 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:35 AM Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert You stand by that remark? If so, I stand my mine. Don't go crying to mommy coz the nasty man called you a bad name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:25 AM Wrong, Amos. The comment was in line with those claiming anyone who disagreed with the Mudcat Majority opinion about the war was therefore seeking war, and responsible for the bloodshed caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN. The following remark at 0905 by Gervase is beyond the pale, and if left to stand will demonstrate that if Martin Gibson had opinions in accord with the Mudcat Majority, he would still be here. Freedom of speech only for those you agree with, right????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:54 AM Bruce: That last remark was wildly inaccurate, off the wall, stupid and beyond the pale. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:05 AM Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert And what sort of crass, moronic, craven, lily-livered, scum-sucking troll bait is that? Get back to jerking off over Soldier of Fortune or whatever it is that you use for erectile dysfunction, you feeble-minded cretin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:01 AM I think you'll find that the Bush administration wanted war and the process was a convenient figleaf. When it started to look as though that process was going to impede the path to war, Bush went ahead anyway. Interesting that none of the hawks has answered the point made by TIA at 09.07 yesterday. To remind you of the headline: 'Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say' Anyone care to try to spin that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM Through the Looking Glass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM "Bush wanted war so he pulled the plug on the process and called up the invasion anyway..." So, you mean that Bush went and attacked Iraq BEFORE the UN report by Blix that Iraq was in non- compliance with UNR1441? ... That was in December of 2002- WHEN DID BUSH ATTACK IRAQ???? the process was completed before the invasion - and Saddam had been fooled by idiots like you into thinking that he would not be held to account. Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:17 AM "As for compliance with UN Res 1441, the Resolution does not call for "basic" compliance. It does not call for any kind of qualified compliance. It does not--in short--allow for the sort of excuse-making and special pleading that you seem so eager to offer the regime of Saddam Hussein. It calls for full, unconditional and immediate compliance by Iraq which was not given, as explicitly asserted by Hans Blix in the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Quarterly Report governing the relevant inspection. Compliance with UNR 1441 was violated on Dec 7, 2002 with the Iraqi regime's fraudulent "Complete and Full Declaration". The declaration was declared non-compliant by Hans Blix in his official capacity as chief inspector for UNMOVIC." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:08 AM Bobert "We were told that Saddam had MDWs..." NO. We were told that Saddam was NOT complying with the previous UNR, was believed ( by most of the world) to have prohibited WMD programs still, and had NOT accounted for the material he was previously supposed to have destroyed, and IF he continued his WMD programs ( already known from 1998 and prior) it would be a danger- thus he should comply) "Then Powell pushed Bush to go to the UN..." Just as he should have. secretary of DEFENSE- what do you think the word means, if not to protect from likely harm????? "Then the UN got approval from Saddam to come look for them..." WRONG. Then the UN passed UNR 1441, giving Saddam a "last and FINAL chance" to comply with the UNR, and avoid serious action. "So UN inspectors were sent to Iarq..." NO. FIRST, Iraq submitted a report that was NOT in compliance with UNR1441. Then, AFTER the US started to prepare for military action, Saddam allowed the inspectors in, BUT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED cooperation AND PROOFS ( That Iraq was to supply, NOT that the UNR was supposed to hunt for) "Time would have proved there were no WMDs..." Wrong again. Lack of evidence IS NOT evidence of lack. Reports by the AF and Army general on the Northern Iraq fron were of numeroud trucks carrying unknow material from the Iraqi military storage ( where the previous UN teams had noted WMD materials) to the Syrian border prior to the invasion of Iraq ( see the book they wrote) "Bush wanted war so he pulled the plug on the process and called up the invasion anyway..." Bush delayed too long, and did not prevent the WMD materials from getting out. And you ignore the encouragement by some nations and the "anti-war" protestors who gave Saddam reason to believe he could continue his non-compliance with the UNR without any impact. THOSE are the ones responsible for any dead or wounded. Had Saddam taken the UNR seriously, and either complied outright originally, or thrown open his borders without the threat of military force, there would have been no war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 07:39 AM Bobert: fron UNR 1441: "1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" UNR 687... http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement ( paragraphs 8 -13 are on page 3 of the PDF file.) Now, what part of this don't you understand???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 07:33 AM in part: 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; 5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter; 6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq; |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 07:30 AM BTW, in case you decide to actually read the UNR before deciding what it says: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement Sorry if your sources didn't bother reading it, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 06:34 AM Bobert: "arguement, Bruce, is nonsense..." No, yours is. "Why the heck were the inspectors sent back to Iraq??? Can you answer that???" Yes- to verify the information that IRAQ was supposed to supply in "response to UNR1441. Since the report to the UN by Blix states that 1. the information was not complete 2. The Iraqis were NOT providing the needed proof BLIX concluded that Iraq was in violation of UNR1441, not only after the deadeline, but at the time of the report in February. "And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something..." Since the required proof that was demanded was the accounting for of material that Sqaddam was KNOWN to have ( by UN inspections of 1998 and earlier), there was no requirement for "proof that one does not have something" The proof was of the disposition of known material. That is another strawman arguement that you have consistantly put in, even though you havce been told repeatedly that it was untrue. YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. Basic Remedial Logic 001 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 03:32 AM Teribus, stick to what has being said, you purblind drooling old dullard. Where did I say that more troops in Afghanistan would have made a difference? Where exactly? And at no point did I say you didn't consider PIRA attacks to be terrorism. Have years of self abuse down in the engine room finally dimmed your eyesight? Have you been drinking Brasso again? Bloody hell. it's no wonder you get things so spectacularly wrong when you're seemingly incapable of extracting meaning and nuance from a mere ten or twenty lines of text. Little wonder that what comes out is bollocks when what goes in gets so garbled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:59 AM The US population, the UN, the world, Blix and ElBaradei were not, and are not, responsible for the security and safety of the United States of America President George W Bush was. When it came to the derailing of the UN effort look no further than President Jacques Chirac of France. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM The US, the UN & the world were listening to Blix. Then when he (Blix) said something Bush didn't want to hear, Bush shut down the hearing aids & no longer listened but most of the world stayed tuned in. Except for you & a few others that always rely on what they love best, WAR! