
bubba @ 52:
Who is trying to spin? The fact is that our government is engaging and arming groups that are acting above the law.
(Yes, there is still law in Iraq. Afterall, we have heard over and over how great it was for the people of Iraq to be able to hold democratic elections. Bush even invited some to the State of the Union with their purple thumbs to prove it.)
Further these Sunni militia have been known to target innocent civilians just because they are Shia. Supported this form of terrorism undermines the Iraqi government while further dividing the groups from one another. Did you know that back in February, 6 helicopters were downed in a matter of two weeks? ALL 6 of those helicopters while flying over Sunni controlled areas. Who would have thought the very weapons and equipment we are arming the Sunni with could actually be used to kill our own soldiers?
Disturbing and not surprising: history repeating itself with the same sick ones in control.
"3 Snowball Says: Nothing new here. The US has often used extremist death squads to further our foreign policy objectives. About a year or so ago Bush regime officials and supporters made a tacit admission to this fact when they called for the “El Salvador” option. Why do you think John “Death Squad” Negroponte was sent to Iraq?
EXACTLY RIGHT!
Insurgents or Blackwater...can you tell the difference?
Couldn't get very far on the vid. I'm just so damn tired of living in a reality that would never pass a publishers desk as a screenplay...
People who have been killing our soliders, are now being armed and supported by us, chasing a previously non-existent immaginary enemy fabricated by our neocon leaders to justify the occupation, and giving crazy men over there a chance to hurt and kill others...
And over here we have Chertoff, the head of das Fatherland Security, one week ago saying he has a "gut" feeling of new attacks (by the made-up terrorists) and now predicting simultaneous "dirty bombs" going off in SF and LA http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/210707Chertoff.htm and the creepiest thing is...
As George Bush is in Canada Aug 21st to seal the deal on the North American Union with Mexico and Canada (behind an 18 mile buffer zone) the NWO is dropping fear "rumors" that August 23 or 8/23, which adds up to their weird 13 obsession on our money, etc., is the hit day.
Who would every buy a movie script like that??
moonsha @ 58:
Nothing in this world is clean and pure, least of all war. To win WWII we had to ally with Joseph friggen stalin. He killed more than Bush and Al Qaeda combined. What faction within Iraq isnt tainted? Which faction has no blood on its hands? There are no virgins at this point. Given the current circumstances though, some success in previously out of control province might be seen as good news. Even Michael Ware describes it as a success in this closing remark.
stupid sunnis.
why in the world would the sunnis turn on the al-Qaeda fighters if al-Qaeda were killing amerikans ( and pretty successfully ) ????
if the sunnis think that they alone will be able to drive out the Occupation Oil Stealing nazi storm troopers, they are dreaming.
idiots.
the Occupation Oil Stealing nazi storm troopers are going to stay in Iraq FOREVER ( or until the last drop of OIL is sucked out of Iraq by amerikan Oil companies ).
stupid sunnis.
jeebus
How funny. This is what Osama bin Laden used to be. The "enemy of our enemy" in Afghanistan.
BTW, I have no problem with this type of treatment of any member of al Qaeda. I have no doubt that any of those men would do that and more to any one of us if given half an opportunity. You look at them in the video, looking all scared and helpless, but they would cut your throat on video in a second!!
Don't cry for our enemies. They don't deserve it and it plays right into the Cons' nonsense about the left hating America and siding with our enemies.
If Iraq invaded my country, and encouraged me to get rid of their "enemy", at some point I would turn on the Iraqis with the weapons they gave me, and kick them out of my country. You see, I don't like foreigners putting their boots on my head.
Fucking Republican idiots should all be drafted to fight their own fucking war.
Maybe we'll have our own "civil" war right here: Rich vs. Poor?
FUBAR!
.
The enemy of my enemy...
IS WHY WE HAVE AL QAEDA!
We've seen this before in Afghanistan, arming the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to fight against the USSR, the common enemy of those days of lore. And now look at us busy crafting a new common enemy for our children to fight once more.
The current levels of success in Iraq are Dependant upon the success of the insurgency.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And when that enemy is killed,
What then becomes of my friend?
And so we've come full circle. NO?
