Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Suicide bombs

There are increasing incidents of explosion every where in Iraq. We usually heard that it was a suicide bomb by a terrorist aiming to kill innocent Iraqis!!!
At the start we used to believe that story. But when think about it logically, we find it unbelievable. Why a person who have a goal to kick the occupiers out of his own country, did hurt his own citizens leaving the occupiers safe.
One of the Iraqi bloggers write some thing worth reading:
"One of the larger blasts was in an area called Ma'moun, which is a middle class area located in west Baghdad. It’s a relatively calm residential area with shops that provide the basics and a bit more. It happened in the morning, as the shops were opening up for their daily business and it occurred right in front of a butchers shop. Immediately after, we heard that a man living in a house in front of the blast site was hauled off by the Americans because it was said that after the bomb went off, he sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman.

I didn’t think much about the story- nothing about it stood out: an explosion and a sniper- hardly an anomaly. The interesting news started circulating a couple of days later. People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.

The bombs are mysterious. Some of them explode in the midst of National Guard and near American troops or Iraqi Police and others explode near mosques, churches, and shops or in the middle of sougs. One thing that surprises us about the news reports of these bombs is that they are inevitably linked to suicide bombers. The reality is that some of these bombs are not suicide bombs- they are car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs. All we know is that the techniques differ and apparently so do the intentions. Some will tell you they are resistance. Some say Chalabi and his thugs are responsible for a number of them. Others blame Iran and the SCIRI militia Badir.

In any case, they are terrifying. If you're close enough, the first sound is a that of an earsplitting blast and the sounds that follow are of a rain of glass, shrapnel and other sharp things. Then the wails begin- the shrill mechanical wails of an occasional ambulance combined with the wail of car alarms from neighboring vehicles… and finally the wail of people trying to sort out their dead and dying from the debris."



This with similar accidents of explosions in areas where it is almost impossible for the resistance to reach and plant their roadside bombs, make one believe in the assumption that there are other hands which did those terrorism for other purposes than to resist the occupation.

319 comments:

1 – 200 of 319   Newer›   Newest»
Don Cox said...

I think the purpose is to bring down the elected government rather than to attack the Americans. Otherwise, why so many attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure? If the country can be reduced to chaos, then the Baathists or the Islamists can hope to grab power.

Moron99 said...

The so called insurgents were shooting mortars at the Tharthar dam. If they break the dam, Iraq loses 1/3 of its electricity. Insurgent planners may consider it worth destroying, but one has to wonder what would happen to all the people who live downstream.

Zaeqawi recently issued a statement in which he said that it was okay to kill civillians.

Truth, what an ironic name. First you put forth that only a few thousand Kurds were murdered by Saddam's regime and insinuated that it was their own fault. Now you put forth that it is not the insurgents targeting innocent Iraqis. I do not think you seek the truth. I think you seek to create something and have it pass for the truth.

Anonymous said...

Oh my God, this blog is becoming a parody of itself.

Truth Teller,

You're right. It's the Americans "planting" the suicide bombs. The "resistance" is not involved in such atrocities. Zarqawi does not exist. He is an elaborate plot. His recent statements about suicide bombings and civilians are a hoax. All the stories about Saudis celebrated in their hometowns after "martyring" themseves in a suicide bomb attack are hoaxes. It's all an elaborate plot. You found us out.

Are you happy now? Does your world make perfect sense to you now?

...make one believe in the assumption that there are other hands which did those terrorism for other purposes than to resist the occupation.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

In a roundabout way, you are starting to understand the true nature of the "resistance" you laud. They have "other purposes" than resisting the occupation. And, no, it's not Americans planting the bombs. So what conclusion will you draw?

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, I still have faith you may arrive at a correct answer.

the real truth teller said...

Hey Baathi Lies Teller,

Read this and this; and tell your riverbend friend that her dady Saddam is washing his underpants by hand and pissing himself :-)))

Anonymous said...

Hey, if it's the Americans planting the "suicide bombs" why not just send the Giant Spiders to attack them? That'll stop them!

strykerdad said...

Rumor had it that you were a reasonable man with honest observations--it became obvious to me long ago that you are a liar in the best traditions of the Saddam regime and its propaganda minister known to us as Bagdad Bob who provided some lighthearted moments before and during the invasion. You haven't quite reached the point of being amusing, but keep working on it. You seem to become more and more desperate right along with the terrorists and former Saddamists which encourages me as a 'warmongering' American. Americans planting roadside bombs is very bit as plausible as your other rumor about giant spiders sent to attack American troops. My Kurdish Iraqi friend tells me many Arab Iraqis in Mosul are increasingly concerned that Kurds will soon assert their right to own property and demand the return of their homes stolen by the regime and given to professional Arabs as incentive to move into the once Kurdish dominated areas. At least those Kurds who did not end up at the bottom of the pile in the massive graves outside of Mosul are asserting. Perhaps this situation is one you share with some Iraqi homeowners in Mosul and surrounding areas? I honestly hope not as I hope you continue maintain this blog as it will be very interesting to see what direction it takes as Iraq evolves over the years and you with it.

the real truth teller said...

Strykerdad,
You said it yourself rumor had it!

He is and was part of what we Iraqi call "Taboor Khamis" which is a group of Saddamites that spread lies/rumors to deceive people. They were active since the Baathi took control.

Albatroz said...

I am not saying that Americans are planting bombs throughout Iraq to generate bad feelings between Iraqis and the insurgents. But does anyone really think that Americans would be incapable of such? Is torture of prisoners better than planting bombs? Is accepting "colateral damage" as legitimate any better than planting bombs? So why think that Americans would be incapable of planting bombs for the above mentioned purpose?

Moron99 said...

The real truth:

The American government is committed to spend $500 billion in Iraq. No nore and no less. The rate of expenditure is $80 billion per year. Whether the insurgents fight or don't fight, the occupation ends when the money runs out.

If there are no insurgents to fight, then the US would be forced to spend the $80 billion on construction projects. Construction in insurgent areas cost 2x as much and the security issues cover up theft, corruption, and excessive profits. The choice for Iraqis is whether to spend this money fighting and insurgency or building electrical plants and schools.

Either way, the money is used up in four years and the US troops go home. It's your country. Do you want to spend the money blowing yourselves up or building new stuff for the future?

Albatroz said...

From BBC News:

"Seven US soldiers have been killed in two separate bomb attacks in Iraq."

Victory is at hand for the occupation forces. Insurgents are near total defeat.

Albatroz said...

From the American press:

"Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain, said the rate of attacks against American forces are the same as any time during the conflict - but the key difference is the increasing capabilities of the insurgents.

"We would have hoped that the insurgency would have decreased in line with the ability of the Iraqi security forces to hold the ring and become more capable," Heyman said. "But it doesn't appear to be panning out that way with the insurgents increasing in their abilities to kill, attack and strike when and where they want."

So much for Moron99's wishful thinking...

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hurria said...

"I think the purpose is to bring down the elected government rather than to attack the Americans. Otherwise, why so many attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure?"

In the light of that how do you explain all the attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure in the 22 months before there was what you call an "elected government".

"If the country can be reduced to chaos, then the Baathists or the Islamists can hope to grab power."

The country was reduced to chaos in March, 2003 as a direct result of American actions.

Exadios said...

moron99: "Do you want to spend the money blowing yourselves up or building new stuff for the future?"

That decision, I think you will find, is not one that can be made by anybody writing on this blog.

moron99: "If there are no insurgents to fight, then the US would be forced to spend the $80 billion on construction projects."

If there were any justice available at all to the Iraqis then they would be able to demand, from us, war reparations. And the value of those reparations would be independent of any amount we chose to spend in the prosecuting of this war.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

As you know, the removal of american forces is an interim goal. The government of Iraq is the biggest enemy. They only want the americans removed so that they can advance upon the goal of controlling all of Iraq.
If they were to ever grab such power, their first act will be to turn upon the muj and slaughter them. Their second act would be to torture and then kill any Iraqis who oppose them. Their third act would be to undertake the military conquest of the Kurds.

They actively seek to make the people of Iraq miserable in order to keep the government from gaining support.

Exadios said...

strykerdad: "If you think American soldiers could commit such acts without their comrades stopping them or reporting them, you have absolutely no understanding of the American people."

The Achilles heel of your argument is that our President, George W Bush, and our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, are themselves war criminals. They have caused the US to engage in a war of aggression against Iraq. Given that our top officers are themselves criminals is it surprising that some of our troops are committing criminal actions?

Moron99 said...

exadios,

your logic betrays you. Americans like to see evidence before rendering a verdict. Your use of the word criminal in advance of evidence is not something an american would do. Well, I should say mentally balanced americans.

Exadios said...

moron99: "Your use of the word criminal in advance of evidence is not something an american would do."

Ample evidence exists. And I am prepared to present it in a court (if nobody else is). The question is whether GWB is prepared to stand trial. What do you think?

Don Cox said...

"In the light of that how do you explain all the attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure in the 22 months before there was what you call an "elected government"." ____ Same motive. Same reason Saddam released 80,000 criminals. The aim is to make sure, if possible, that things are worse after the invasion than under Saddam.

Moron99 said...

exadios,

you need to delete your post. otherwise, the evidence exists that you reach verdict in advance of presenting evidence. It is not the way a normal american thinks.

Truth teller said...

don cox

"Saddam released 80,000 criminals. The aim is to make sure, if possible, that things are worse after the invasion than under Saddam.

I totally agree with you, and add, when the Iraqi police recaptured those criminals, the american released them the next day. But for different motive.

Exadios said...

moron99: "you need to delete your post. otherwise, the evidence exists that you reach verdict in advance of presenting evidence."

