escalation of violence in the middle east
Censorship, Lies from both ends, etc. keep coming in. The only truth is the escalation of violence and increase in body bag count.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=9545
With the US military vowing to destroy all 'bad' people, the future of Iraq seems bleak.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...Y&refer=europe
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_915365.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=9545
With the US military vowing to destroy all 'bad' people, the future of Iraq seems bleak.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...Y&refer=europe
Quote:
Marines and gunmen were engaged in heavy battles in the Dubat neighbourhood on the eastern side of Fallujah and elsewhere in the city, witnesses said.
Warplanes opened fire on groups of Iraqis in the street. Rocket-propelled grenade fire set a US Humvee ablaze, wounding soldiers inside, witnesses said. Mosques in the city called for holy war, against Americans. Some gunmen in the street were seen carrying mortars, and some women carried automatic weapons
Marines and gunmen were engaged in heavy battles in the Dubat neighbourhood on the eastern side of Fallujah and elsewhere in the city, witnesses said.
Warplanes opened fire on groups of Iraqis in the street. Rocket-propelled grenade fire set a US Humvee ablaze, wounding soldiers inside, witnesses said. Mosques in the city called for holy war, against Americans. Some gunmen in the street were seen carrying mortars, and some women carried automatic weapons
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_915365.html
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
I'd assume that both sides have a strategy and that this festival has been taken into consideration.
Yea, might be. But whether this festival has a role in the strategies or not; I'm supporting segovius' opinion that this offensive was/is a mistake by the U.S..
I just heard that there was an aerial attack on a mosque in Fallujah today... man, are they crazy?
There already is a pretty strong anti-american sentiment along the Islamic population of the middle-east; and now the U.S. military is attacking their holy sites...
Sorry, but I have gotten tired of it all.
This is the ultimate test for the U.S. and our forces in Iraq and in the Middle East. We can't turn back. Our administration won't allow that. We can't retaliate with extreme force either.
Let's hope for the best...what am I saying?!
When you've got a common enemy, you tend to forget old wounds. The occupation forces are in for some heavy fighting.
edit: here's an article talking about the mess in the Shiite region of Karbala.
I heard a report on NPR yesterday with a statement from al-Sadr. He said that they will continue to fight until 2 things are accomplished:
1) The coalition forces stop killing civilians in residential areas and they leave those areas (I'm concerned that this is purportedly going on. Truth or not, people don't like hearing that innocents are being killed and I'm sure the Iraqis are no different in that regard).
2) The forces release Iraqi detainees.
These seem like not unreasonable requests. The second one seems odd coming from the Shiite side of the fence (the Ba'ath party was Sunni). I get the sneaking suspicion we're not being told the whole story by our Fearless Leader.
Originally posted by tonton
Gee... who'd have thought!? Bombing and murdering doesn't bring peace? It creates (or motivates) even more terrorists? What a concept!
Terrorists? They're called terrorists because they're fighting for what they think is best for THEIR country? I'd call them rebels at the very worst. "Freedom fighters" if we agree with them.
tonton, I'm not meaning to call into question your beliefs about this war. They are clear (and we agree). I'm just pointing out the language you used is indicative of the spin we're getting on this issue.
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
...
In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.
...
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
...
Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm
I make a prediction...
The death toll of American soldiers will reach 1,000 by the end of April or early May. If this occurs we will either
a.) extend the hand-over another month or two...or three...
b.) pull out and let the UN or the Iraqis bicker it out.
c.) carpet bomb Iraq into a parking lot. (least likely)
None, absolutely none of this is good for Arbusto and the adminstration.
Where is the victory in any of this?
... American military commanders and civilian officials have said they plan to move slowly in carrying out any action against Mr. Sadr, fearing that his arrest or death could inflame opposition to the foreign occupation
This is a very serious topic, but nevertheless I had to laugh when I read this part... "fearing... inflame opposition" - as if that hadn't already happened days ago...