And just remember, this example is how we are supporting terrorism.
Why do we hate us for our freedoms?
.
I noticed there was NO footage of bullets hitting the man being executed.
I also detect a flavor of propoganda in all of this. It's the style of the report . . video, voice over . . narration . . . it's NOT attributable, either, for the most part . . . it's some English Accent narrating over video of people with masks, guns, in trucks . . . not real credible, IMHO.
The INTERVIEW parts, could easily have been staged, or, edited to fit . . .
I'm not sure what to believe, but, there are OTHER sources and reports that might uphold this news report's claims, and those that refute it.
We DO live in interesting times, don't we . . .
GUYS GUYS GUYS - there is NOOOOOOOOOOOOO al-qaeda threat here. Michael Ware has obviously been strictly told by CNN that he is to repeatedly substitute 'iraqi shiite' for the PR-friendly talking point phrase 'al qaeda'.
Basically, the US are now more overtly in league with the sunni groups that are essentially receiving all of their funding secretly by saudi arabia.
This way - the usa can officially help out their saudi friends by saying that the sunni militia are now fighting 'al qaeda', when it's really just the usa fomenting more civil war between shiite and sunni groups.
This is nothing more than controlled pr messaging [despite how much i like mike ware, he obviously is frustrated at the bullshit cnn makes him comform to on-air]. this is also nothing more than a 5 year plan from the americans of divide and conquer.
if you can get iraqi's to kill each other from the inside, you make things easier for your troops and your puppet politicians in iraq to keep pushing for a 3 state system. once you break up iraq in pieces, the smell of lucrative oil contracts will essentially bring each state under full and absolute western control.
al qaeda means nothing more than what the white house don't want you to know - ie - it's merely shiite groups or otherwise known as... iraqis.
What depresses me most about that piece by CNN is the media's continual refusal to challenge and critique the most basic and crucial information.
Not once did the reporter (who is Australian, not English) challenge the notion that the people being attacked by the militia were Al-Qaeda. They were Al-Qaeda, simple as that....says who?
And many people just take it in, not bothering to challenge it, to ask whether maybe they were just Iraqis, defending themselves against an invading foreign army, or defending themselves against these helpful militias. But as long as they are Al-Qaeda, that doesn't matter.
When a report fails on that basic level, i despair, and cannot help but depressingly conclude that parts of the media are not just observing the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths but have their hands on the trigger as well. Just amplifying and feeding people with the propaganda and ideology that the US administration needs people to swallow.
For if the media were truly objective, balanced and fair, there is no way people in American would have started this, and would now be screaming for it to end.
Brawlin_Dem @ 64:
Yes, IF they were indeed Al Qaeda. US forces did kill a number of civilians in Vietnam to meet their quotas. If a guy was killed by US forces, he was Vietcong. And you are confident these Sunnis are better than the US military of then?
As I watched that I thought of the redneck state that I live in. Most of the redneck Repubs I know would cheer at this violence and drawl between spits, "Good. The only good al-Qaeda is a dead al-Qaeda." This is their mindset. They cheer at the death and suffering of another human being if it means they can get another gallon of gas for their Hummer.
I'd like to think people of conscience would rise up against this kind of inhumanity, but people cry more over a dead puppy than a dead human being - especially a dead human being accused of being our enemy.
We have become a hard hearted and stiff necked people.
Shades of the Iran Iraq war. The Republican answer? Arm both sides and back the winner.
When will they learn?
This is questionable under international law (not that Bush gives a shit about any law). But it also lays waste to "Teh Argument" that we need to stay there, because "if we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here". The sooner we leave, the sooner the Iraqis will order their own house, in whatever way suits them as a sovereign people. It is a major agenda item of the Iraqi Sunni groups to rid the country of foreign fighters and occupyers. I suspect al queda - such as it really exists, would face grim prospects once they no longer served a purpose. All our presence is doing is prolonging the misery and satisfying al queda's recruiting quotas.
Nothing in this world is clean and pure, least of all war. To win WWII we had to ally with Joseph friggen stalin. He killed more than Bush and Al Qaeda combined. What faction within Iraq isnt tainted? Which faction has no blood on its hands? There are no virgins at this point. Given the current circumstances though, some success in previously out of control province might be seen as good news. Even Michael Ware describes it as a success in this closing remark.