Rubbish! You need to get GWB into court. The prosecution is ready to present the evidence.

strykerdad said...

exadios--the achille's hill in your argument is that there isn't one. If the American leadrship are criminals, where is the indictment? Was the first war brought about by Iraqs brutal rape of its neighbor Kuwait criminal? Obviously not. Did Iraq submit to the terms of the ceasefire for that war? Certainly not, and the UN agreed refusal to abide by the terms of the ceasefire was justification for military action. Those are facts. So the criminality comes in where and in what venue, other than in the minds of conspiracists, saddam apologists, and in the minds of those in the region which cannot accept their own responsibility for the deplorable state of their society and culture? A society which for the most part has been circling the drain for the last few decades, instead focusing all blame for failure to prosper on easy targets. This didn't begin with Bush, et al. It began long before America even became America and continues because the society is based on an as yet unreformed, largely archaic religion. And no, I do not say Islam is any more or less of a worhwhile religion than any other and know that most practice a more enlightened form than the fundamentalist. America is not fighting a religious war, but many of our enemies are which make for an irrational enemy that behaves irrationally, all the while demanding their 'dignity' as they destroy themselves and all those around them.

Moron99 said...

Exadios,

per your words -
"The Achilles heel of your argument is that our President, George W Bush, and our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, are themselves war criminals(verdict). They have caused the US to engage in a war of aggression against Iraq. Given that our top officers are themselves criminals is it surprising that some of our troops are committing criminal actions?(evidence)

You really need to do a better job of learning how to pretend to be an american. For example, an american would say "2+2=4". He would not say "4=2+2".

Exadios said...

I doubt whether the bombings are a result of a US conspiracy. However, what is striking is that the insurgents are able to get close and press home their attacks. This implies that they have heavily infiltrated the government agencies.

Hurria said...

"As you know, the removal of american forces is an interim goal."

I don't know that at all, and you definitely do not know that.

"The government of Iraq is the biggest enemy. They only want the americans removed so that they can advance upon the goal of controlling all of Iraq."

And you got this information from a scientifically conducted poll of "insurgents", I suppose. Would you care to give us your source for this information?

"If they were to ever grab such power, their first act will be to turn upon the muj and slaughter them."

Wow - you not only know everything and can state it in the most authoritative-sounding terms, you are also prescient and can predict the future!

What is this "muj" thing you keep referring to?

"Their second act would be to torture and then kill any Iraqis who oppose them. Their third act would be to undertake the military conquest of the Kurds."

Do you have a crystal ball, or does this ability to foretell the future come out of your head? Or perhaps it comes from some other part of your anatomy?

"They actively seek to make the people of Iraq miserable in order to keep the government from gaining support."

Oh - I did not know the government lacked support! I thought it had all the support in the world since it was enthusiastically supported by all the purple-fingered people of Iraq who elected it in "the first free and fair election in Iraq's history". Has there been a new poll to show it needs to gain support now?

Exadios said...

moron99: "verdict"

If you read the US Constitution you will quickly discover that only a court may deliver a verdict (in the sense you are using that word). However I am quite able to come to my own verdict based upon the evidence. And I'm willing to present the evidence in court. Again, is GWB prepared to stand trial? Of course he is not. The man is a coward.

moron99: "He would not say '4=2+2'."

Sure.

An Italian. said...

@Stukasdad & his lamentable ilk.

Repeated criminal acts on the part of the US troops on a daily basis have been well proven in Iraq, with no shadow of a doubt.
Not just the humanitarian organisations (like Amnesty International) reported them, but the British military keep criticising the criminal behaviour of the US military in the London 'Daily Telegraph' (the Tory, Conservative paper, not some lefty rag).
Even the US military was compelled to prosecute some of its soldiers for the most undeniable cases; like the ten animals scapegoated for Abu Ghraib, Lt Pantano (who got acquitted, of course), Lt Saville & Sgt Perkins (who got just a slap on the hand for beating up and drowning into the Tigris the cousin of Iraqi blogger Zeyad), the murderer who 'finished off' a wounded 17 year old Iraqi in Sadr City, and the murderer who killed three wounded Iraqis in a Fallujah mosque. These prosecutions on the part of the US military are just window dressing, as everybody knows; the Italian officials were told, in the recent Calipari case, that the US cannot prosecute any more soldiers, otherwise the morale of its troops would completely crumble (and that it's already near to breaking point).
As all Iraqis and foreign observers know, these cases are just the very thin tip of the iceberg (nobody was even prosecuted for wiping out more than 40 Iraqi civilians at a wedding party, for instance). Some American soldiers who were not criminal apes did as well speak out on the current practices of the US military in Iraq.

Why do you keep lying, Stukasdad & Moron99 & Co.?

You are not doing yourselves & your (criminal) 'cause' any favours in front of all the readers of Truth Teller's blog.

As for the 'mysterious' indiscriminate bombs, killing Iraqi civilians, more later.

Hurria said...

Hurria: "In the light of that how do you explain all the attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure in the 22 months before there was what you call an "elected government"."

Don Cox: "Same motive."

That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact it is a logical impossibility. Their motive cannot have been to bring down something that did not exist. There must have been some ther motive in the first 22 months. Odd how the motive would suddenly change, though, isn't it?

"Same reason Saddam released 80,000 criminals. The aim is to make sure, if possible, that things are worse after the invasion than under Saddam."

And you base this on what, exactly? You discussed it with Saddam? You discussed it with the "insurgents"? Or this is what your government says, and you believe them because they have been right and truthful about everything else so far?

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

your unwillingness to discuss the future has not changed. Even now, a constitution is being drafted. How do you know that the rules will be fair? Who is representing your interests in the constitutional committee? What guarantees do you want in the constitution that your grandchildren's voice will be represented? What guarantees of freedom do you want for your community? What balances of power do you want so that list 169 can not grab power away from you? What mechanisms do you want in the constitution so that you or your children will never have to fear torture or arrest? What guarantees do you want to see such that your community will always recieve its fair share of oil wealth? What guarantees and ministries do you want to see that will prevent the government from building palaces instead of hospitals?

The occupation will only last four more years but the answers to these questions will last forever. If you are truly doing what is best for your country, then you are actively engaged in answering these questions.

Brian H said...

No, no, no. It's all because of mind-controlled moles left by the Russian engineers, who were really shape-shifting aliens who want to keep a maximum of disruption and emotionally energized stupidity in control of a key segment of the globe's economy.

You see?

Anonymous said...

O.K. Truth teller, you aren't a former regime loyalist. You just give a good imitation of it. But can't you at least tell your friends to come up with some NEW propaganda? This old stuff is getting tediuos.

Lynnette in Minnesota

Anonymous said...

Hurria,

Regarding your comment on the other post about Falluja and the terrorists. If you think they came only because of us, then do we not have an obligation to try to get rid of them? If we leave do you honestly believe they will just pack up and go? They seemed to be settling in nicely in Falluja.

Lynnette in Minnesota

Hurria said...

"If you think they came only because of us, then do we not have an obligation to try to get rid of them?"

1. I don't THINK they came because of you, it is a plain fact they did. Interestingly, anyone who followed the U.S. press closely could see the progression of the situation in Falluja quite clearly. It was not necessary to have inside information.

2. Do you have an obligation to try and (sic) get rid of them? By destroying virtually the entire city, making most of what you left standing uninhabitable, killing thousands of its inhabitants, and turning hundreds of thousands of its men, women, children infants and elderly into permanent homeless, citiless refugees?

No, What you have an obligation to do is stop destroying Iraqi property, and killing and maiming Iraqi people.

"If we leave do you honestly believe they will just pack up and go?"

The longer you stay the more you kill and destroy. The longer you stay the more of them there are, and the more they kill. If you leave, at the very least you will not be able to kill any more Iraqis or destroy any more Iraqi property. If you do not leave, their numbers will continue to grow, and so will their killing. Whether or not they pack up and go Iraq and Iraqis will be measurably better off.

"They seemed to be settling in nicely in Falluja."

Excellent point, Lynette. In other words, the only thing you accomplished was to turn most of Falluja to rubble, render most of what you left standing uninhabitable, kill thousands of its inhabitants, and turn hundreds of thousands of its men, women, children, infants and elderly into permanent homeless, citiless refugees. You did nothing to get rid of the terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Hurria,

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq has asked the U.N. Security Council to let a U.S.-led multinational force remain in Iraq, acknowledging it was as yet unable to assure its own security.

The request came in a letter from Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari circulated at the United Nations on Wednesday.

"As we stand now, our country continues to face an armed insurgency, which still includes foreign elements opposed to Iraq's transition to democratic rule," Zebari said in the letter to Danish Ambassador Ellen Loj, the Security Council president for May.

"Despite continuing efforts to build up our security forces, these forces cannot as yet assume full responsibility for maintaining our national security and defending our borders," he said in the letter, which was dated Tuesday.

Um Khadija

John said...

Hi TruthTeller, well said, "This with similar accidents of explosions in areas where it is almost impossible for the resistance to reach and plant their roadside bombs, make one believe in the assumption that there are other hands which did those terrorism for other purposes than to resist the occupation."

Its a totally understandable and once again a predictable strategy of the occupier to demonize their "enemy"! In the case of Iraq the enemy is increasingly more difficult for the Americans to define. They applaud the success of the Wolf brigade to terrorize Iraqis, now led by a former three star general and Saddam loyalist!

They entertain the notion that one day the Iraqi police and army will be able to assume military authority in Iraq, maintain a security profile and eventually pave the way for the Americans to leave. Most likely, many members of Iraqs newly defined nationalist troops would just as soon shoot the occupiers than fight along their side!

Talk about an ill defined occupation and crusade. Talk about unachievable goals and any eventual possibility that the Americans might ever be able to define this crusade as a success. It will likely take hundreds of more American deaths to persuade the American public to decide that enoughs enough!

Regrettable, insane yet take a look at their president, does Bush ever reveal any semblance of normalacy even when hes trying to portray himself as normal!

Hurria said...

"Iraq has asked the U.N. Security Council to let a U.S.-led multinational force remain in Iraq..."

No, "Iraq" has not asked anyone to do anything. If the group currently referred to as the "government" has requested a continuation of the American occupation it is because they have been brought to the understanding that this is a requirement for them to retain their current positions.

Demanding an end to the American occupation was one of the primary campaign planks for the lists that won the majority of seats. The election results showed clearly that American withdrawal was a priority for the majority of Iraqi people. This is consistent with every credible poll, as well as exit interviews of voters, and the massive demonstration held on April 9. By backing down on their promise to demanding U.S. withdrawal Ja`fari and his group have violated the trust of those who voted for them.

So what is new? Politicians always say what they think the people want to hear, and then do whatever they think will keep them in their positions.

waldschrat said...