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM Blix and ElBaradei were not, and are not, responsible for the security and safety of the United States of America President George W Bush was. Saddam Hussein was warned repeatedly when given his last final chance. Full and proactive co-operation with UNMOVIC was required form Day One - that didn't happen, irrespective of how selectively Bobert quotes. Iraq was not permitted one single material breach of 1441 there were in fact seven. At the same time the US warned the UN security Council you act to resolve this matter and address our concerns or we will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Mar 09 - 05:35 PM "Please tell us why the threat outlined by your intelligence community in February 1998 and again by the same people in 2001 as posing the greatest danger to the United States of America could have been completely dismissed as being imaginary." Read the Blix and El Baradei quotes in my link. They were in the process of dismantling the evidence for the great danger, and the Bush Administration (and US and UK Intelligence it would seem - under intense political pressures documented elsewhere) "largely ignored" them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:54 PM It's irrelevant, T... We were told that Saddam had MDWs... Then Powell pushed Bush to go to the UN... Then the UN got approval from Saddam to come look for them... So UN inspectors were sent to Iarq... Time would have proved there were no WMDs... Bush wanted war so he pulled the plug on the process and called up the invasion anyway... End of story... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:02 PM Imaginary in what way Amos? Please tell us why the threat outlined by your intelligence community in February 1998 and again by the same people in 2001 as posing the greatest danger to the United States of America could have been completely dismissed as being imaginary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM It most certainly would not have addressed the concerns of the United States of America with regard to what was identified as being potentially the greatest threat that they faced. And that is the prime responsibility of the President of the United States of America the protection and security of his country. Don't you think he had an obligation to steer clear of fantasies in doing so? It is bad enough he took most of his high-level guidance from imaginary playmates, but committing the resources of a nation to defend itself from imaginary dangers is a bit of incometence verging on treachery, wouldn't you say? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:21 PM Your arguement, Bruce, is nonsense... Why the heck were the inspectors sent back to Iraq??? Can you answer that??? And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something... But, for the sake of discussion, if one could then still why would an inspection team be sent to Iraq??? I mena, if Saddam could have proved he didn't have the stuff then having inspectoras there or not wouldn't have mattered one way or another... But I guess that if we carry illogic to its extreme if you believe that one can prove they don't have something then by not seeing anything (as in inspecting) then that would be added proof that nothing was there... I tell ya what, bruce... Yer a purdy smart guy but on this one you have chosen the diog that not only won't hunt but couldn't find his tail in the dark... I mean, you arguments are badly flawed... Basic Logic 101... Bill D, being a Philosophy major, might be able to explain it better but no matter... There is a point in time when defending an undefendable position, while considered honorable by some, really becomes a drag on the rest of yer arguments... You are there... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 12:54 PM 1. "Au contraire - in each of the situations you mention you have a resurgent and radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently to resort to violence." Do you work for the BBC Gervase? I ask because they're awfully keen on that word "resurgent" when talking about the Taleban, so much so that the OED is going to have to alter the commonly understood meaning of it from: Resurgent: - increasing again, or becoming popular again To Resurgent: - Timid cave dweller As to there being any "radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently" – Well Gervase if you have the people behind you don't need the terrorism to get what you want. One would think after so much "resurgence" for all these years the Taleban would have been a bit further down the road to accomplishing their goals, but they're not are they? They've gone backwards. 2. "In most cases it is the hard-line, anti-Western element - the one which wants to establish the Caliphate - which is doing the running." Oh, they most certainly are doing the running Gervase mostly in an easterly direction, out of Afghanistan and into the FATA and NWFP of Pakistan. Where having arrived and settled down for a nice cup of tea they get whacked by a Hellfire missile from a Predator Drone –life must be an absolute bitch for them. 3. "I'm willing to wager that the course of the campaign in Afghanistan would have been entirely different and far more successful had Bush not sent the troops into Iraq. As it is a course of action that I initially supported (albeit with some misgivings, given the historical record of actions in that region) seems to have degenerated into a never-ending exercise in putting fingers into lots of holes in a very large, crumbling dyke, with little chance of success." Pure supposition of course but sending more troops into Afghanistan would have accomplished what exactly. It most certainly would not have addressed the concerns of the United States of America with regard to what was identified as being potentially the greatest threat that they faced. And that is the prime responsibility of the President of the United States of America the protection and security of his country. When the Russians went into Afghanistan they went in mob handed 154,000 combat troops complete with armour, artillery and air support. They stayed there for nine years and were defeated in detail by the "Mujahideen". There were many reasons for their defeat but one factor was that like the US Forces in Vietnam their soldiers were conscripts, who basically did not want to be in the Army in the first place and most certainly did not want to be based outside Mother Russia fighting Afghans. Now compare that to the current situation in Afghanistan in terms of actual combat troops NATO/ISAF and the US "Enduring Freedom" Force have about one quarter of the strength that the Russians had if that. Unlike the situation that faced the Russians the entire country is not up in arms against NATO/ISAF, much of it is pretty quiet. NATO/ISAF and the US has been there for seven years, where are the Taleban? You will find them largely, over the border in Pakistan. What towns and districts do the Taleban control? None MusaQuala was the last and they got booted out of there some time ago, they haven't returned. Differences our technology is far better and a great deal more sophisticated and advanced than anything the Russians had. Intelligence gathering and monitoring is absolutely amazing, as is the ability to handle the information gathered. The majority of the troops are "professional" soldiers. There is talk these days of "Stalemate" – anybody ever hear that when the Russians were there. The new President of the United States of America and his Vice-President have been foolish enough to come out with statements that could only ever be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy – strange thing for the "Commander-in-Chief" of any Army to do – but still he's new to the job, he might just improve, had he done that in this country he'd be guilty of treason. But say Obama sticks to his plan and puts three more combat brigades into Afghanistan on the ISAF side of the equation, that almost doubles the size of the "fighting" troops in country and Gervase if what we've got there at present is holding the "resurgent" Taleban to a stalemate, then with an 85% increase in troop numbers the Taleban are in for a pretty torrid time – and they know it. 4. "To a large swathe of the world, the Taleban are the good guys, holding out against the infidel." As somebody said if you have the people behind you don't need the terrorism to get what you want. So I don't think the swathe is all that large, specially not in Swat where when the Taleban came in almost everybody fled, that is how much they are thought of as being "good guys" 5. "Why do you think they have attracted volunteers from all over the world?" I actually didn't think the Taleban as such took in foreigners. Al-Qaeda has and no doubt still does. I haven't actually ever heard of anyone flocking to Taleban training camps. The Arab Jihadists are universally despised by the people of Afghanistan as were the Taleban themselves once they got into the swing of things and nobody wants to see them return to power. 