I never implied it was clean and pure. War should be uses as a last resort. This invasion clearly did not need to happen. The faction that isn't tainted are the innocent civilians who just happen to be living in the middle of all this bullshit. Also, Russia was attacked by Germany thus they were in it for the long haul. I don't recall the United States having to buy them off. How many American soldiers were killed by the Red Army firing on Amercan soldiers? Whenever I hear of talk about success which seems to imply we are winning somthing. What in the hell are we trying to win in Iraq anyway? General Patreus said this conflict cannot be won militarily, so why are we continueing to arm vigilantes that apparently cannot be trusted and would kill our soldiers just as soon as they would Amercan soldiers. The American people have been told that we are training Iraqi forces. When they can stand up, we will stand down. Imagine yourself as a soldier in Iraq now. While the different groups are killing each other at least they share similar characteristics in how they look. They can blend in to any group to the eye of an American soldier. Which one of them are you willing to give a gun to and say come on follow me?
Fucking Republican idiots should all be drafted to fight their own fucking war.
Maybe we’ll have our own “civil” war right here: Rich vs. Poor?
I could get behind that. War on Washington? Sure.
Iraq has no 'side' other than 'UGLY'.
Arm the Crips to kill the Bloods...
Seriously, those guys looked more like US street gangs than "militias", but can you blame them for taking US support? Let's look at it from their perspective: they get guns, ammo, and money from us. First they use that stuff and our blind eye to kill off their enemies; then they can turn the guns, ammo, and money on us without having to worry about being shot in the back by the Shiites. It's perfect...unless you're a US enlisted man. We should be ashamed, not for our evils in Iraq, but for our incredible stupidity and lack of foresight. Our Dear Leader, a modern day Sir Edmund Hillary, scaling up the heights of folly.
I must say this:
If I could have it my way, we would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. But since that is a moot point now, I would like alternatively to leave as soon as possible. But if that's not EVEN possible I would AT LEAST like to have the US government compromise with reality!!
Utilitarianwise it's would have been a lot better to have had a government who from the getgo would have made these dirty compromises nessecary to stabilize Iraq. Like not disbanding the military, like not cleansing the society of middle level Baath party members and like not restructure the whole bureaucracy from the bottom up and so on.
What is happening with this new coalition of US military and Sunni militias is really a late recognition of the sheer incompetence-based mistakes made in the start of the occupation for which Rumsfeld and Bremer is especially responsible.
Unfortunately it's a much moore dirty and unsettling compromise now than it would have been in the start, - but at least it's a blow to the CORE of neoconservatism, namely a blow to their closed intrepretation of reality.
Few people understand why neocons are such a formidable foe. They are not that IN SPITE of their combination of free world-values and a skewed understanding of history. They are incredible dangerous BECAUSE they combine correct ultimate values with a completely uncorrect factual understanding of the world. The sane part of the political world has not yet gotten used to this new ideological strategy, and are therefor even now humiliated by it on a daily basis.
Killing Al Qeada is good... arming the enemy of our enemy??? Ever hear of BLOWBACK? Isnt that how we created Osama?
bubba @ 51:
According to Sibel Edmonds, Dennis Hassert received suitcases of cash. Bumper poppie crop this year!
We are providing ammunition to these groups. But, I saw a story linked from antiwar.com today saying we are low on ammo and are gettting it from Israel. So, are these groups using Israeli bullets to kill other Muslims? Just a thought.
Well, its all being done in the name of America, Freedom & Democracy. Just remember that.
Creating terrorist groups to kill off terrorist groups. I'm sure these militia all use a formal investigation & court of law before determining someone is an al-qaeda member & killing them in the desert somewhere. I'm sure no kills have been made for other reasons like sectarian differences, simple revenge & being drunk on power. Of course, once all the al-qaeda fighters are killed, the militias will just smile & hand over all their weapons back to American forces & go out for a coffee. Its all so simple, easy & foolproof.
The thing is, I don't really believe there is a degree of separation here. The US forces may claim to not indulge or support the militia methods, but like blackwater, they are being commissioned to do a job for Uncle Sam. Us. You & I. Whomever they abuse, whomever they kill, they are doing it in OUR name because OUR government has paid them to do it.