Truthteller -

In my personal opinion, the idea that U.S. forces would plant bombs and blame them on insurgents is clearly unbelieable. If it were reported that American forces found a bomb and left it there, this might possibly be true, since it is extremely unsafe to be near a bomb and the best tactic is to retreat and call an expert to dispose of it.

I also suspect that rumors that Saddam impregnated his own camels are also untrue.

One possible way to get at the truth of the matter would be to find the man that turned into a donkey, and ask him what really happened.

Anonymous said...

Did people forget about the suicide bombing against Shiite Mosques, Shiite events, and the people going to voting booths during elections? Or are they excluded as acceptable within the Sunni community?

Don Cox said...

"Oh my God, this blog is becoming a parody of itself." ____ The author is this blog is living in the middle of a battle zone, under great stress. We may not agree with all his opinions, but let's be polite.

Don Cox said...

"Demanding an end to the American occupation was one of the primary campaign planks for the lists that won the majority of seats. The election results showed clearly that American withdrawal was a priority for the majority of Iraqi people."
___ It's a priority for everyone. The sooner the Iraqi forces can take over and the Americans at least withdraw to bases, the better. The only down side is that the Iraqi forces are likely to be more brutal in their treatment of captives than the coalition forces.

Don Cox said...

"If the group currently referred to as the "government" " ___ They look like a government to me, or at least as like a government as Blair's government in Britain. They were chosen in a free and fair election with a high turnout. If there was any pressure from the Americans it was to use proportional representation, so that it would not simply be a Shia government, but would include representatives of all the main groups. Are you one of those Muslims that believes elections are evil?

Don Cox said...

"Don Cox: "Same motive."That makes no sense whatsoever."

The motive of the Baathists is to restore the Baath party to power. The motive of the various Islamists is to bring their particular variety of Islam to power. None of them wants freedom or democracy. They are willing to kill and destroy in order to bring about a state of chaos.

Albatroz said...

From Asia Times:

"The United States has accelerated arms sales to some of the world's most repressive and undemocratic regimes since September 11, 2001, according to a new report from leading arms trade researchers.

The report, from the Arms Trade Resource Center at New York-based New School University's World Policy Institute, says the increase in sales and military grants is a payoff to countries that have either joined what the White House calls its "war on terror" or have backed the United States in its military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan."

"According to the study, countries defined as "undemocratic" in the State Department's annual human-rights report are also major recipients of US military aid or weapons systems. These include: Saudi Arabia (US$1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million), and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

"Arming repressive regimes while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues," said Frida Berrigan, co-author of the study, "US Weapons at War 2005: Promoting Freedom or Fueling Conflict?"

So, Moron99, is this how the US fights for democracy? Are we supposed to believe your simpleminded propaganda about US objectives in Iraq?...

Hurria said...

Hurria: "The election results showed clearly that American withdrawal was a priority for the majority of Iraqi people."

Don Cox: "___ It's a priority for everyone. The sooner the Iraqi forces can take over and the Americans at least withdraw to bases, the better."

Is THAT what American withdrawal means to you? Americans directing their proxy occupation forces from the permanent bases the Bush administration has finally admitted it is building? Sorry, that is NOT what Iraqis mean by withdrawal.

Hurria said...

"If the group currently referred to as the "government"

" ___ They look like a government to me"

I'm sure they do, but that does not make them a real government.

"They were chosen in a free and fair election with a high turnout."

No they weren't.

1. The election did not meet even the minimum requirements to qualify as free, or fair.

2. The "government" was not chosen in the elections.

"If there was any pressure from the Americans it was to use proportional representation..."

1. That is pure unadulterated nonsense. Once Sistani dragged them kicking and screaming into having elections, the Americans got very busy frantically doing everything they thought they could get away with to influence the process to minimize the damage to their agenda. That included the design of the election process, the process by which the "government" would be selected, and rigging the power structure within the assembly to their advantage. It has also included putting pressure on candidate lists and the assembly members both before and after the election.

2. One of the primary requirements for the process to be free and fair would be for the occupying power to stay completely out of every aspect of it at every level, yet even you admit that they did not.

3. The Americans' emphasis from the very beginning of the occupation on forcing on Iraq the concept of political division strictly along sectarian and ethnic lines has been one of the worst things they have done in terms of long-term effects. Once upon a time Iraqi political parties were based on ideology. Now, thanks to the Bush administration, they are based almost entirely on sect, ethnicity and opportunism.

"Are you one of those Muslims that believes elections are evil?"

Wait, let me peek through my full face veil to make sure I read that correctly.

Hurria said...

Don Cox: "Same motive."

Hurria: "That makes no sense whatsoever."

"The motive of the Baathists is to restore the Baath party to power. The motive of the various Islamists is to bring their particular variety of Islam to power."

Unlike the motive of SCIRI and the Da`wa party and Muqtada Sadr to bring their particular variety of Islam to power, of course.

"None of them wants freedom or democracy."

Like almost all Americans you clearly have an extremely shallow, narrow, simplistic, and incaccurate notion of what you like to call the "insurgency".

"They are willing to kill and destroy in order to bring about a state of chaos."

Unlike the Americans who use only non-violent, non-destructive and positive means to achieve their political goals, and always bring order and calm to every situation.

Hurria said...

"In my personal opinion, the idea that U.S. forces would plant bombs and blame them on insurgents is clearly unbelieable."

While I do not believe they have used that tactic in Iraq, it is not unheard of for Americans to do such things.

Anonymous said...

hurria said:
"In my personal opinion, the idea that U.S. forces would plant bombs and blame them on insurgents is clearly unbelieable."

While I do not believe they have used that tactic in Iraq, it is not unheard of for Americans to do such things.

5/26/2005 07:21:04 PM

Hurria, if it's not unheard of when and where did you hear of the US forces doing such a thing? Please share details.

Umm Khadija

An Italian. said...

@Truth Teller.
There is some 'humourous' fellor, 'Rama', who posts this gibberish in an invented language in order to sabotage your comments page.
As far as I can see, it is not an existing language, but something made through a computer program (with just a couple of mentions of 'Iraq' inserted to make the gullible believe it is a real tongue).
Please, challenge the 'prankster' Rama to reveal what it is; and, if he does not answer, please remove his useless posts, which take a lot of room, and put against him a blocksender.

Moron99 said...

Hurria says "Unlike the motive of SCIRI and the Da`wa party and Muqtada Sadr to bring their particular variety of Islam to power, of course."

Don't you get it? THAT is exactly why it is so important for you to get involved in the constitutional process. You must make sure that it is written in binding law that they can not impose themselves upon you or your grandchildren. YOU must step forward and make sure that your grandchildren will never live in fear of the Iraqi government.

Moron99 said...

Hurria -

on another note. It is an unfortunate reality that if Iraq builds a government that does not have an oppressive dictator then every country that does have an oppressive dictator will view Iraq as their enemy. The only prudent course of action is for the US to remain on desert bases while the Iraqi national defense is built up. As each unit of Iraqi national defense is ready, the Americans can turn over the base and go home. It would be stupid to give the other dictators an open invitation to send tanks into Iraq.

An Italian. said...

@Umm Khadija, 5/26/2005 07:35:56 PM.

"if it's not unheard of when and where did you hear of the US forces doing such a thing? Please share details".

I'm not Hurria, but I can answer. In 1954 Colonel Edward Landsdale (who later on became deputy director of the CIA) went to South Vietnam with a special team. The French had just withdrawn. Col. Landsdale, known to his men by the nickname 'The Ugly American', had elaborated a counter-insurgency technique according to which, in order to strengthen the centre ground against 'insurgents' on one side and 'reactionaries' on the other to the benefit of the US, you have some 'special operations' to conduct. These consisted in putting around 'mysterious' bombs to kill civilians at random, in pubs, restaurants, cinemas, markets, city squares, etc.
That's what Landsdale's team kept doing in Vietnam from 1955 to 1963, killing in that way some hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. The bombings were not attributed, or attributed to the ones or the others, but not of course to the ones putting them, the Americans. The general idea was that the increasing social alarm would promote the pro-American 'centrist' Government of Diem (similar to the Jaafari Govt. now in Iraq).
In Vietnam the brilliant theory of Col. Landsdale didn't work; being a country 90 % rural & with no TV, most people didn't care so much about what happened in Saigon or in Hue.
It was the British secret services that spilled the beans, being angry at their American counterparts because of the 1956 Suez fiasco. One of their men, who was a most brilliant writer of novels, Graham Greene, published at the end of 1957 'The Quiet American' (with a pun on the nickname of Landsdale), where he revealed what the Americans were doing in Vietnam. I advice all our Iraqi friends to read that 'novel' ASAP; it has much more to do with what is happening now in Iraq that one might think.
In another country, mostly urban & with modern mass media, Landsdale counter-insurgency theory did instead work very well. It was Italy, in the years from 1968-69 to the early Eighties. The students-workers movement of that period had worried the US, making them imagine the danger of a Communist takeover. 'Mysterious' bombs started blowing up on trains, in banks, in city squares, in railway stations. On the whole, about two hundred Italian civilians died (& mind that Italy was an ally of the US, and in NATO!). The bombs were variously blamed, first on 'Anarchists', then on 'Fascists'. The people did indeed get scared, and supported the 'centrist' pro-US Govt.; there was no 'Soviet' takeover. It was only from the Nineties that Italian magistrates found out in their inquiries that they had been put by the US secret services, assisted by some of their minions in the Italian ones, following the criminal 'counter-insurgency' theory of Col. Landsdale.
Similar 'techniques' of callous terrorism were applied by the US services in Central America in the Eighties.

Does it seem so strange to you, Umm Khadija, that the Americans apply the same techniques of unattributed terrorism in Iraq? The Iraqi resistance is not yet united in a single front; there are several groups, mad Jihadis, criminal gangs, sectarian militias, etc. It is very simple (much simpler for the US than in Vietnam in the Fifties or in Italy in the Seventies) to disseminate 'mysterious' bombs all over, deliberately targeting Iraqi civilians & increasing sectarian tensions, in order to scare the Iraqi people, and to make them regard the puppet Government & the US troops as the only defence against chaos, the 'lesser evil'.
But, in all probability, the indiscriminate terrorism targeting civilians is the work of the same 'benevolent' occupiers.