6. "And now, it seems, their brand of militant Islam is spreading. Pakistan's not looking too good at the moment, is it?" Ah, the Taleban have their own brand of militant Islam do they, how nice to know. But its not really spreading is it Gervase. The only reason it is now being seen in the FATA and NWFP of Pakistan is not because of its popularity amongst "swathes" of people who think that the Taleban are "good guys", its primarily because the Taleban have had their sorry arses kicked out of Afghanistan and they have been forced to flee to the only refuge open to them, it's not been spread you Pillock, it's merely been temporarily transferred. 7. "I am aware of the semantic distinctions you make, old fruit. Fatwa, by the way, is a judicial term, not a military/political term." Care to point out when and where I stated that "Fatwa" was a military/political term Gervase?? 8. "Let's have a straight answer to this question: Has US foreign policy since 2001 inflamed or moderated Muslim militancy and has there been an increase or a decrease in terrorism?" Oh good, I like these - Straight Answer: Forget 2001 Gervase, US foreign policy since 1948 has inflamed Muslim militancy. Muslim militancy regarded 2001 as the year they scored their greatest achievement. Don't for one bloody minute think that Muslim militancy arrived on the worlds doorstep as a result of the election of GWB or as a result of actions taken by him. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world Gervase, it is the second most followed religion in the world after Christianity. And guess what Gervase, by and large very few Muslims are militant, the ones that are tend to be Arab, and what they seek to achieve is the second Caliphate. Ah Gervase, the "racist" card you must be losing it. Or is this another attempt to put words into my mouth? Let's see we've had: • Militant Islam when I only ever mentioned terrorism • Fatwa as a military/political term when I said no such thing • That those PIRA attacks not aimed directly at the security forces on the UK mainland were not acts of terrorism – when I have never said anything of the sort • That the Taleban would actually be quite happy to have Afghanistan become a moderate democracy? - when I have never said anything of the sort • And finally I must be a racist, pathetic really. If you are going to argue the toss stick to what has actually been said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Mar 09 - 09:07 AM It is amazing how some will put the microscope on a single phrase, and then build a whole fantastic contraption argument based on such a small and dubious foundation. Why don't we take a look at whether Hans Blix himself though the invasion was justified? -snip- Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs Monday, March 22, 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time. "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said…. -snip- The full story is here , and it contains numerous direct statements by Blix and El Baradei that make it abundantly clear that one cannot (honestly) use their opinions to support the war. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 09 - 08:31 AM Bobert, As I have stated numerous times, Blix said that Saddam was NOT cooperating on the facts of the matter- ie, what the UNR demanded of him.; "This is perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, ---------------------------------------------------- it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. ---------------------------------------------------- Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions." " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 07:52 AM I've provided my source twice now, bruce... I provided you with it months ago and more recently provided it for T... If you need me to refresh the source, which BTW is from the UN, then let me know... Maybt the 3rd time will be the charm... But if one looks at Blix defining the "process" (not the deatils) of the inspection process and uses "most important" then one would have no other choice but to interpret that as meaning the process was working... In that case the war was unjustifies based on the original reasons we were given for going to war in the first place which, BTW, had nothing to do with creating democracy or getting rid of a "bad man" who tried to kill Bush's daddy or who had gassed the Kurds... Those excuses were not part of the original package... Yo, Gervase... One of T's favorite diversionary tactics is to move the discussion away from the buried bodies (literally) to miscroscopic areas of focus... It really has very little to do with the big picture but if he can get you arguing over how many angels can dance on the end of a pin then he feels that he has qon the arguement... He has yet to respond to the larger question that was posed by me in my first post... That question still remains... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:37 AM " find it curious that just recently on this thread that T's American counterpart, bb, asked me the same question..." Bobert, When I read the reports by Blix, and do not find the statement that you claim is there, I have to either presume you are lying again or that you have some source I do not inside the UN. Thus my question. Should I just presume you are lying again???? The quote I have seen you make is in refernce to only a part of the required cooperation, as I have pointed out. Blix then atates that ""Referring to the vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (such as VX, sarin and anthrax) unresolved when UNSCOM was ejected in 1998, Blix said: "If they exist they must be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented." He continued, "This is perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions." " Did Iraq do so? The answer, according to Blix in several reports the the UN, was NO. Please show me any report where Blix states otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:21 AM Au contraire - in each of the situations you mention you have a resurgent and radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently to resort to violence. In most cases it is the hard-line, anti-Western element - the one which wants to establish the Caliphate - which is doing the running. That is an attitude which has hardened and been easier to promulgate among the young in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. I'm willing to wager that the course of the campaign in Afghanistan would have been entirely different and far more successful had Bush not sent the troops into Iraq. As it is a course of action that I initially supported (albeit with some misgivings, given the historical record of actions in that region) seems to have degenerated into a never-ending exercise in putting fingers into lots of holes in a very large, crumbling dyke, with little chance of success. To a large swathe of the world, the Taleban are the good guys, holding out against the infidel. Why do you think they have attracted volunteers from all over the world? And now, it seems, their brand of militant Islam is spreading. Pakistan's not looking too good at the moment, is it? I am aware of the semantic distinctions you make, old fruit. Fatwa, by the way, is a judicial term, not a military/political term. By that token, are you going to say that those PIRA attacks not aimed directly at the security forces on the UK mainland were not acts of terrorism? Or that the Taleban would actually be quite happy to have Afghanistan become a moderate democracy? Let's have a straight answer to this question: Has US foreign policy since 2001 inflamed or moderated Muslim militancy and has there been an increase or a decrease in terrorism? Or maybe we are seeing a subtle undercurrent of racism in your bluster. Is it because those affected tend not to be white Westerners, that it doesn't matter?. After all, some of these cultures dohave a different attitude to human life, don't they? It's cheaper in hot countries, so who cares if a few ragheads throw a strop. Not our problem, old boy - anyway, they're all cowering in caves in fear of the white man's missiles, aren't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 02:07 AM Your turn for the month of February Gervase - go through your "incidents" and strike off those where there is a clearer cause for the violence. It was you that introduced "militant Islam" to the debate, so perhaps you might research the following terms "Jihad"; "Fatwa" & "Takfir". Militant Islam is promotion of the faith through force, or defence of the faith through force. I'd point out that the "faith" is not under attack in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Where violence is directed against fellow muslims over differing interpretations of Islam that is in fact "Takfir". Al-Qaeda is in Jihad with the "West", primarily the USA. The Taleban as an organisation in Afghanistan are not. Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines will provide examples of militant Islam their principle targets being the RCC in that country, they are promoting their religion by force. In Somalia all you have going on is a "turf" war it has nothing to do with religion, merely a squabble for power. In Iraq you have the dying throws of an insurgency and sectarian attacks, both aimless and both going nowhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:51 PM So, Sunni/Shia attacks have nothing to do with the brand of Islamicism being promulgated? And the Taleban do not have a militant Islamicist agenda at all? "Bugger all to do with militant Islam" is the quote from our resident ISS pundit. Well, we learn something new every day! Watching this man consistently make a complete arse of himself really is the modern equivalent of the 'penny visit' - join the queue and watch through the bars as the mighty Teribus argues that the world is flat and the sun goes round the earth, pounding his keyboard all the more frantically as he gradually loses the plot and lapses into foul-mouthed incoherence. So, another stick through the bars; what do you make of this list of terrorist attacks, this time for February? More than there were in January (oops, sorry - terrorism is on the wane and they're all hiding in caves, aren't they?), but I await your usual forensic excellence with bated breath. The numbers, by the way, mean the same as in the previous post. They are human lives wrecked. A significant majority of the attacks can be linked to militant Islamicist action, but the dancing monkey will, of course, prove otherwise… February 1 3 40 Zhumadian, Henan Province An explosive device detonated outside a hospital in Zhumdian in Henan Province killing 3 people and injuring 40 others according to the Hong Kong Centre and police report four dead and two injured. It is believed someone unhappy with the hospital might be behind the explosion. February 1 1 3 Kabul Insurgents attacked a Nato convoy in Kabul with a suicide bomber resulting in the injuring of two Afghan civilians and a French soldier and the death of the insurgent attacker. February 2 22 8 Tirin Kot, Uruzgan province A suicide bomber in a police uniform in the Southern Afghan province detonated an explosive belt killing himself and 21 other Afghan police recruits and injured 8 others.[30] February 3 4 24 Colombo Rebels detonated a bomb on a bus carrying Sri Lankan soldiers in the capital of Colombo killing four people and injuring twenty-four others as the military continues it's offensive in northern Sri Lanka against Tamil rebels. February 4 1 4 Baghdad A bombing occurred in Western Baghdad killing the son of a Iraqi Sunni Awakening Council member and injuring four other people. February 4 0 1 West Memphis, Arkansas Trent P. Pierce Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board was critically injured in a car bombing that occurred in his drive way. There are reports that he received serious injuries to his abdomen and face, but no internal trauma was reported. No one else was wounded in the blast. February 5 15 15 Khaniqin, Diyala Province A bombing occurred in a restaurant killing fifteen people and injuring fifteen others in Diyala province bordering the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. February 8 2 11 Baghdad A roadside bomb exploded targeting Shiite pilgrims in northern Baghdad killing two and injuring at least eleven others. February 8 1 14 Baghdad An IED exploded in eastern Baghdad after the bombing targeting Shiite pilgrims killing one civilians and injuring fourteen other people. February 8 0 0 Bethlehem, West Bank Palestinians tossed flaming Molotov cocktails at an Israeli bus in the West Bank city of Bethlehem. Minor damage was reported but no injuries were reported in the incident. February 9 30 90 Vishvamadu A female suicide bomber from the LTTE Black Tigers detonated her explosives in a crowd of soldiers and fleeing refugees in northern Sri Lanka as an attempt to cow people into not leaving rebel-held areas of Sri Lanka. Twenty-eight people including eight civilians were reportedly killed and at least ninety others wounded. February 9 0 0 Madrid A van exploded near the offices of construction company Ferrovial and the blast is being blamed on ETA rebels in the Basque Country after two political parties connected to ETA were banned from upcoming regional elections. No one was hurt or killed in the blast. February 9 6 3 Mosul A suicide attacker detonated his explosives by a police check-point killing four American soldiers, their Iraqi translator and injuring two police officers and one civilian. February 11 16 43 Baghdad Two suicide car bombers detonated explosives in SW Baghdad in car lots killing at least 16 people and injuring 43 others. February 11 28 57 Kabul Twenty people were killed along with eight Taliban attackers in Kabul as the insurgents targeted a prison and the nearby Interior ministry. Afghan forces and plain-clothed CIA operatives were able to get control of the situation. February 11 11 15 Mogadishu A suicide bombing killed 11 and wounded 15 African Union peacekeepers. Al-Shabaab militia claimed responsibility for the attack. February 12 4 3 Mosul A car bomb killed four people and injured three in Mosul, Northern Iraq. February 12 3 1 Pattani Province A roadside bomb exploded in Pattani province targeting a police car after it had just completed escorting educators to a school in the insurgent hit south. Three policemen died and a fourth was critically injured. February 13 7 1 Foum Al-Metleg A bomb targeting a civilian mini-van detonated killing all four occupants including a child and a second blast detonated when rescue workers arrived killing two police officers and one firefighter. One other police officer was seriously wounded. February 13 35 65 Karbala A female suicide bomber attacked a procession of Shia pilgrims — many of them women and children — south of Baghdad on Friday, killing 35 people and injuring 65 others, officials said. It was the third straight day of deadly bombings against Shia pilgrims. February 13 0 3 Baghdad An insurgent in eastern Baghdad tossed a grenade at Iraqi forces injuring three police officers in the blast. February 14 0 5 Kandahar City An improvised explosive device or (IED) hit a Canadian military convoy in Afghanistan in Kandahar City leaving four Canadian soldiers and one Afghan interpreter injured. Canadian forces exchanged gunfire with insurgents after the explosion. February 14 1 13 Puliyankulam LTTE rebels tossed a hand grenade into a bus packed with refugees in Northern Sri Lanka killing one civilian and injuring 13 other people. February 15 0 5 Maitum An improvised explosive device detonated in front of a government building housing a gymnasium injuring five people. February 15 0 0 Victorville, California An improvised explosive device went off inside a federal prison in California during a search Saturday, according to federal authorities. No one was injured, the authorities told CNN. The incident happened in the recreation area of the Victorville Federal Penitentiary. Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Traci Billingsley said the device was found by a staff member during a "routine search of inmate property". She said it "detonated upon discovery." February 18 0 0 Athens Two gunmen fired 13 shots into a private T.V studio's compound and tossed in an explosive device before fleeing on two sport motorcycles. No one was hurt or killed in the incident and the bomb failed to explode. February 18 0 0 Zahedan One male attempted to detonated an explosive device inside a mosque in the central city of Zahedan. However he was refused entrance and he headed to a nearby kitchen and placed the explosives down where it detonated. Minor damage was reported but no casualties. February 19 4 2 Balad Ruz Four Iraqi soldiers were killed and two were injured when a roadside bomb exploded in the restive province of Diyala on Thursday, a senior police officer told AFP. The attack took place in Balad Ruz, a town 70 kilometers (44 miles) northeast of Baghdad, said the officer, who asked not to be named. February 20 27 65 Dera Ismail Khan A bombing occurred at a Shiite funeral possession that left 27 people and injured at least 65 other people. February 20 3 2 Baghdad A woman and two children were killed in one explosion and two police officers were wounded in a secondary explosion targeting emergency services. February 21 0 5 Maalot Two rockets were fired from the southern Lebanese city of Tyre injuring three Israeli citizens in Maalot and causing two others to suffer shock. February 22 0 0 Barakaldo A bomb detonated in Basque Country. No injuries were reported. February 22 1 22 Cairo A bomb detonated in medieval Cairo killing a French woman and injuring a number of western tourists and Egyptians.