Sometimes, the only thing I believe is positive about such an appalling situation is that it is coming out in the open. Yes, the US has partaken in such atrocities in the past and it was kept well hidden until more recently. At least this time, the disgusting reality of what America does to protect its interests is being seen whilst it is happening. I can only hope that, because more people understand what war, provocation, destabilisation or whatever influence the US exerts actually means more people will find it unacceptable in the future.
=my2c
BC
why is it we have to choose between a dead puppy or a dead human, ?god damit arent both a waste and inhuman? it makes you wonder if the mentality of the american people is such that we cant walk and chew gum at the same time!
The sadist and most telling aspect of our misadventure in Iraq is that Bush snatched a shameful legacy from the hands of a glorious win in Afghanistan. The man could have been a legend in his own time had he continued the fight in Afghanistan and completed the following objectives, which were possible.
1. Kill or capture Osama and his real #2. Bush was incredibly close to doing this. One can only conclude the US purposefully backed off. I believe because of Bush family ties to the Bin Ladens.
2. Wipe the Tallaban from Afghanistan and work with an international force to keep them out as the country rebuilds.
3. Provide humanitarian relief and build the infrastructure of the country, provide for educating a new generation, provide for health care, and generate real pro-American sentiment due to our deeds and not our propaganda.
4. Make Afghanistan a model for Muslim women. Give Afghanistan women opportunity in education, business, and government.
5. Eradicate the growing of poppies which is a huge source of income world wide for terrorist organizations. Bottom line for less than one billion we could just buy the entire crop from Afghanistan farmers. Believe me we waste far more in spending on drug enforcement and lives in dealing with this crop after it is harvested and processed. But again, I believe Bush family business interests are enjoying the record poppy harvests coming out of Afghanistan since the US military has been protecting the fields.
Five objectives which if he never spent a dime in Iraq were all obtainable. He personally and the GOP in general would have been honored world wide for many years to come. Not to mention that this would have also provided our military with a number of new bases which would even put a smile on your neighborhood Neo-Con. It wouldn't be the whole pie, but it would have given them a slice. But Cheney worked night and day to get Bush to throw it all away. I don't believe Bush gives a crap about the outcome of anything really. Cheney has dreams of world domination, Bush's only thought is where he'll be mountain biking today.
There are plenty of words such as - "Can we fuck this up any more than we already have?"
Michael Ware asks why, then answers: "Power, money, contracts, and control."
This "success story" is written in blood.
U.S. Sponsored Death Squads?? Really is not that shocking that a neo con staple has been brought back from Reagan's grave. It is pitiful and will contribute to the mess that is Iraq.
I can think of a word "Disgusting".
This is exactly what Saddam Husein did for so many years to maintain control.
Sunnis fighting along side US forces with the aid of US air and ammunition?? The question begs to be asked. Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer break up the Iraqi army when the US first arrived in Iraq?? It seems now that if the US had left the Sunni security forces in tact that perhaps the Terror threat in Iraq would not be a fraction of what it is today...
This isnt the only news report on this subject, its been all the place for the past month plus. The US has somehow managed to flip many of the tribal leaders in Al-Anbar into going after foreign fighters. Whatever they were promised this does seem to be the case. If you want to deny it thenk, imo, you are entering tin-foil hat land and for what? Because your internet-fueled view of the war will collapse if the army and gwb have *any* success in doing anything? Even a broken clock is right twice a day, why try and argue that there is no clock during those episodes? It just makes you look unhinged in my opinion.
I listen to NPR every morning and hear about the goings on in Al-Anbar quite often. Is NPR a Bush shill as well? ;) Some of these al-qaeda in iraq are foreign fighters, some are locals recruited by the umbrella groups, but does everything have to be bad news?
Haven't the neo-con thugs tried this technique several times with disasterous results - most notably, consider Mr. ben Ladden, armed by President Ronald McDonald to fight the Soviets. How's that worked for us, Rummy & Cheney? Why is it Herr Rumsfeld maintaining an office at the Pentagon?