Anonymous said...

Rama,

rama lama lama ding dong, abop a wowwow. I have made a little effort to determine the language, if it is one. The only google matches I have found involve sites based on Slavic languages--maybe Czech?

An Italian. said...

No, Anon, I can tell you it is not a Slavonic language, nor any language in the world. If you notice, the structure is only superficially similar to a 'language'.

There is no recurrence either of words or, more importantly, of particles of the language (such as conjunctions, etc.). It is just generated by a computer program, with a proper mixture of vowels and consonants, and sillables put together looking like words.

Please, Truth Teller, this 'Rama' is just one of these disgusting warmongering Americans who wants to wreck your comments page: kick him out, and delete his posts!

Moron99 said...

Italian,

you were doing okay until you overstepped logic and concluded with "But, in all probability, the indiscriminate terrorism targeting civilians is the work of the same 'benevolent' occupiers."

Yes, it is possible that the CIA would engage in such activities just as it is possible that before abu Grahib the US military did not want to know about torture because then they wouldn't be able to deny it.

But then after a making a very well presented case, you reach to far in your zest to reach a conclusion.
The indiscriminate terrorism is driving a wedge between Iraqi brothers and creating divisions that harm the US far more than they harm the insurgency. Additionally the selection of targets does not reinforce the ability of the government to provide security and it harms the ability of the government to create and fund an army with which to provide said security. To paraphrase your logic - a person has shot a gun before. Therefore it is logical to assume that he would shoot the gun again. Therefore he probably shot himself.

Anonymous said...

So now "italian" is referencing a fictional novel to buttress his arguments. Brilliant.

As for your other assertions, you will need to provide concrete evidence not opinion, either yours or anyone elses. I have googled Lansdale and his counter-insurgency activities and found no evidence to support your claims. Please provide your evidence.

Anonymous said...

One possible way to get at the truth of the matter would be to find the man that turned into a donkey, and ask him what really happened.

LOL! Good one, Waldschrat.

Moron99 said...

anonymous,

sad reality is that during the height of the cold war, the CIA would use such tactics. The error in his presentation is twofold, but the intent is roughly accurate. First the CIA would not directly engage in such activities, they would always maintain an arm's length relationship with surrogates. An agent directly involved in such activities or who informed his superiors in such a fashion as to broach the realm of plausible deniability would be removed. Second, the activities were carried out in theatres of conflict where armed guerillas or revolutionaries were active. His conclusion that bombs in Italy were the work of CIA is clearly flawed. The details he provides may be flawed and his conclusions exaggerated along the lines of conspiracy theories, but the essence of cold war meddling by both sides of the iron curtain seems to be roughly consistent.

Rama said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rama said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
waldschrat said...

That oddball stuff in those long posts might be produced using an online "gibberish generator". There seem to be quite a few out there (LINK

Too many of the words defy google search for it to be any common language. Some of the shorter 2-letter words are found in Yoruban.

So, what does it mean? It seems somebody somewhere perhaps decided some comments here make no sense and deided to respond in kind and at length. A fascinating statement, quite creative and entertaining in my opinion.

Hurria said...

"It seems somebody somewhere perhaps decided some comments here make no sense and deided to respond in kind and at length."

More likely it is someone spamming the page in an attempt to sabotage it.

Albatroz said...

This small quote from a 1963 "Memorandum From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Taylor) and the Secretary of Defense (McNamara) to the President" (on Vietnam), shows how much the US cares for "democracy" when their interests are at stake:

"Obviously, clear and explicit U.S. support could make a great difference to the chances of a coup. However, at the present time we lack a clear picture of what acceptable individuals might be brought to the point of action, or what kind of government might emerge. We therefore need an intensive clandestine effort, under the Ambassador's direction, to establish necessary contacts to allow the U.S. to continuously appraise coup prospects.

If and when we have a better picture, the choice will still remain difficult whether we would prefer to take our chances on a spontaneous coup (assuming some action by Diem and Nhu would trigger it) or to risk U.S. prestige and having the U.S. hand show with a coup group which appeared likely to be a better alternative government. Any regime that was identified from the outset as a U.S. "puppet" would have disadvantages both within South Vietnam and in significant areas of the world, including other underdeveloped nations where the U.S. has a major role.

In any case, whether or not it proves to be wise to promote a coup at a later time, we must be ready for the possibility of a spontaneous coup, and this too requires clandestine contacts on an intensive basis."

Of course, for Moron99 and others, things are now very different, and the US commitmrnt to democracy in Iraq is total...

Anonymous said...

The US administration can talk about ending the occupation of Iraq but it is not planning actually to do so anytime soon. Their view appears to be that, if they cannot force Iraq and Iran oil to be traded in US dollars - well, then it must not be traded at all, and in my view the current US administration will stop at nothing to try to maintain the petro-dollar. Thousands of young Americans will be expected by their government to die in order to prevent Iraq and Iran oil being traded in euros.

However, the World Trade Organisation has just said that Iran can start negotiating to join the WTO (hitherto the US has blocked Iran's membership 22 times); and, for my part, I am sure that the day is not far off when the flow of money funding America's aggression will suddenly run dry - when all the other countries in the world (except America and Israel) sign a treaty to trade oil in euros. All it takes is a stroke of the pen. From that day, America will no longer be a rich country, and will be unable to afford to spend what is currently - and has been for decades - a really obscene amount on so-called defence.
Rachel, a Brit in London

Hurria said...

"It is an unfortunate reality that if Iraq builds a government that does not have an oppressive dictator then every country that does have an oppressive dictator will view Iraq as their enemy."

On what do you base this idea?

Moron99 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Moron99 said...

Hurria,

A good democracy builds itself up from the bottom. Each leader has less power than the sum total of those that he leads.

For example - the city of Mosul might have a city council with 24 memebers. If you grant each of them 1 unit of power, then the mayor of Mosul will not be granted more than 13 units of power. If the governor of the province has rule over 6 cities, then he would not be granted more than 40 units of power. And so on and so on all the way to the chair of president or PM.

The structure of this power would be laid out in the constitution and written into law. As you seek ever and ever larger amounts of power, you have to go from the top down until you finally arrive at the 25 million Iraqis themselves.

Under such a system, the people would be able to overthrow the government with a minimum amount of effort. The only thing that allows the government to remain intact is its ability to offer continual improvement in the lives of its citizens.

Do you see why every dictator in the region is threatened? If not, please ask and I shall do my best to answer.

Albatroz said...

Moron99 is not for real!... He seems to think the world is some type of a game, like Risk or Monopoly. He invents rules, he tells people how they should rule themselves, he lives in an unreal world, like a computer game. In short, he is a hopeless nut case... Just like his boss, GWB... Are there sane people left in the US?...

Rama said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Albatroz said...

Latest news:

"TIKRIT, Iraq - Two Task Force Liberty helicopters received small arms fire while conducting operations in support of Coalition Forces near Baqubah at about 10:50 p.m. May 26.

One aircraft landed safely at a Coalition Forces base after sustaining damage. The other aircraft crashed and the status of the aircrew is unknown at this time.

Coalition Forces responded to the scene and secured the site.

The incident is under investigation."

The insurgency is on its last legs... Victory by the brave US troops is around the corner...

An Italian. said...

@Waldschrat.
"It seems somebody somewhere perhaps decided some comments here make no sense and deided to respond in kind and at length. A fascinating statement, quite creative and entertaining in my opinion".

Oh fascinating Waldschrat, it is just called spamming & wreaking & sabotage, nothing fascinating about it.

An Italian. said...

@One of these over-cowardly Anon apes ('Jay'?), 5/26/2005 08:47:45 PM.

"So now 'italian' is referencing a fictional novel to buttress his arguments. Brilliant. As for your other assertions, you will need to provide concrete evidence not opinion, either yours or anyone elses. I have googled Lansdale and his counter-insurgency activities and found no evidence to support your claims. Please provide your evidence".

As far as Italy (1968-85) is concerned, should I copy some tens of thousand of pages of inquiries and sentences by the Italian judicial system? Obviously not. Or the links to them? That would be better, but I'm quite sure you could find the links yourself. Apart from that, I'm even surer that then you would just disappear (or, in case, complain that all that is not in English).

And Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' (you get it in the Penguin Books edition, if I'm not mistaken) is a "a fictional novel"? Even when you know its background? Even if you have confirmation from other sources? Oh, yeeeaaah...

One should be a specialist in the truly vast bibliography on the matter of US foreign policy & US secret services actions in order to satisfy you at face value... but it would not work, you lying animal, as you know very very well. Apart from that, obviously you would say that it is a matter of 'interpretation', and that there are no primary sources.

Oh what an intelligent discovery! Your US secret services would be even more idiotic that they are, if there were ANY primary sources accessible!

At least, Anon, our Pollyannish moronic Moron99 has been, in this case, a bit more honest than you are...

An Italian. said...

@Rachel, a Brit in London, 05/26/2005 11:39:55 PM.

Tonight I chanced to be at a dinner with people active in the international financial community here in Italy (not radicals of any kind).

I said, "Maybe the Iranian Govt. should immediately switch to the Petroleuro, and abandon the Petroldollar in order to be safe from US aggression".

They answered on the spot, "If the Ayatollahs were to do anything like that, not just the US would for sure attack them, but they would nuke Teheran immediately".

This is the way 'moderate' people in Europe perceive the US, and its foreign policy.

@Moron99: Are you still trying to fool us with your fake 'benevolent' honey utterances?
Who is the fool who would believe you?
And you have the cheek of talking about 'Iraqi brothers'. Sorry Moron, as far as I know the Iraqis have got only two hands at present, not four: so they cannot be your 'brothers'.

Hurria said...

Moron99,

I should have asked you on what recognized, credible theory you base your assumption that all the dictators would be threatened by a democratic Iraq, and therefore attack it. I was not really interested in hearing any more of the wild-eyed nonsense you pull out of some portion of your anatomy on a regular basis.

An Italian. said...

@Anon ('Jay'?), 5/26/2005 08:47:45 PM.