[60] February 22 13 15 Mogadishu Two Al Shabeeb militants in a car detonated a bomb in an AU base, killing eleven peacekeepers from Burundi and injuring fifteen others. February 23 0 0 Lazkao A rucksack packed with around 10kg worth of explosives explodes outside the Basque Socialist Party headquarters in the town after a warning call from ETA. The blast took place at 3:00 am, causing major damage to the local but no injuries were reported. February 24 0 0 Vitoria A bomb explodes in front of a PNV headquarters in Vitoria causing minimal damage and no injuries. February 25 2 8 Kandahar City A motorcycle bomb exploded killing two civilians and injuring eight other people including five ANA soldiers. February 27 0 0 Thoubal district Unknown militants threw bombs into a congressional office resulting in one bomb exploding resulting in significant damage but no injuries or deaths. February 28 4 6 Baghdad A bomb in Sunni western Baghdad left four people including a police officer dead and another six wounded. As an absolute aside, what is interesting about the two months' stats is how active ETA and the Basque separatists remain, and how under-reported this is in the English-language media. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM Heck, we have militant Christains, too... Or at least they profess to be Christains... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 15 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM The problem is not militant Islam but militant Islams. Religion has every bit to do with the carnage in the Mid-east. Of course, the Hindu reaction doesn't help though here we have to see that it is more than one militant Hindu faction as well. As long as American foreign policy is predicated on extirpating all that they don't agree with, they only exacerbate the senseless bloodshed of religious fanaticism from all factions. Iraq and Afghanistan foreign policy at the moment is an exercise in futility. The only outcome is more of the Hobbesian Trap instigated by an irrational Leviathan. The Bush propaganda line that Iraq has somehow improved its situation after innocent civilians have been slaughtered and rendered helpless by meaningless sanctions is risible. In a sense, Bush has slaughtered as many Iraqis as did Saddam if not more. There is no responsible response to this mistake except to pull the armed forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan and admit that it was an egregious error that will go down in the history books. Leaving American soldiers there will mean further bloodshed. After this, an assessment of foreign policy that relies on violence needs to be reexamined and replaced by a rational approach. This would include understanding (not necessarily supporting) the motives of alien cultures and religions, something that Americans and others such as Great Britain have been unwilling to do. Stringsinger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 03:32 PM Ah I see Gervase you say something and it just has to be accepted. Hey pal your contention that the incidents are related to militant Islam - You bloody well prove it, or at least attempt to offer something by way of substantiation. If you cannot do that then sorry I am not prepared to accept your premise. Just a quick run down through your list: Date Dead Injured Incident January 1 4 16 Khar, Bajaur Agency. Militants fired rockets at a civil colony in the Bajaur Agency town of Khar killing four people and injuring 16 others. The attackers were able to get away before police and army officials caught them. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Hardly, muslims killing muslims, care to tell us all how the cause of Islam is furthered by this attack. This district in the FATA of Pakistan is currently being contested by the Pakistani Army and the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the so-called Pakistani Taleban. The town serves as the main Pakistani Army Base in the district. January 2 23 72 Yusufiya. A relative of a Sunni tribal shiek blew himself up at a Sunni gathering south of Baghdad killing 23 people and wounding 72 others, including many of his relatives. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Arab Sunni Muslim kills himself and other Arab Sunni Muslims how is this an example of militant Islam – it could just as well have been a family tiff. January 4 35 79 Baghdad. A suicide bomb blast at a Shite religious shrine in Baghdad has killed at least 35 people and injured 79. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Possibly Arab Sunni Muslim targets a Shia Muslim Shrine in order to kill Arab Shia Muslims – Again does not further the cause of Islam and has all the hallmarks of a straightforward sectarian attack. January 4 7 28 Dera Ismail Khan. Police officers investigating "explosives" in the North-West town of Dera Ismail Khan were attacked by a teenage suicide bomber resulting in the deaths of 7 people and the injuring of another 28. Five policemen are among the dead. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Attack on the police in NWFP town bugger all to do with militant Islam. Since August 2008 the town has been subject to sectarian violence primarily against the Shia community. January 9 12 20 Zaranj,Nimroz. A car bomb in a market place killed 10 civilians and two Afghan police officers and injured at least 20 others. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Attack on Afghan Police Force part of the ongoing Taleban insurgency bugger all to do with militant Islam January 11 3 0 . Suspected Islamic insurgents in Thailand southern provinces shot and killed two Buddhist men and a Muslim woman as they headed to work at a rubber plantation. Police are looking for four gunmen. LINKED Ah Gervase this one is an example of militant Islam and attacks such as these have been common in this part of Thailand for years, they have nothing whatsoever to do with outrage over Afghanistan or Iraq. January 12 9 18 Baghdad Three explosions in Baghdad in a market, at a checkpoint and a military patrol resulted in the deaths of at least 9 Iraqis and the injuring of 18 others. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Bugger all to do with militant Islam this is a Taleban attack on a military check point carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 14 1 15 Bugti colony, Sui A remote control triggered explosive detonated in Sui province killing one man and injuring 15 others including ten Pakistani soldiers. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Ah so the Baluchi Liberation Army had nothing to do with this then Gervase?? Nothing whatsoever to do with militant Islam but a hell of a lot to do with nationalistic aspirations of the Baluchi people. Their primary "beef" with the Government of Pakistan is that the latter put a pipeline through their land and the locals are deriving very little benefit - This is about money not religion. January 15 6 2 Bardhere Town A remote controlled landmine detonated in Bardhere town killing a militia commander and three other Somali militiamen and two civilians while injuring two more civilians in an attack blamed on Islamist rebels. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Assassination Gervase, carried out as part of internal struggle for power in Somalia, nothing to do with militant Islam. January 17 6 19 Kabul A suicide car bomber in Kabul killed one U.S serviceman 4 civilians and himself and wounded 19 others in Kabul. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Taleban attack on US military personnel carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 18 5 20 Qaiyara A Sunni political leader was killed along with four other people and at least 20 other people were wounded in a suicide bombing in the northern community of Qaiyara. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Sectarian attack in Iraq. January 18 0 4 Herat A bridge was blown up by Taliban insurgents wounding four Afghan civilians as foreign troops were apparently going over the bridge. No foreign fatalities or injuries reported. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Failed Taleban attack on ISAF military personnel carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 20 2 2 Kandahar A bicycle bomb exploded killing two Afghan police officers and wounding two more people. Taleban attack on Afghan Police Force personnel carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 21 4 10 Baghdad Ziyad al-Ain, a dean of Baghdad's Islamic University and the Iraqi Under-secretary for the Education Ministry, Ammar Aziz Mohammed Ali, survived a car bomb but four others including a woman and a child were killed and ten others injured. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Sectarian assassination attempt January 24 14 30 Mogadishu A car bomb exploded in Mogadishu killing 15 civilians and one Somali policemen. The bomb was meant for AU peacekeepers but policemen noticed the suspicious vehicle and fired several shots at the driver resulting in the vehicle crashing short of its target and exploding. At least 30 others were wounded. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Failed attack on AU troops as part of ongoing internal violence in Somalia, a squabble for power that has got nothing to do with militant Islam January 24 6 13 Jarma A car bomb exploded north of Baghdad killing five police officers and the suicide car bomber and injured 13 others just a week before provincial elections in Iraq. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Politically motivated attack nothing to do with militant Islam January 24 0 0 Kidapawan City Two men tossed a grenade into a church grounds in the city of Kidapawan City in insurgency hit southern Philippines and it exploded causing some damage. No injuries or deaths were reported in the incident. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Inconclusive as no organization has claimed responsibility for this "attack" on a grave yard, so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for linking this to militant Islamists. January 26 2 6 Katahariya village A bomb hanging from a tree at the Katahariya village local market exploded killing one person and injuring two other people seriously. The Tarai Army has claimed responsibility for the blast. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Terai Army is an underground militant movement fighting for the rights and greater autonomy of Nepal's minority Madhesi people who are primarily Hindus. Again I'd be interested in your reasoning for linking this to militant Islamists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 09 - 11:01 AM Any references that yer gonna see outta T, Gervase, will be bogus rightie blog proclamations that have little or no factual basis... On the other thread we are now hearing the very latest rightie blog-o-crap with the unsubstantuated number of people who were datained as "enemy comabatants" who have returned supposedly to jihad... Complete mythology but everytime I hear the number being thrown out by the Bushite/warmongers it's a different number picked purely out of the sky... But then again T has never been too good with either reality or numbers... But he'll say that my claim that upwards of a million Iraqis have been killed by this war... And even when I furnish my source he will say that my source is bogus... Yeah, he'll pick some rightie blog-o-crap number but poopoo John Hopkins??? Hmmmmmmm???? Noted PHDs on one side v. a bunch of pissed off Republican warmongers on the other??? This ain't rocket surgery... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM Tell you what - you do it - and cite references please, giving the qualifications of the relevant analyst. Use one side of the paper only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 07:36 AM OK Gervase - go back down through your list and see how many of your "LINKED" incidents can also be attributed to motives other than militant Islam i.e. sectarian, nationalistic, insurgent action, civil war, etc. The fact that a great number of those committing the acts are Muslim does not necessarily mean that militant Islam is the driver. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 07:12 AM You're being selective there, Teribus (no surprises there, of course!). At least half of those incidents can be blamed on militant Islam, and the Iraq misadventure has poured petrol on the flames. Discount Iraq and Afghanistan? That's a bit like looking at PIRA murders and discounting those that happened in Northern Ireland, you clot. OK, How about a bit of cut and paste – giving just the January attacks? Twenty-five of them; eighteen of which can be linked to militant Islamic factions. Nice to know terrorism is on the wane, eh? Just because the US and the UK hasn't been attacked for a while doesn't mean that terrorism has gone away. Date Dead Injured Incident January 1 5 50 Guwahati, Assam. Police are blaming a insurgent group in Assam for three explosions early on New Year's Day that killed 5 people and injured 50 others. The United Liberation Front of Asom has been waging a low level insurgency for two decades in the province leaving at least 10,000 people dead. This comes just after the Mumbai attacks. January 1 4 16 Khar, Bajaur Agency. Militants fired rockets at a civil colony in the Bajaur Agency town of Khar killing four people and injuring 16 others. The attackers were able to get away before police and army officials caught them. LINKED January 2 23 72 Yusufiya. A relative of a Sunni tribal shiek blew himself up at a Sunni gathering south of Baghdad killing 23 people and wounding 72 others, including many of his relatives. LINKED January 2 4 37 Colombo. Hours after the capture of the Tamil Tigers capital in northern Sri Lanka a suicide bomber in Colombo struck killing three security officers and himself and wounding an additional 37 others.[4] January 3 0 3 Colombo. A bomb blast outside a mosque in Colombo has injured three people. January 4 35 79 Baghdad. A suicide bomb blast at a Shite religious shrine in Baghdad has killed at least 35 people and injured 79.LINKED January 4 7 28 Dera Ismail Khan. Police officers investigating "explosives" in the North-West town of Dera Ismail Khan were attacked by a teenage suicide bomber resulting in the deaths of 7 people and the injuring of another 28. Five policemen are among the dead. LINKED January 5 0 1 Athens. Police guarding the Cultural Ministry in Athens were attacked by gunfire. This comes nearly a month after riots began over the killing of a 15 year old boy by Athens Police. The unit targetted was a riot squad unit and one policeman was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Three people were arrested a short time later. January 8 1 2 Khuzdar, Balochistan. One person was killed and two others injured in an bomb incident. The bomb had been placed on a sitting motorcycle and there is no information on who committed the act. January 9 12 20 Zaranj,Nimroz. A car bomb in a market place killed 10 civilians and two Afghan police officers and injured at least 20 others. LINKED January 11 3 0 . Suspected Islamic insurgents in Thailand southern provinces shot and killed two Buddhist men and a Muslim woman as they headed to work at a rubber plantation. Police are looking for four gunmen. LINKED January 12 9 18 Baghdad Three explosions in Baghdad in a market, at a checkpoint and a military patrol resulted in the deaths of at least 9 Iraqis and the injuring of 18 others. LINKED January 14 1 15 Bugti colony, Sui A remote control triggered explosive detonated in Sui province killing one man and injuring 15 others including ten Pakistani soldiers. LINKED January 15 6 2 Bardhere Town A remote controlled landmine detonated in Bardhere town killing a militia commander and three other Somali militiamen and two civilians while injuring two more civilians in an attack blamed on Islamist rebels. LINKED January 17 0 0 Hernani, Basque Country A blast went off at a television station in Hernani causing damage but no injuries. ETA is blamed for the attack. January 17 6 19 Kabul A suicide car bomber in Kabul killed one U.S serviceman 4 civilians and himself and wounded 19 others in Kabul. LINKED January 18 5 20 Qaiyara A Sunni political leader was killed along with four other people and at least 20 other people were wounded in a suicide bombing in the northern community of Qaiyara. LINKED January 18 0 4 Herat A bridge