Another point:
Michael Ware is an opponent of the war, not just a journalist. Hes made his feelings very plain. Now of course, as a war opponent/journalist, he's up do date with the "success in al anbar" storyline thats been getting play for the past month. So its only natural that he gravitates to it to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the way he presents the story.
He doesnt ask how the locals know when someone is al qaeda is iraq because he wants you to think they dont know. That impression is helpful to his storyline. Even he grudgingly admits the operation is a success in his closing lines but listen carefully to that line. I dont think Ive ever heard someone say the word success with more distaste. The tone is so mournful.
Setting aside the issue of whether there is or is not success in al anbar, I found his reporting to be a little shaky. Obviously he's a war correspondent who has taken a position but I really think he needs to try and tell a more complete story. His role is to keep us informed, not advocate.
These are the sort of people the Bush Administration has associated itself with. The are the true colors of the WarPigs. What sort of deal has he cut with them? How much money, the nations money(?) does he pay them? This is the true face of our so-called Christian president.
WE ARE A NATION OF WAR CRIMINALS
Well see that's the odd thing about this "success" story. Every side of it is ugly.
War is ugly. There is no way around it. In WWII we backed the Joe Stalin with supplies and intelligence. He killed more innocents than GWB, Al Qaeda, Saddam, Israel and the Khymer Rougue combined. The only pretty wars come from Hollywood.
This report is troubing to me for two conflicting reasons:
1) The Al-Qued is much more brutal and psychopathic than this group. Additionally, be it vendettas or other, Al-Queda is being severely impacted, with less recruiting among Irais in this region. Tat is inded good news for the Iraqis. Also, war is not pretty. No war is pure, and 90% of what really happens in a war is never seen or heard by the public. In that regard, this video gives me a bit of a comfort feeling, seeing that the "evil" is being fought by "evil".
2) The conflicting reason is the knowledge, that we (the USA) is supporting group akin to the Al-Queda. If this group can turn away from Al-Queda this easily, what is to stop thm from turning back to the Al-Queda and cooperating with them to kill our trops? This is indeed a very short sighted attempt at gaining control, merely for political reasons by Bush and co.
All in all, i am mixed about this video. My two cents worth.
We side the Iraqis... It's simply numbers... The Americans, with a trillion dollars killed 600,000 of them in a Occupation.
The freedom fighters have killed 3000+ invaders and wounded several thousand others.
In America, they will record it different and make some song abut the "sacrifice" or something...
But the rest of the world will just witness another attempted genocide of brown people by american military forces... Just like Vietnam, just like Cambodia. Just like Nicargua, just like Guatemala, just like Grenada, just like Columbia.... etc... etc... etc...
I'm sorry. You guys get to sleep in the bed you made.
Shared Humanity @ 95:
AS you are still technically "in charge" of your country and the President serves at your request, then yes, by definiation you are allowing your country to preform warcrimes and therefore every one of you are guilty. Or that is how our (the rest of the worlds) military forces will be taught...
If you are lucky, we will try and "liberate you" from your oppressive fascist torture regiem, however, at this rate, the population is becoming guilty by apathy.
m @ 65:
Snowball @ 3:
Our double-dipping is precisely why it is that I'm sick and tired of the United States having anything to do with the middle east anymore...
Ben W @ 98:
In a positive, surface-deep light, it is short sighted. In an ulterior sense, having Sunnis go crazy on "al Qaeda" (which at any given time could end up shifting to just being well-hated Shiites) will annoy Iran, and Iran will want to get involved in Iraq's affairs, and it will not be harmonious with America's PR plan with recruiting Sunni militia, and it will be just one more reason why we need to "do something about Iran"...
I couldn't care less what they're doing for as long as Saudi Arabia stays conspicuously out of the news. I wonder what's holding Osama Bin Laden back from explaining to the world why it is Bush still hasn't captured him...
We side the Iraqis… It’s simply numbers… The Americans, with a trillion dollars killed 600,000 of them in a Occupation.
The freedom fighters have killed 3000+ invaders and wounded several thousand others.