Lest I forget, do read what Albatroz reported some posts above. And do 'google' the Northwoods Project, 1962 (by the same clever Col. Landsdale; President Kennedy apparently rejected that one). Maybe you would enlarge your mind, & get some useful idea about who did organise 9/11...

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

It would mean an eventual end to their power. Iraqi army would scale up and take the bases, but it would be unwise to leave yourself vulnerable for even the shortest amount of time.

Excuse me for being blunt, but the mideast and north Africa have THE most fucked up governments in the entire world. With proper governance, Iraq would be even more prosperous than Dubai. Your nation has everything from seaports to argiculture to oil.

I hate to just say democracy because there are so many "democracies" in this world that have poorly designed constitutions. Loopholes like the ones in Iran are built into their constitution and the government is not accountable for its actions. I think it is understood that there is so much worldwide effort and attention being placed upon Iraq that it will be difficult for such loopholes to go unnoticed. So when I use "democracy" please understand that I am assumming one with a carefully crafted constitution.

Anyway, democracies have unemployment that varies between 8% and 20%. Most of the wealth accumulates in the middle or merchant class. When millions of Iraqis go on pilgrammage and they all appear fairly wealthy to a saudi, it will not go unnoticed. By the same token, when millions of Iranians make pilgrammage to Najaf they are going to hear Iraqis talking in public about things they would never dare to mention. They will also notice that Iraqi wear nice clothes and have a lot of nice buildings and homes. When they go back home, they will be forced to wonder why they have not accomplished in 30 years what Iraq did in 10.

This is already too long.
Do you see yet why you are a threat to your neighbors?

Anonymous said...

They answered on the spot, "If the Ayatollahs were to do anything like that, not just the US would for sure attack them, but they would nuke Teheran immediately".

This is the way 'moderate' people in Europe perceive the US, and its foreign policy.

Then that's their own perception problem. Not mine.

Maybe you would enlarge your mind, & get some useful idea about who did organise 9/11...

LOL. You just destroyed ANY shred of credibility you hoped to hang on to. Saner heads like Albatroz and Hurria (even though we disagree on many things) are surely thrilled to have you arguing on their side. Ha!

But you should hang around anyway because you amuse me greatly.

Superman said...

Oh my god, angry italian. Please don't go there, with the whole "the CIA is behind 9/11." Or was it the Israelis? Jesus, what a pathetic joke you are. Please, get a life, and a job, a girlfriend, and an education. You are spending way too much time on the internet looking kiddie porn. You are now banned from this discussion. Leave, go. You are a weak, pathetic excuse for a human being.

Albatroz said...

Karzai's visit to Washington:

"Shocked by the front-page story in the Times about U.S. forces slowly, brutally torturing two Afghan detainees to death, Karzai called for all Afghan detainees to be transferred to the custody of the government of Afghanistan.

He also called for more control over U.S. forces' operations in Afghanistan to be handed over to his government.

He also blamed the "international community" and, in particular, the United States lack of sufficient support for his government's opium-eradication efforts.

If Afghanistan was truly a sovereign country, then, of course, the least one could expect is that it would have the right to control of detainees on its own soil and to restriction of military operations on its own soil. Bush's response was to completely ignore Karzai's requests, saying only that U.S. operations in Afghanistan were on a "cooperate and consult" basis with the Afghan government.

Bush displays Karzai at the White House to trumpet the great democracy created in Afghanistan, introducing him as the first elected leader in Afghanistan in 5000 years (who was elected in 3000 BC?); at the same time, he makes it very clear that Afghanistan's sovereignty is a mockery and that it is no more than a colonial protectorate of the United States. And nobody wants to see a contradiction. Welcome to democracy in the 21st century."

Long live democracy (US style...)!

Albatroz said...

From the American press:

"Everyone agrees that Ligaya Lagman is a Gold Star mother, part of the long, mournful line of women whose sons or daughters were killed in combat for the U.S. armed services.

Her 27-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, was killed last year in Afghanistan when his unit came under fire during a mission to drive out remnants of Taliban and al-Qaida forces.

But the largest organization of such mothers, the American Gold Star Mothers Inc., has rejected Lagman for membership because - though a permanent resident and a taxpayer - she is not a U.S. citizen.

"There's nothing we can do because that's what our organization says: You have to be an American citizen," national President Ann Herd said Thursday. "We can't go changing the rules every time the wind blows."

Great country, the US. Great democracy too... Americans have a lot to teach poor ignorant Iraqis...

Mirco said...

I'm italian, and I understand that "An Italian" blogger, if he is italian, is from the far leftiest party.
Usually they live their lives accusing USA and right-wings of all bad things.
The terrorist bombing in Italy (1968-1982) for them are always from CIA, deviated italian secret services; all from people thy dislike.
Obviously the leftist Brigate Rosse were/are "misleaded companions".
They called the Brigate Rosse "sedicenti" ("calling themselves") to hint they were not real leaftist, but they started to condemn only them when they started to kill the moderate leftist.

This "Citizen of Mosul" is in the same crew.
He live in a delusion, because it is too heavy for him.

Then he project the guilt he feel to others. The guilty are others. The other are in fault not him or his kin.

If not, what would you say to your children? How could you maintain your and their respect?

Hurria said...

"This "Citizen of Mosul"...live in a delusion..."

On the contrary, what Truth Teller is living in is all too horrifyingly real.

"Then he project the guilt he feel to others. The guilty are others. The other are in fault not him or his kin."

Let me see if I understand this. It is the fault of Truth Teller and his kin that the Bush administration not only launched a war of aggression based on lies, but has also failed 100% in their responsibilities as the occupying power. It is not in any way the fault of the Bush administration, it is the fault of Truth Teller and his kin.

Superman said...

"It is the fault of Truth Teller and his kin that the Bush administration not only launched a war of aggression based on lies, but has also failed 100% in their responsibilities as the occupying power" - said by Hurria...

My god - I've never read such an overt misrepresentation. Who said any of this is Truth Teller's fault? "War of agression" is a legal term that applies to the 18th, 19th and early 20th century European conquest wars. The Iraq war started as a war to remove a crazy anti-American dictator from power - nothing more or less. Responsibilities are with the Iraqi people, not the American people - unless, of course, what you want is an American colony in the ME. And based on what lies? That SH initiated a war of aggression against Kuwait? That, during that war, he launched scud missiles into SA and Israel? That he killed thousands of Kurds and Shiites in the aftermath of that war? That he continued to thumb his nose at the US and the UN in their attempts to determine whether or not he had a nuclear program? Not to mention the fact that he was, in general, an egomaniacal psychopath who murdered his way into power and, throughout his rule, used all the standard ruthless intimidation tactics to suppress any dissent. Oh, and I forgot about him paying off the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and providing safe refuge to terrorists. Oh yea, and his "dreams" of ruling over an Arab empire that stretched from Egypt to Iran. But I guess this stuff doesn't matter - since Truth Teller was allowed to live a life sheltered from it all.

Anonymous said...

Hello Truthteller,
The 'illogic' of the suicide and trapped car bombs is the logic of war, which is anti-human. My impression is that much of the bombing is not occupation resistance, but religious, ethnic hatred, and most important for MONEY!! Understanding such a logic is useless. Perhaps the Sunni/Islamic scholars opposition should condemn these unacceptable methods before they become polluted by their silence and not condemning them utterly.

An Italian. said...

@Superman (or 'Jay'), 5/27/2005 12:22:01 PM.

Ludicrous thing that you are, the 'official' US version of what happened on 9/11 2001 is by any chance a dogma of your faith?
Who killed President Kennedy in 1963? Was it the 'Islamofascists'? Don't think so. And if in more than 40 years the truth on the Kennedy assassination has not yet surfaced, how can you reasonably think that your version of 9/11 is the 'real' one? And after one reads the 1962 Northwoods Project by Landsdale (by then deputy director of the CIA), ANY suspicion seems fully legitimate...
BTW, the most serious researchers on what TRULY happened the 9/11 are Americans. Of course, Americans who are still human beings and who have still got an average intelligence, differently from you.
And, apart from your being a brainless creature, one can note you exquisite courtesy towards our host Truth Teller: "You are now banned from this discussion. Leave, go".
Maybe this is Truth Teller's blog, don't you think? Or would you like to take control over his blog by force of arms, like you did over his unlucky country?
With you warmongering buffoons one never knows...

Superman said...

Angry italian - what did I say in my previous post? You are not allowed to post here any longer. You are a waste of time. There are other blogs where you can intellectualize about conspiracy theories. We all know your answer already - it was the CIA...or the Jews. Now, please - go away.

An Italian. said...

@Anonymous, 5/27/2005 06:44:48 AM.

"'This is the way 'moderate' people in Europe perceive the US, and its foreign policy'.
Then that's their own perception problem. Not mine".

Oh yeah, brilliant Anon! Most of the world perceives the US as dangerous & irresponsible bullies, and it is not your problem!

Well, then I'd suggest that you become Secretary of State of the USA... (in order to ensure your faster defeat, of course).

Remember, oh warmongering genius, that only one out of twentyfour inhabitants of the world is an American... and perception seems to be rather crucial in foreign policy...

An Italian. said...

@Mirko, 5/27/2005 06:48:10 PM.

"I'm italian, and I understand that 'An Italian' blogger, if he is italian, is from the far leftiest party".

Caro stupidello, disgraziatamente ti sbagli: non sono di sinistra. Se in Italia ci fosse una destra seria, responsabile e decente (e rispettosa della dignità europea e nazionale) la voterei. Il resto che dici a mio riguardo sono pure sciocchezze (Translation: Dear silly boy, unfortunately you are mistaken: I'm no leftwinger. If there were in Italy a decent, responsible & serious right wing, a Right respectful of European & national dignity, I would vote for it. The rest of what you say about me is just bunkum).

Then you go ranting on about our host: "This 'Citizen of Mosul' is in the same crew. He live in a delusion, because it is too heavy for him". Are you an Iraqi, or do you know any Iraqis, to be so sure of your truly deluded aspersions? What do you know to be able to say that what Truth Teller says is 'delusional'?

Did you by any chance go to the US, & undergo a brain transplant there?
That would explain many things about your post, Mirco...

An Italian. said...

@Superape, 5/27/2005 08:58:40 PM & 5/27/2005 10:27:25 PM.