was blown up by Taliban insurgents wounding four Afghan civilians as foreign troops were apparently going over the bridge. No foreign fatalities or injuries reported. LINKED January 20 2 2 Kandahar A bicycle bomb exploded killing two Afghan police officers and wounding two more people. January 21 4 10 Baghdad Ziyad al-Ain, a dean of Baghdad's Islamic University and the Iraqi Under-secretary for the Education Ministry, Ammar Aziz Mohammed Ali, survived a car bomb but four others including a woman and a child were killed and ten others injured.LINKED January 24 14 30 Mogadishu A car bomb exploded in Mogadishu killing 15 civilians and one Somali policemen. The bomb was meant for AU peacekeepers but policemen noticed the suspicious vehicle and fired several shots at the driver resulting in the vehicle crashing short of its target and exploding. At least 30 others were wounded. LINKED January 24 6 13 Jarma A car bomb exploded north of Baghdad killing five police officers and the suicide car bomber and injured 13 others just a week before provincial elections in Iraq. LINKED January 24 0 0 Kidapawan City Two men tossed a grenade into a church grounds in the city of Kidapawan City in insurgency hit southern Philippines and it exploded causing some damage. No injuries or deaths were reported in the incident. LINKED January 26 2 6 Katahariya village A bomb hanging from a tree at the Katahariya village local market exploded killing one person and injuring two other people seriously. The Tarai Army has claimed responsibility for the blast. LINKED January 27 2 5 Kissufim A bombing by Palestinian militants at the Kissufim crossing killing one Israeli soldier and injured three others. Israeli soldiers invaded Gaza to find the bombers but withdrew after a short time when their operation was not successful. In retaliation Israeli forces later shot and killed a Palestinian farmer and wounded two other Palestinian civilians, a second terrorist incident connected to the first. January 28 2 4 Bogota An explosion in a two-story building in Bogota has killed 2 people and injured at least four others. January 30 0 10 Davao City Communist rebels set off a landmine by a military convoy in Davao City and then attacked a police station with gunfire resulting in the injuring of ten people, but no fatalities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:13 AM Gervase, just a small point I know but: "Decades ago? Has militant Islam really been at it that long?" - Gervase Where and when have I mentioned militant Islam?? I have mentioned terrorism and referred to terrorist attacks, but not militant Islam. Oh first entry from your link: "January 1 - 5 Dead, 50 injured, Guwahati, Assam: Police are blaming a insurgent group in Assam for three explosions early on New Year's Day that killed 5 people and injured 50 others. The United Liberation Front of Asom has been waging a low level insurgency for two decades in the province leaving at least 10,000 people dead. This comes just after the Mumbai attacks." Read the second last sentence of that entry very carefully: "The United Liberation Front of Asom has been waging a low level insurgency for two decades in the province leaving at least 10,000 people dead." Did you see that word "DECADES" Gervase?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 03:58 AM Teribus. Decades ago? Has militant Islam really been at it that long? I must be mistaken then. I thought the PFLP, PLO and similar outrages (not to mention PIRA and ETA) were more to do with nationhood rather than religion. Religious terrorism has risen. Or are you going to say black is white and deny that? Why not go the whole hog and say the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it. Go on, you know you want to! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: cobra Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:22 PM Oh dear.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:03 PM "typos" Bobert - how the fuck would you know?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:17 PM Yer gettin' to him, Grevase... 2 typos in 3 sentences = T is rattled... Keep poundin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:08 PM Gervase your analysis of the questions I posed cannot be answered by the word bollocks - excuse me dearheart but that that smacks of complete refusal to face reality. As for your list of terrorist "outrages" having read through them eliminate those directly connected to Afghanistan and Iraq and I could have given you that same list decades ago. Terrorism id flourishing - my arse it is. hey Gervase they're hiding out in cavbes for fucks sake afraid to go outside and look up at the sun for fear that the next hour will place a Hellfire missile will deliver them to purgatory where they belong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 09 - 06:54 PM He won't read it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 14 Mar 09 - 06:22 PM Merciful heavens, you really do have too much time on your hands, don't you? Your replies have all the hallmarks of the obsessive/compulsive rebutter. Your analysis is still bollocks, however. Tell me, old fruit, how much has terrorism gone down in Pakistan? Or Iraq? Or Egypt? Or the Phillipines? Or Afghanistan? Or Somalia? Or the UK, come to that? Your really are living in a parallel universe! Have a look here for just the first ten weeks of 2009. I would cut and paste it, as that seems to be your preferred technique, but you seem to get out so little that a little exercise of the mousing fingers might do you some good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM Apologies Barry I forgot to answer your post. "So now we have these new reasons that brought us into the war T? Or to justify it?" No Barry, those are not new reasons that brought us into the war, they are not mentioned to justify the decision to invade Iraq in any way, shape or form. The following occurred as a direct result of the United States of America adopting the posture it did with regard to Iraq from 2002 onwards: 1. Libya completely abandons its WMD programmes including a hitherto unknown nuclear weapons programme. 2. Exposure of the Libyan nuclear weapons programme reveals a hitherto unknown, secret and highly illegal network run by a Pakistani, Dr.A.Q.Khan, whose purpose is the sale and proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and components. The links and activities of this organization extend from Pakistan to Malaya, Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. 3. Due to the exposure of Khan's network North Korean activities in the sale and supply of components and technology are brought to an end. The North Koreans are forced to attend six-party talks to discuss their own nuclear programme which they agree to dismantle. 4. Due to the exposure of Khan's network and disclosure by a dissident group in Iran exposing the hitherto secret uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and the secret heavy water facility at Arak, Iran suspends but does not abandon its nuclear weapons programme (according to NIE Report). Iran's nuclear programme put under the spotlight by IAEA and the international community as a whole. 5. Syria is forced to comply with UN Resolutions calling for an end to its 27 year long occupation of Lebanon, thereby enhancing Lebanon's chances of peace stability and self-determination. Due to exposure of Khan's network links between Iran, Syria and North Korea are identified and investigated. It is as yet undisclosed as to whether those links are related to rocket technology, or whether they are related to nuclear weapons. A secret Syrian facility located close to the Turkish border is raided by Israeli commandos and destroyed by aerial attack. Syrian protests are "muted" and the site of the building is surgically cleared and sanitized by the Syrians before IAEA inspectors are allowed access. Several North Korean technicians die in the attack. 