[quote]In America, they will record it different and make some song abut the “sacrifice” or something…
But the rest of the world will just witness another attempted genocide of brown people by american military forces… Just like Vietnam, just like Cambodia. Just like Nicargua, just like Guatemala, just like Grenada, just like Columbia…. etc… etc… etc…
I’m sorry. You guys get to sleep in the bed you made.[/quote]
Sorry bud but if you are going to lie like that, maybe you can tell us what third world pig sty you were educated in? Numbers dont like being bent that badly.
Your "Freedom fighters" have done the lions share of that killing of 600k+ people. The US has seen very little combat action to account for the thousands who have turned up dead with drill holes in their heads over the past year. I mean get your rhetoric straight, there either is a civil war or there isnt. When it suits you, there is, when it doesnt, there isnt and every death is magically caused by the US.
I understand not liking the war but your reasoning is kaka.
Truly the height of stupidity.
I mean do they seriously not realized we've tried this kind of tactic before? When the Russians invaded Afghanistan they backed local Afghan tribes with weapons and training. They went so far as to train and young Saudi who would go on to lead and guerrilla war against the Russians that eventually drove them out. Of course he also turned around and started attacking America with the same training and small army he'd gathered with US backing.
Damn, what was that guy's name again? Osama something?
bubba @ 93:
The point of the story wasn't a question of whether the tactics worked nor did he insinuate that those accused of being al-queda weren't. They point was "Look. This is the type of shit you want them doing in YOUR name?" It's a very valid question and my answer and seeing the half hearted "Oh, we don't condone that type of thing" (despite the fact they don't do shit to step in and stop it) on the part of American commanders my answer is a resounding NO.
Well, the amusing thing about Ware's report is that he cast such a wide net to discredit this "success". He didnt just report to the american people that such and such tactics are being used. After this portion of the report he then went to the shiites and asked them what they though about it. ;) As if he was brainstorming as many ways possible to fuck up this "good news". FOX reporters arent the only one who try to spin stories in a chosen direction.
And of course the really amusing thing is that so many people here didnt even seem to know about the Al Anbar successes. Its been all over the news for some time but its not the kind of news that filters down to the liberal-leaning blogosphere unless, like this report, there is some dirt to throw on it. Im a liberal but Ill admit that the FOX news juicer isnt the only one in town.
bubba @ 107:
As someone who's actually studied journalism as I'm sure you haven't, I can tell you what my professors told me. There is no such thing is impartial. As a human being with thoughts and emotions you will always have a perspective you're coming from, that's inevitable. Your job isn't to necessarily be impartial, but to be FAIR, ie give equal sides of the issue. Ware did that. He made it quite clear that attacks in Al-Anbar were down.
But see there's a bigger question. HOW is it this "success" happened? Do the ends really justify the means? Apparently you believe they do which, being said, I don't think makes you nearly as liberal as you seem to think. If you can stand up for summary executions brought on by a bloodlust for the same kind of revenge that fuels the downward spiral that gives this "sectarian strife" it's main point of locomotion and bash someone who has the balls to stand up and say perhaps America, which claimed they wanted to win Iraqi hearts and minds and bring them freedom, shouldn't be arming the very people who in all likelihood will turn right around and roll through the towns in the dead of night executing people as part of death squads and attack and kill/injure American men and women in uniform I dare say you're as bad as any neocon.
Perhaps Mr. Ware had such disdain from the notion of success because, if what he documented was the road to success NO ONE should be striving for it at that cost. Gee, I guess there are some reporters out there with scruples. Who'd have thunk it?
Train @ 108:
:) I'm not as liberal as I think I am? Well, Ill see your omnicience and raise you a crate of "who made you the sheriff of liberal town, hoss?". I understand that you dont agree with me so you feel the need to either lash out in anger or play your passive aggressive instincts for all they are worth but lets try to communicate like adults.
Michael Ware is not an unknown quantity. This is they guy who heckled McCain (deserving or not, its not usually the standard of professionalism) and the guy who said on Bill Maher that the invasion of Iraq was a train wreck, etc, etc. That said, you may be agreeing that Michael Ware has expressed anti-war viewpoints but that this report was on the whole balanced. I obviously disagree though I dont think its badly distorted. I just detect a certain bias to both his tone and choice of questions.