"The Iraq war started as a war to remove a crazy anti-American dictator from power - nothing more or less".

Dear four-handed clown, than it IS a war of aggression, like Hurria says, isn't it?
Or, possibly, you do not understand the meaning of your own language, which wouldn't surprise me in the very least.

And, again, you write: "You are not allowed to post here any longer. Now, please - go away". My dear simian friend, did you get the contagion of your Ape in Chief Bush's delusions, by any chance?

Anonymous said...

Your tinfoil hat is slipping, Italian. Be careful. Don't let the CIA mindrays get you. :-)

Superman said...

Angry italian - you are hilarious. You should do standup with your "superape" bit. I get it, I'm not a super "man" but a super "monkey." Very, very funny.

Since you refuse to leave, as I have politely requested, I will now have to take more drastic measures and report you to the CIA and the Jews. Or maybe I'll just put a voodoo spell on you - ready? booga booga...booga booga booga...

Moron99 said...

They say that Zarqawi has died. It is probably true because the insurgents are claiming that he is in perfect health.

Hurria said...

"I've never read such an overt misrepresentation."

Then you clearly have not read some of the things you yourself have attributed to me.

"Who said any of this is Truth Teller's fault?"

I'm sorry, but it sounded to me as if the poster was criticizing Truth Teller for blaming the U.S. and not himself for the conditions in Iraq.

" "War of agression" is a legal term that applies to the 18th, 19th and early 20th century European conquest wars."

On the contrary. The legal, moral, ethical, and logical concept of war of aggression applies as much today as it ever has. In fact, given the always horrific and potentially catastrophic consequences of starting a war the concept is more important today than it has ever been.

"The Iraq war started as a war to remove a crazy anti-American dictator from power - nothing more or less."

In that case, it was without question a war of aggression.

" Responsibilities are with the Iraqi people, not the American people..."

You appear to be either unaware of or unconcerned by the fact that this directly contradicts international law, morality, ethics, reason, and anything that remotely resembles logic.

"- unless, of course, what you want is an American colony in the ME."

There appears to be a constantly growing number of Iraqi people who ARE taking responsibility for preventing that from happening.

"And based on what lies?"

Don't tell me you are among the shrinking minority of Americans who have not realized that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq!

"That SH initiated a war of aggression against Kuwait?"

Are you trying to tell us that the reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990? Didn't the war against him in 1991, the deliberate destruction of most of Iraq's critical civilian infrastructure, and nearly 13 years of sanctions and regular bombing attacks pretty much take care of that particular offense?

"That, during that war, he launched scud missiles into SA and Israel?"

See above.

"That he killed thousands of Kurds and Shiites in the aftermath of that war?"

Are you telling us that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 because twelve years before that Saddam Hussein had brutally squashed an uprising while the U.S. military watched and did not lift a finger? Wasn't the appropriate time to take action while the slaughter was going on, and not twelve years after the fact?

"That he continued to thumb his nose at the US and the UN in their attempts to determine whether or not he had a nuclear program?"

And starting a war is a reasonable response to nose-thumbing.

"Not to mention the fact that he was, in general, an egomaniacal psychopath who murdered his way into power and, throughout his rule, used all the standard ruthless intimidation tactics to suppress any dissent."

Are you advocating invading, overthrowing the government of, and occupying every country in the world that has such a head of state? Does that include the heads of state the U.S. put into power? Does it include the ones the U.S. helps to stay in power, as they did Saddam Hussein? Does it include the ones George Bush literally holds hands with in public?

"Oh, and I forgot about him paying off the families of suicide bombers in Palestine"

He did not "pay off" the families of suicide bombers. He gave a stipend to the families of all Palestinians who were killed in the Intifada, including suicide bombers. Though I was disgusted by that gesture on several levels for a number of reasons, there is no prohibition against giving stipends to the families of dead people.

"and providing safe refuge to terrorists."

To what terrorists did he provide safe refuge? Name them please. And when did he do this? Provide dates, please. And how is this a justification to expend precious U.S. human lives, and economic resources by starting a war?

"Oh yea, and his "dreams" of ruling over an Arab empire that stretched from Egypt to Iran."

So now someone having the wrong dreams justifies starting a war and all the consequences of that decision.

"But I guess this stuff doesn't matter - since Truth Teller was allowed to live a life sheltered from it all."

And it appears that ending with a gratuitous ad hominem attack that is based on nothing more than speculation somehow strengthens your position.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

would prefer Saddam or a democracy run only by Iraqi with no openings for foreign interference?

Hurria said...

Moron99,

I am not interested in speculating based on the wild fantasies you pull out of your lower anatomy.

Hurria said...

Superman,

Are you paying for the server space for this blog? If so, I guess you are entitled to decide who is and who is not allowed to post here.

Superman said...

Hurria, your problem is that you argue the United State went to war based on one factor (WMD), when in fact there are several, or several hundred thousand if you want to count all the Kuwaities, Iranians, Kurds, Shiites and your everyday dissenter killed over the years. I agree with you, in that any one of the factors I mentioned (and of course there are many more not mentioned) is not justification in itself to go to war. Rather, it is the combination of these that led to the decision. That is why the US has not gone to war to remove other dictators (and I would also argue that none are as bad as Saddam Hussein was) - because America knows that many innocent people will be killed and it is, therefore, better to leave the bad guys wehre they are. In this case, the benefits of removing Saddam outweighed the costs. Good try, though! And be careful - I might ban you as well if you don't stop acting like an arrogant sociopath.

Hurria said...

"Hurria, your problem is that you argue the United State went to war based on one factor (WMD)"

I have never heard such a blatantly overtly baseless fabrication.

Superman said...

Hurria, so you concede that there were other justifications for war?

Albatroz said...

Why are idiotic Americans attracted to this blog like flies? Don't they have any useful work to do, like killing treacherous enemies of the great US of A? Like the British used to say about Americans during WW II, the trouble with them was that they were oversexed, overpaid and overthere... I don't care if they are oversexed and overpaid, but I am starting to dislike them being overhere...

Anonymous said...

Why are idiotic Europeans attracted to this blog like flies?

Albatroz said...

Found on the net:

"In an almost unnoticed move, President Bush on Thursday May 19 extended for one year the blanket immunity from legal action conferred on US corporations doing business in Iraq."

Well, well, well...

Superman said...

Albo, the Bush Administration is trying to increase investment in Iraq. If we can get more companies to do business there, jobs will be created. A good thing, no?

Albatroz said...

Question:

Why would a "blanket immunity from legal action be conferred on US corporations doing business in Iraq"?

Is the US government expecting them doing something illegal? Something having to do with oil, for instance?...

Anonymous said...

1) Anything is possible. Americans could be planting bombs, SCIRI could be planting bombs, the British or Iranians could be planting bombs... without any real evidence all of this is unknowable. I haven't seen any real evidence that ties Americans to bombs that kill civilians. If someone wants to prove that here, then they need to provide some actual evidence that can be corroborated.

2) On the other hand, we know for a fact that Marla of CIVIC was killed by a car bomb by a non-American. We know that there are individuals who stand in front of cameras and say they are going to kill anyone who participates in reconstruction with Americans, and that there are organizations who state publicly, through papers and all media they can get their hands on, that they have no problem with murdering civilians.

3) When the occupation first started, there was a variety of bombings against the electrical infrastructure. It was determined, after investigation, that a large percentage of towers that were downed were downed by engineers and leaders in outlying areas of Iraq who were bitter that Baghdad got 24 hour power from outlying local power plants. So they downed all power lines that sent their electricity to Baghdad, and whenver these towers were repaired, they downed them again. In addition, people punctured water lines, and downed power lines in order to gather water for themselve, and to sell the copper for scrap. IN ADDITION, the hundreds of thousands of displaced Marsh Arabs who no longer had any form of livelihood since Saddam destroyed their tribal lands, went around shooting people and stealing their cars (living a bandit lifestyle). At the same time, individuals whose homes were shot up by American soldiers took their vengeance on them, while others who had been oppressed by their neighbors took their vengeance on their neighbors. That's just for starters.

Iraq is the NUMBER ONE country for conventional munitions, with over 500,000 tons of unsecured weaponry lying across the desert and it has THE HIGHEST RATE of civilian maiming from civilians attempting to loot munition site for fuel for their stoves, which invariably ends up blowing their own hands off.

To sum up, if Americans are so evil because they use violence to achieve their ends. Then why this feeling that the people who fight against the Americans are so noble? Isn't the whole argument here that when you resort to violence to solve your problems, everyone comes out worse in the end? And the people who pay the price are the innocent bystanders?

It can't be denied that the loudest voices coming from the Middle East preach violence as the answer. If the U.S. is morally bankrupt because it is too violent, then who is morally superior in the entire Middle East?

Iraq owed over 300 billion dollars to its neighbors for damage it did in its previous wars. It has been forgiven the majority of that debt, and now it believes that America owes it reconstruction money, even though it doesn't think it should pay reconstruction money for the violent mistakes in its own past.

The literacy rate in Iraq is below 60%, and it contains some of the most heavy environmental damage in the entire world.

America is not a perfect nation by any means, and I am certain we have soldiers behaving badly in Iraq, and I am certain that many of them are not being held accountable for their actions. We should always strive to do better.

Yet on the same hand, what do we do with the thousands of policemen who brutalized Iraqis under Saddam's reign?

And what about Sadr's army (like the one that beat up and blinded the Christian university students), and the many other Iraq-based militias, that are behaving very badly. There seems to be no check at all on their abuses. No one was arrested in the university incident, or the other incidents where Sadr's men were known to have killed shop owners that sold alcohol, among other religiously-motivated murders.

Absolutely, American soldiers should be held accountable for illegal actions. At least there is some method to do so. But how many are dying because of bad Americans, and how many are dying because of the actions of others?

Faiza's car wasn't stolen at gunpoint by Americans, Marla wasn't blown up by Americans, and Americans certainly didn't spend $5 billion on a new electrical grid, only to blow it up the day they finished it.

And I suppose it was Americans that dropped the grenades on themselves while they were playing chess outside a hospital in order to prevent it from being looted.