Council members appealing to small factions with patronage appointments while simultaneously alienating other factions, standing militias that go unremarked (free to abuse fellow Iraqis) until they cause trouble for the "coaltion" forces, strategic positioning with an eye to power in a future government....
I wonder how many of the war boosters know who is on the Council and how they are perceived by the countrymen they ostensibly have sway over? I know that Chabli is generally regarded as a criminal and opportunistic puppet of the US. For all the "strategic" news out of Iraq, where is the reporting on who these people are? Seems like it might matter.
And how is "good guys" and "bad guys", which is the only distinction the military can afford to make (as in who is shooting at me and who is not) going to untie this knot?
It's as if the Bush administration, having no knowlege of the history, politics or religous nuances in Iraq, just decided to let our military keep shooting until something emerges as the "winner", at which point I suppose we'll tap them on the shoulder and say "you're it" and get the hell out.
Originally posted by addabox
Reading Riverbend's blog I'm struck by how there is so much more to this than "good guys" and "bad guys" (when did that terminology grow so common?).
Weird. Was just there...everybody should read this...
It's like the first few days of occupation again?
"Falloojeh has been cut off from the rest of Iraq for the last three days. It's terrible. They've been bombing it constantly and there are dozens dead. Yesterday they said that the only functioning hospital in the city was hit by the Americans and there's no where to take the wounded except a meager clinic that can hold up to 10 patients at a time. There are over a hundred wounded and dying and there's nowhere to bury the dead because the Americans control the area surrounding the only graveyard in Falloojeh; the bodies are beginning to decompose in the April heat. The troops won't let anyone out of Falloojeh and they won't let anyone into it either- the people are going to go hungry in a matter of days because most of the fresh produce is brought from outside of the city. We've been trying to call a friend who lives there for three days and we can't contact him."
__________________________________________________ __________
"It's like the first few days of occupation again? it's a nightmare and everyone is tense. My cousin and his family are staying with us for a few days because his wife hates to be alone at home with the kids. It's a relief to have them with us. We all sit glued to the television- flipping between Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabia, CNN, BBC and LBC, trying to figure out what is going on. The foreign news channels are hardly showing anything. They punctuate dazzling reportages on football games and family pets with a couple of minutes worth of footage from Iraq showing the same faces running around in a frenzy of bombing and gunfire and then talk about 'Al-Sadr the firebrand cleric', not mentioning the attacks by the troops in Ramadi, Falloojeh, Nassriyah, Baghdad, Koufa, etc."
Real news, fair and unbiased...
And...throwing bombs or missiles into a crowded place of worship does not constituite 'legitimate military action'. It sounds just like another act of terrorism in the long sequence that started as a result of the Iraq war.
Relax, the sky is not falling.
Originally posted by segovius Actually - this is interesting reportage and prima facie evidence (imo) that the BBC and other news agencies are just regurgitating news reports emanating from some US 'ministry of truth'.
Viz: compound - wtf is a mosque compound ???? There's no such thing - so why do several reports from differing agencies all use the same word ?
Answer: because it sounds like a military target and they are too cowardly to tell it like it is: we attacked a mosque. That's what happened. There was no compound. There are no compounds in mosques.[/B]
Silly conspiracies and word games.
We blew the crap out of churches in WWI & WWII too.
If you have weapons and hide in a place of worship, you die. Period.
No more playing games. They need to see that no amount of hostages, no amount of hiding behind religious symbols will be tolerated.
Fire weapons from a mosque, you will be blown to bits in that mosque. Even if innocent civilians die next to you. Same goes for anyone in any religious structure. Fire from it, you'll get fired upon and then some.
Until these Radical Islamists learn (are taught) that they cannot continue to fight their war by hiding amongst civilians and hiding in mosques then they will continue to do so, at the peril of our troops safety and the local innocent civilians.
At some point in history, this crap of suicide bombs, etc. will not be viable----as one force extends control another force will attempt to counteract that control. You can call it running out of patience, bombing mosques, whatever---but the tactics and terror that these people are subjecting the world to, are not going to be viable in the long term.