I also object to your focus on the "arming" of these people as if they were really so hard up for weapons and ammunition before throwing in with the US. What were they firing at us before this alliance? The promises made likey involve something more substantial than arms as Ware himself noted.
And in case your obviously extensive and much lauded (by you) education in journalism didnt provide you with a grounding in history: We allied with Joe Stalin in WWII. It was required to defeat the Nazis. He was a far dirtier guy than any two-bit tribal leader in Al-Anbar.
If this is success, I would hate to see failure.
bubba @ 109:
1. Get over yourself. You sound like a broken down version of the Harry Potter sorting hat.
2. Maybe he didnt heckle McCain and it was misunderstood but Ware is on record as being against the war. My only point is that his report seemed slanted. You disagree. Great!
3-4. So you dont want to work with anyone who is sullied but your "rightful Iraqi government" is full up with shiite militiamen and their sympathizers. They have done as much as anyone to plant headless corpses up and down the alleys of baghdad. Given that its widely described as a civil war, who exactly in Iraq is clean? Which faction doesnt have blood on their hands? Are we not allowed to talk to anyone at this point because they are morally inferior?
Sure, we created conditions for Osama and Al-qaeda to flourish but their philosophy and animosities predate the afghan war. History isnt calculus. You can point to examples where we worked with the disreputable and gained as well as lost and it doesnt make it any easier to predict the results of the next wager. And one way or another, a wager is required. There is no way to predict with certainty which course saves more lives. Did we need to aid Stalin? Well, we cant count every delivered tank and bullet and replay the war but if the soviets had fallen we would have been in big trouble.
bubba @ 112:
1. How bout instead you piss off?
2. Fine, we'll agree to disagree.
3-4. That's kind of my point. All sides of this issue are screwed up. It seems like America is always trying to play both ends against the middle and in the end everyone including us gets burned. All sides, the rightfully elected and those fighting in the streets for their piece of the pie. I mean everyone calls it a civil war, but I call it a gang war. There are a few big factions with a million smaller factions within those factions slaughtering people for their piece of the pie. The thing is, in order for the conflict to come to an end one side or another is going to have to take control and by setting up other factions outside the government they already have with money and weapons that only promises to make the gang/civil war that much longer and bloodier than it absolutely has to be (cuz there's no doubt it'll get worse before it gets better). Playing both ends in this case is only going to get more people killed in the wake of our pullout which is basically inevitable.
As for the philosophy of Bin Laden and his lot predating the Afghan war, that much is obvious, but I can't let you pull and O'Reilly/Hannity whereby when someone makes a specific point that's hard to refute you take the argument back to some much broader, nebulous issue. I don't give a crap about the 1000 years of history that built Al-Queda's philosophy, I'm concerned with the recent history of this country's underhanded attempt to fight a war by proxy that wound up building Al-Queda's infrastructure which, in turn, eventually came back to haunt this country in the here and now. And even if I was talking about that history, perhaps if someone had studied it they'd have known how stupid it is to try to make deals with religious zealots.
Basically I'm just tired of the hypocrisy. We call terrorism enemy #1 (which it is in truth) only we've sponsored plenty of terrorism around the world. Central America/School of the Americas anyone? An American backed and armed Saddam Hussein anyone else? In the end, in nearly all cases, all we accomplish with these tactics is making the most prominent borderline sociopath we're backing at the time rich and powerful enough to be a serious threat to us in the future. Call me an idealist if you want to (though most would call me an idealistic realist), but some shit is just fucking wrong. Some shit just has so many ridiculously obvious chances of blow back that it's stupid to even ponder. Some shit I don't want my country doing in my name and when they do I'm gonna say the shit is wrong.
And as I'm sure you probably don't agree and I'm sure I definitely don't care the convo is over as far as I'm concerned.
The assumption by the newscaster that all the guys the militias are holding in this video are AQ is typical. "Nobody much cares what happens to AQ militants". More likely these are tribal or personal enemies that are being cleared out by the militias.
The final conclusion that this is a success story is insane. Once again, we're arming people who will be shooting at us next week.
[...] I am accused of just focusing on the negative. Here is a report of the a “successful” U.S. policy. However, I am confident that the gangs [...]
Login or Register to post comments.