6. Due to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power the number of known state sponsors of international terrorist organizations was reduced by one. Incidence of suicide bombings inside Israel plummeted. All of the above, as previously stated, came about as a direct or indirect result of the US invasion of Iraq. All post date 9/11 and subsequent action taken in Afghanistan to drive the Taleban from power. Barry asks: "What second Iran/Iraq War? When did that happen?" Saddam Hussein if left in place with UN sanctions lifted, or merely ignored, would never have tolerated any Iranian nuclear programme irrespective of its purpose. Saddam Hussein if left in place would have done everything in his power to destroy that Iranian nuclear programme and France, Russia and China would have done everything in their power to assist him. Nothing like getting paid by both sides in a conflict to maximize the profit margin. Ah Barry so the Israeli "nukes" are the root cause of the trouble in the middle-east are they? All will be well when all the countries and combatant organizations have "nukes" will it? Barry, not even the Russians, at the height of the "Cold War", were f**king stupid enough to even remotely promise any Arab country access to nuclear weapons, let alone let them develop them independently. There will be peace in the middle-east when attacks on Israel and Israeli citizens stop – and that could happen tomorrow if the protagonists decided upon it and agreed it. "your economy went under because your banks and lending institutions lent money to people who could not pay it back, plain and simple. Those people should never have been lent the money in the first place." - teribus "True T, but had we not blown (How Many) billions on the war we would've been in a far better position to weather out the storm." – Barry No buts Barry, people were given loans by banks and lending institutions who should never have been given loans in the first place. The reason that those people were given loans was because the banks and lending institutions had been, fraudulently in my opinion, given reason to believe by mortgage brokers that the loans would be guaranteed by the Federal Bank. Of course they weren't, so when people started to default on their repayments the banks went to the mortgage brokers and the Federal bank said "Nothing to do with us" and that is when the shit hit the fan. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Government, the war, or any other Government spending programme. Tell me Barry where terrorism has flourished?? Asking me about my domestic arrangements does not answer my question – As it happens I do not live in a cave, but I can give you the names of a few who do, and they have to change them every night. Health care Barry?? Simple as I've said all YOU and your fellow citizens have got to do is vote for it and pay the f**kin' cost of it. There is no such thing as "Government" money, its your money, its tax money, if you want something then pay for it and stop whinging about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:47 AM Ari said (11 March 2009): "After September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance Saddam might not strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed, and I think we're all safer with that threat being removed." I'll tell you what speaks to the heart of the problem Ron, you credit Americans with, and believe that they must have, the attention span of Goldfish in order to swallow the rubbish that you have just written. Can you tell me why you and Amos have taken two sentences and placed them for analysis in splendid isolation, blithely ignoring everything that has happened over the past eight years, and, everything that has been previously said on the subject? Ari's word formulation is poor only if you do as you have done, and what Amos rather clumsily tried to do. I must say though that I would have phrased it differently if I were to try and say the same thing. However GWB put it better in his SOTU Speech when the potential threat posed by Saddam's Iraq was described, so did Bill Clinton in an Address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon on 17th February 1998: 1. "Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes." – GWB 28th January, 2003 2. "Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." – WJC 17th February, 1998. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:40 AM "Saddam left in place was a guarantee of continued unimaginable suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential – for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans. "for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans."???? Maybe Iraqis! What second Iran/Iraq War? When did that happen? "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened, i.e. exposure and shutting down of this network been of any significant benefit to mankind?" & •"When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?" So now we have these new reasons that brought us into the war T? Or to justify it? Peace in the Middle East won't happen while 1st, Israel remains the only nation in the area that has nukes (why is it ok for them?) & 2nd while they continue to blockade the peace process. There'll be no rest in the mid east untill this conflict is settled 1st! •No, your economy went under because your banks and lending institutions lent money to people who could not pay it back, plain and simple. Those people should never have been lent the money in the first place. True T, but had we not blown (How Many) billions on the war we would've been in a far better position to weather out the storm. The care for the Vets alone for the next half century is enough to cripple our existing health care system as well as cause the flood banks to overflow. "terrorism has flourished" Has it Barry?? Where?? You've got to be kidding???? Do you live in a cave? "Psssst Barry, I'll let you into a little secret, you can pass it on to Barack Obama. The US can have the greatest universal free health care system in the world tomorrow if it wants it. All you need to do is start paying $4-$5 per gallon for your petrol and diesel. Problem solved." T, I'm thinking that you should tell Obama yourself, you've had it all worked out right from jump street. You should run for his office, I'm sure that there are so many who believe as you do that you'll get a vote or 2. NOT Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Mar 09 - 10:14 PM I will not get sucked into another huge Iraq sinkhole of wasted time. Teribus has already proven he always looks for the most unseaworthy vessel, then lashes himself to the mast. But this speaks to the heart of the problem. Teribus has glossed over Amos' quote of Ari Fleischer. Pity--since it shows quite clearly how much Teribus knows about the issue--which seems to be, almost 6 years after the crucial events, exactly what he knew in 2003--a bit less than nothing. Ari said (11 March 2009).: "After September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance Saddam might not strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed, and I think we're all safer with that threat being removed." First, the stupid formulation--Ari actually meant exactly the opposite of what he said. He actually meant we could not take the chance Saddam might strike again. The extra "not" makes his sentence supremely idiotic. Unless he wanted Saddam to strike. Which he possibly did not. OK. Now to the sense as he meant it: after September 11, having been hit once, could we take a chance Saddam might strike again? Teribus says he completely understands "what he saying there (sic)..." Somehow, I doubt it. "September 11"--the attack by (mostly Saudi) terrorists--no Iraqis. Certainly nobody sponsored by Saddam Understand, Teribus? "Saddam"--he was the dictator of Iraq until the 2003 war was over. Understand, Teribus? "again"--that means a second time Understand, Teribus? The word "again" in this sentence refers to Sept 11. Sept 11 would be the first attack. Understand, Teribus? So Ari is saying we could not take the chance Saddam would attack us again, as Saddam did Sept 11. Which is a blatant lie. And also the foundation of Bush's Iraq propaganda campaign. Which obviously Ari-- long after the alleged connection between Saddam and Sept 11 has been exhaustively exposed as a despicable lie-- is still trying to spread. And that's fine with Teribus. Since, virtually alone among sentient beings, he still believes it. So it seems that Teribus has proven beyond doubt, not only that he has not the foggiest notion of anything Ari said in that quote- from the start to the end , but that he refuses to even try to understand. Though Teribus claims to have noticed the 2009 date of the quote, he obviously has learned precisely nothing in almost 6 years. Proving, if proof were necessary, that he is an excellent candidate for the easiest mark for propaganda since the 3rd Reich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 13 Mar 09 - 10:04 PM "T-zer, T-Bird, T-Bollocks... I kinda like T-Bollocks... Has that nice ring to it..." - Bobert "Name calling belongs in the school-yard, not in serious debate; it is a useful indication of the mental level of the person who indulges in it," - Courtesy of Jim Carroll Kinda apt - thanks Jim. |