Also, if you think that Bushco, or anyone with a pulse would imagine that going into Iraq would not bring out every murderous thug within a 1,000 mile radius, you are kidding yourselves.
Fire weapons from a mosque, you will be blown to bits in that mosque. Even if innocent civilians die next to you.
you make me vomit
Nothing stopping US Forces surrounding it, cutting it off, using snipers etc. but no, why not just nuke the whole country, and if a 'few' civilians die too FVCK EM shoulda known better than to fail to stop armed men barging their way in...
Originally posted by Zarathustra
johnq you make me vomit
Nothing stopping US Forces surrounding it, cutting it off, using snipers etc. but no, why not just nuke the whole country, and if a 'few' civilians die too FVCK EM shoulda known better than to fail to stop armed men barging their way in...
If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it.
But, being the cowards that they are, they intentionally "melted away" and put up (again) nearly no actual military resistance on the battlefield, instead choosing to fight in the cities and mosques amongst the civilians, dressed as civilians.
They are USING you, liberals and the press, as their weapons. They want YOU to protest over the civilian loss of life that they are allowing/causing to happen. They want YOU to oust Bush and have the troops leave, but only after they have forced the U.S. to shoot into mosques and after the insurgents have blown up civilians using suicide mobs and car bombs.
Their tactic is to cause outrage!
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it! The onus is on the Iraqi militants to not hide amongst civilians and mosques.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
johnq you make me vomit
Nothing stopping US Forces surrounding it, cutting it off, using snipers etc. but no, why not just nuke the whole country, and if a 'few' civilians die too FVCK EM shoulda known better than to fail to stop armed men barging their way in...
I make you vomit?
Because I am against Iraqi insurgents desecrating mosques by using them for cover?
Because I'm against the Iraqi insurgents' tactic of shooting at U.S. troops from within crowds of unarmed civilians?
Because I'm against the Iraqi insurgents' tactic of using suicide bombs to try to cause havoc and civil war between religious/political factions?
Because I want peace to reign and the U.S. troops to never have to go there again?
Because I am impatient with the cowardly tactics of the Iraqi insurgents, which puts civilians and religious structures in peril?
If you think for one second, that any building of wood or stone, be it a cathedral in France or a mosque in Fallujah, should at all be allowed to slow the inevitable progress towards peace and eradication of a militant ideology be it National Socialism or Radical Islamicism, then you are welcome to vomit all you like.
Originally posted by johnq
If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it.
But, being the cowards that they are, they intentionally "melted away" and put up (again) nearly no actual military resistance on the battlefield, instead choosing to fight in the cities and mosques.
They are USING you, liberals and the press, as their weapons. They want YOU to protest over the civilian loss of life that they are allowing/causing to happen. They want YOU to oust Bush and have the troops leave, but only after they have forced the U.S. to shoot into mosques and after the insurgents have blown up civilians using suicide mobs and car bombs.
Their tactic is to cause outrage!
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it! The onus is on the Iraqi militants to not hide amongst civilians and mosques.
Oh good, we're back to liberals = pro terrorist.
You and DMZ are now casually conflating international terrorism with Iraqi insurgents. The idea that we have to teach "these people" a "lesson" "by any means necessary" is grotesque.
"These people" are Iraqis. They've gone from "dead-enders" to "Saddam loyalists" to "Baathist hold-outs" to "foreign fighters" to "terrorists" to "Islamic extremists". Anything to keep from saying "Iraqis".
Is it the entire population? Of course not. But it is a substanial percentage, and growing. What is the moral calculus of invading a country to "liberate" a people and subsequently declaring a fair number of them "the enemy"? What is the "humanitarian" content of calling for the death of civilians because that's what it takes to "get the job done", because no injury to the US can go unpunished?
Can't you see what's happening? The benevolent face of this occupation is being ripped away to reveal the truth, the same old truth of American power.
F*ck with the bull, you get the horn.
Originally posted by addabox
F*ck with the bull, you get the horn.
---regardless if that is the case---these primitve responses to the march of History will eventually find themselves under the Black Flag.
It's only a matter of time.