I've read Truth Teller for quite some time, so I know he doesn't believe that all Americans are bad, and all Iraqis are good.

I just hope everyone else is aware of that too. (As well as the fact that not all Arabs are bad, and not all Americans are good).

jemy

Hurria said...

Legally, morally, ethically, rationally, logically, there is only one justification to go to war, and that is defense against an attack or imminent attack.

Superman said...

Why would a "blanket immunity from legal action be conferred on US corporations doing business in Iraq"? - says Albo...

First of all, I haven't read the law and don't believe that it says "blanket immunity" - just doesn't sound very official. But, to answer your question, certain legal obligations are generally reduced when a government wants to promote business. For example, a government will reduce taxes in a certain area if it wants business to set up shop there. Or it may reduce a business obligations to ensure premises security, for example, during a time of war. What the hell would it have to do with oil? Are you saying that this "blanket immunity" will allow American companies to steal oil from the ground, pack it up in barrels and send it back to America so we can have cheaper gas? Ridiculous.

Superman said...

So, Hurria, are there ever any humanitarian reasons for going to war - say, for example, during a genocide, like Sudan right now? Not trying to be a smart, and I'm not saying there was a genocide occuring in Iraq when the US invaded, but would this be a legitimate military intervention? Or is this off limits also?

Hurria said...

There is no such thing as humanitarian war.

Let’s set aside the political reality that governments do not consume massive amounts of their countries’ human and material treasure, and risk their domestic and international standing for altruistic reasons. Let’s also set aside the political reality that the war on Iraq was retroactively relabeled a humanitarian venture only after the WMD and terrorism justifications proved to be complete falsehoods.

The notion of humanitarian war is absurd on its face. It is an oxymoron. The concept embodied in the word humanitarian is antithetical to the reality of war. War does not help human beings, war kills and injures them, war destroys the physical and organizational structures, and the institutions on which they rely for quality of life, sustenance, health, safety, security, and for life itself. As the wonderful journalist and Middle East expert Helena Cobban put it, “War kills people; and by design it is a blatant attack on their most basic human rights--their rights to life, to physical security, to the pre-conditions of material and mental wellbeing.”

Superman said...

Hurria, I appreciate your straightforward response and I respect the fact that you appear to be a true pacifist. I just hope you are unbiased in condemning the use of force by all sides in this conflict.

Hurria said...

I believe that violence is justified when it is necessary for defence against violence by others. That is not the position of a pacifist.

jemy said...

hurria,

I'm a peacenik myself, so I agree with you. I'd have to say I subscribe to McNamara's new philosophy, and I think that real change in the world comes from aggressive reconstruction, not war. War only makes things harder for everyone, and gets the crazy people to come out of the woodwork.

But what do we do now? I agree that American troops leave much to be desired, but what's the other options?

I don't know for certain what abuses Americans are committing in Iraq, but I do know that Iraqi soldiers and police also commited the SAME abuses our soldiers are being accused of, yet no one believed that meant there should be no Iraqi army or police force.

Many here make arguments that sound like American soldiers always react perfectly, and they should never be held accountable. I find these arguments offensive as well.

But there seems to be far less accountability going on for the bad decisions of Sadr, and the Iraqi government. Who is the mayor of Mosul? Who is the police chief? What are they doing? Who are the engineers? Who is in charge of the power lines to TruthTeller's neighborhood? Who is in charge of water?

What needs to be done? What are the reasons those things are not getting done?

None of this information is being talked about, and this is the kind of thing that will really make a difference.

There ARE ways to get American compensation for damaged buildings, and there ARE funds to start up economic development for Mosul. Certainly, us Americans are doing a terrible job of properly organizing the process, but I don't see Iraqis doing a very good job of organizing either.

If you can't take advantage of the opportunity to land free money for your community, then what is going to happen to you?

If reconstruction in Iraq fails, America will be blamed, but Iraq is the one who is going to have to live with the aftermath.

If you could struggle for a better country under a terrible man like Saddam, why not struggle even harder under the poor leadership of American occupation?

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

jemy said...

hurria,

I have to add, as Gandhi said, If we all took "an eye for an eye, the whole world would be blind."

An Italian. said...

@Superape, 5/28/2005 06:07:08 AM.

"I just hope you are unbiased in condemning the use of force by all sides in this conflict".

What a nice bit of utter hypocrisy, Superape!

The Iraqis using force in their country are, precisely, IN THEIR COUNTRY. This is true for all Iraqi factions, including the puppet Government, the different party/sectarian militias, all the factions of the resistance, and even the gangs of common criminals.
And to judge on their acts is up to the inhabitants of that country, the Iraqis (and the future will tell what the sentence of their majority will be).

The US military using force in Iraq are there in an unjust occupation of a foreign country. They have no right whatsoever to use ANY force against ANY Iraqi, and they should simply NOT be there. So, by definition, they stand already condemned in the eyes of world opinion.

BTW, Superape, I never used the word 'Jews' in my posts, as far as I can remember. So, what were you ranting about?

An Italian. said...

@Moron99, 5/27/2005 11:24:13 PM.

"They say that Zarqawi has died. It is probably true because the insurgents are claiming that he is in perfect health".

In all probability, Moron, oh great expert on Iraq and all things of the Old World (LOL!), this Zarqawi died in March 2003 already.
His presence and relevance were invented because of the irrepressible American need to personalise & demonise: like little children reading comics, they (at least, the fools amongst them, that are many) need to hate some imaginary enemy. See for instance the post by your not cleverer clownish pal Superape (5/28/2005 01:09:15 AM): "I would also argue that none [dictators] are as bad as Saddam Hussein was" (boom! the Saudi royal family is very nice, right? & that gentleman Karimov...).
This tendency was apparently exploited by somebody in the Iraqi resistance, who used Zarqawi the Ghost to claim the less defensible actions.
Whether this propaganda & media invented ghost disappears, or not, it is totally of no relevance for the future of Iraq and of the war.

Superman said...

Hurria, whether you choose to accept the label of pacifist or not, it is now clear to me that you would not support the forced removal of a dictator by foreign powers under any circumstances. Plain and simple, something I can not really work with or argue about.

Superman said...

Yes, angry italian, I'm sure you love jewish people.

Anonymous said...

Jemy, your first post is disorganized and disjointed to the point of incoherence, but I will try to respond to some of what you said:

I haven't seen any real evidence that ties Americans to bombs that kill civilians."

You haven't?! Are you saying that the half ton and one ton bombs they have been dropping for nearly 27 months on cities and towns and villages and vehicles driving on roads do not kill civilians? Are you saying the bombs they used to destroy Falluja did not kill civilians? Are you saying the bombs they have used in the predominantly Turkmen and Christian city of Tal Afar did not kill civilians? Are you saying the cluster bombs they have used for the past 26 months all over Iraq do not kill civilians? Are you saying American bombs do not kill civilians?

"On the other hand, we know for a fact that Marla of CIVIC was killed by a car bomb by a non-American."

We do? And exactly how do we know that "for a fact", and if it is a fact, what is its significance? We do know for a fact that Nicola Calipari was killed by American troops who nearly killed Giuliana Sgrena. We know for a fact that Americans have killed a large number of journalists and others from all over the world.

We know that there are individuals who stand in front of cameras and say they are going to kill anyone who participates in reconstruction with Americans and that there are organizations who state publicly, through papers and all media they can get their hands on, that they have no problem with murdering civilians."

Really? How do we know that? Have you actually seen them making these statements? And if so, how did you understand what they were actually saying?

"When the occupation first started, there was a variety of bombings against the electrical infrastructure."

You must mean the bombings by the Americans, of course. American bombings of electrical infrastructure did not stop in the early days of the occupation, though. They do an excellent job of destroying electrical infrastructure, often as a precursor to attacking a city.

"It was determined, after investigation, that a large percentage of towers that were downed were downed by engineers and leaders in outlying areas of Iraq who were bitter that Baghdad got 24 hour power from outlying local power plants...." etc.

Determined by whom? Who made these investigations? Where did you hear about all this?

"To sum up, if Americans are so evil because they use violence to achieve their ends. Then why this feeling that the people who fight against the Americans are so noble?"

Can you honestly not see the difference between the U.S. leaving its own soil and travelling halfway around the world in order to attack, invade, and occupy a country that has never attacked it and poses no threat to anyone, and Iraqis standing on their own soil fighting against their country's invaders? You don't see the difference between flying over the cities of a foreign country dropping one ton bombs on them, and fighting in your own land against those who are doing this?

Maybe you could try to imagine what Americans would do if their country were attacked, invaded,and occupied by a foreign power. Do you suppose they would not fight to rid their country of the foreign invaders?

"Isn't the whole argument here that when you resort to violence to solve your problems, everyone comes out worse in the end?"

Who in this case is the one who chose to resort to violence -overwhelmingly deadly and destructive violence - as the first option to solve a problem that didn't even exist? Who continues to use massively deadly and destructive violence as the first option in every case? Iraqis did not choose violence in this case at all, they had it forced on them. Why is it so shocking that they respond violently to being violently attacked?

I genuinely do not understand how it is that you people can find so unacceptable any use of violence by Iraqis while they are being so violently and horribly attacked, and yet you remain silent about the party that traveled half way around the world to initiate the violence.

"And the people who pay the price are the innocent bystanders?"

When Americans kill them they are collatoral damage - regrettable, but unavoidable. When Iraqis kill them they are innocent bystanders whose deaths are an unspeakable crime.

"It can't be denied that the loudest voices coming from the Middle East preach violence as the answer."

Oh, that old racism-and-bigotry-based canard again. On what basis do you make that assertion? What do you know about all the voices in the Middle East and what they "preach"? Did it ever occur to you that in the U.S. you are not hearing even 1% of all the voices from the Middle East, and for that 1% you are hearing someone else's interpretation of what some other person translated, probably inaccurately?

"If the U.S. is morally bankrupt because it is too violent, then who is morally superior in the entire Middle East?"

Are you saying that the entire Middle East is violent? How interesting considering the extreme rarity with which Middle Eastern countries initiate violent conflict. How interesting in light of the fact that for nearly 27 months the country committing by far the greatest amount and magnitude of violence in the Middle East is the United States of America. And how interesting that by far the most violent Middle Eastern country is not one of those horrible Arab Muslim countries, but Israel.

I will try to respond to the rest of your comment later.

Hurria said...

Sorry - that last was mine.

Truth teller said...

micro

"This "Citizen of Mosul" is in the same crew.
He live in a delusion, because it is too heavy for him"


The citizens of mosul never lived in a delution, you don't know the citizens of Mosul or of Iraq, they were lived 12 years under strict sanction and every now and then American warplane bombed the infrastructure of thier cities. During your unjustified war thousands of bombs were thrown over the city damaging the electricity, the water supply system and all the infra structures of the city. Add to that what your friends and allied did immediatly following the war (the looting of all the government building, including the musiums), while your troops were watching every thing and happy.

"Then he project the guilt he feel to others. The guilty are others. The other are in fault not him or his kin

Why to feel quilty??
Did I help the invaders to destroy my country? Did I see the crimes comitted by the American and there allied and I said thank you America? Or I just stay mouth closed when your propoganda try to destroy the moral and ethical motive of the honest resistance.

"what would you say to your children? How could you maintain your and their respect?"

Me I and any Iraqi faithfull to his own homeland are proud to die defending it. My children knew this very well.

Albatroz said...

Some of the Americans contributing to this discussion seem to believe that Americans have a duty to stop foreign dictators killing their own people. Although the killing of any people bothers me, I think only the concerned people can - and have the right to - stop such dictators. Americans have not been appointed the world's policemen, and do not even have the moral standing to aspire to such a position. As Hurria has stated, only actual or imminent aggression can justify going to war. Iraq was no threat to the US, so the US shouldn't intervene.

Americans picture themselves as the eternal good guys, all the others being necessarily bad guys. With their simplistic minds they consider justifiable any actions of the good guys against the bad guys. Any intelligent person would quickly see this as an untenable proposition. Why is it that so many Americans fail to understand this? They try desperately to convince the world that their violence is for the good of Iraq. Do they really believe that crap? Iraqis, like any other people, are entitled to their own mistakes. Americans are not entitled to try and correct those mistakes. If they want to better the world I suggest that they start at home, where all the billions spent killing Iraqis could be put to a much better use.

Question: would Americans have bothered with Saddam Hussein if Iraq had no oil?...

Unfortunately this is all about power. The US enjoys being top cat, enjoys using the world to further its own interests. Of course all those billions could do something to improve life in the inner cities, to stop urban decay, to stop pollution, to feed hungry children, to promote racial equality in the US. But that would in no way contribute to maintain superpower status. To be powerful implies using that power, even if it is to kill innocent Iraqis. If other people do not feel your power, than that power is useless. These are childish reasonings, but that's all the reasoning GWB (and some of the present American company) seem to be capable of.

Moron99 said...

You know what I love about the internet?

You have all points of view being expressed. No one has any fear of reprisal for openly stating or supporting their beliefs. No one may be coerced or intimidated into supporting one idea over another.

You know what would be great? If a topic was discussed until everyone had said almost everything they have to say. And then the topic was broken down into three or four distinct opinions and a show of hands was counted. Then you could say that the general concensus amoung commentors was "xxxx".

You know what would be even better? If the group of commentors made an agreement. If they said each of us as a single commentor has little credibility. But if we all agree to support our concensus findings, then we will have a loud voice. Sometimes it will be the position I support and sometimes it will be the position I oppose. But, as a group, our voice will be so loud that we will almost always win.

That would be interesting.

Anonymous said...

"According to the study, countries defined as "undemocratic" in the State Department's annual human-rights report are also major recipients of US military aid or weapons systems.

These include: Saudi Arabia (US$1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1 billion),

Egypt is holding presidential election with candidates. Meanwhile, president has been uneasy about relations with Us for pressures of democratic reforms, considering strenghten relations with Russia.

Kuwait ($153 million),

Kuwait has recently battled in the parliament for women rights, and this effort for improvement of democracy allows arm sales to be justified.

the United Arab Emirates ($110 million),

It's a small country so I won't be able to discuss about this.

and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

US has recently claimed concerns about human rights. It may also effect arm sales as well. Meanwhile, China and Russia has supported the possition of Uzbekstan.

What about the colonist EU that is planning sales to China, and imperialist Russia supporting dictators, such as in Belarus and Uzbekistan? I also thought US is a collaberator of Jews by some people that US only makes sales to Israel? Did Arabs knew that US also plans to support Palestine with financial aids?

waldschrat said...

This blog's comment section has become a field for verbal warfare between a limited number of regular "contributors". Much of the material posted is offensive either to Iraqis or to Americans. Insults are exchanged regularly. There is little evidence of any true inclination of participants to achieve any mutual understanding or find useful solutions to any real problems.

A web log ("blog") is conceptually a place for an individual to expose their views and details of their daily life to the world and invite comments. Like a private diary, it can allow a person to record and examine the history of their life, with the added advantage that other people may provide comments containing advice or analysis from another perspective.

This blog's comment section does not seem to be providing any positive benefit to Truth Teller. If there is anything useful to a medical doctor trying to live a rational life in a war zone it is a rarity in the discussions and exchanges I have found here.

I have learned from the blog posts of Truth Teller and his family that there are good, intelligent people in Mosul who are horribly affected by this war.

What have the poisonous comments in this blog brought them? Truth Teller has been provoked by ignorant comments to announce "I and any Iraqi faithfull to his own homeland are proud to die defending it.", this from a medical doctor whose profession is saving and preserving life. His children report being driven to tears by the comments of ignorant, hateful people.

How can a person help Truth Teller and the people of Mosul? Answer me that!!!!!!!!

waldschrat said...

In Sacramento it gets hot in the summer, up to ~120F (49C) during the day but usually much cooler at night. People frequently open up their houses to the night air, then close all the doors and windows when the sun rises to try to retain the cool of the night as long as possible. This works better when there is good thermal insulation in the attic (between ceiling and roof).

Moron99 said...

Wlaschrat,

I think the point eluded you. The internet inherently promotes democracy. The step from an internet discussion forum to a functional micro-democracy is nothing more than creating political organizations intended to maximize the effectiveness of a group. It is the free exchange of ideas without violence or coercion that is the hardest and most difficult thing to achieve.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

I have a set of demands before I will respect the opinion of another:

1) denounce the targeting of civillians

2) denounce the placement of bombs in crowded areas (you can just as effectively attack the americans elsewhere)

3) denounce the sabatauging of electrical plants and wiring grids

4) denounce the sabatauging of water teatment and sewage treatment plants

5) denounce the attacking of construction projects for new electrical, water, or sewage facilities

6) denounce the killing of Iraqis who design, repair, maintain, or build public utilities

Are you willing to do these things?

Superman said...

Albo asks if the US would have done anything differently if Iraq had no oil...

Of course - Iraq would be a totally different country. It further wouldn't have the resources to develop into the Arab superpower that it is capable of being. The oil is what makes Iraq such a threat. In the hands of the psychopath SH, Iraq could have continued along with its weapons programs. They would have, of course, sooner or later developed WMD if, in fact, SH hadn't already.
Lord knows Europe or Pakistan would have been more than happy to sell SH the technology. Therefore, SH has been a perpetual threat to the stability of the United States, the ME and the rest of the world since SH had been in power.

Nevertheless, I'd prefer not to argue about the decision to go to war because it doesn't help the current situation. Again, we should be discussing how to end the current violence. Hurria, Albo and others say immediate US troop removal will lead to peace. But I still like Moron99's questions because these are the things that us "warmongers" are so concerned about - the seeming failure to condemn the suicide bombings and other insurgent attacks that target Iraqi citizens. I can't understand why the self-proclaimed "peacemongers" can not swallow their pride and do this...

An Italian. said...

@Superape, 5/28/2005 08:00:08 AM.

"Yes, angry italian, I'm sure you love jewish people".

You see, my lovely simian friend, my granny was a Jewess, and so many of my relatives are Jews as well.

But it is quite simply wrong to equate the Israelis to the Jews, and even more wrong to equate the Likhudnik criminal Nazi-Fascists (definitely more dangerous to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever was) to the Jews (and to the Israelis, even if too many of them voted for such criminals).

Please Superape, do scratch your head with one of your four hands, and try to understand the more nuanced & complex way humans do think.

Hurria said...

"In Sacramento it gets hot in the summer, up to ~120F (49C) during the day but usually much cooler at night. People frequently open up their houses to the night air, then close all the doors and windows when the sun rises to try to retain the cool of the night as long as possible."

That's all very interesting, but what is your point, Waldschratt?

Superman said...

Italian Hatemonger - Hitler was part jewish as well. But thanks for correcting me, you don't hate all Jews, just the Israeli ones. I guess we can agree on who you hate.

Truth teller said...

jemy

"I don't know for certain what abuses Americans are committing in Iraq, but I do know that Iraqi soldiers and police also commited the SAME abuses our soldiers are being accused of, yet no one believed that meant there should be no Iraqi army or police force."

Yes you are right, the Iraqi soldiers and police commited the same abuses the American soldiers are being accuesd of. But both the Iraqi soldiers and the police were trained, directed and supervised by the American. Here in Iraq we all wanted the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police have enough power to control the situation, but not in the present coposition. They are both sectarian and very extremist.

"If you could struggle for a better country under a terrible man like Saddam, why not struggle even harder under the poor leadership of American occupation?"

It sound reasonable question if the American occupation are not really an occupation.
We can't tolerate occupation, even if the occupation was by the very good guys of America.
The secret is in the meaning of the word occupation, whether by American or any other foreign country.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

I still await your answer. Will you do the following?

1) denounce the targeting of civillians

2) denounce the placement of bombs in crowded areas (you can just as effectively attack the americans elsewhere)

3) denounce the sabatauging of electrical plants and wiring grids

4) denounce the sabatauging of water teatment and sewage treatment plants

5) denounce the attacking of construction projects for new electrical, water, or sewage facilities

6) denounce the killing of Iraqis who design, repair, maintain, or build public utilities

Moron99 said...

Truth,

what does the word occupation mean to you?

To the american, it is like a construction crew that occupies your home while it is being repaired. They do not intend to tell you how to build your home or how to arrange the rooms. They simply intend to help rebuild and then go home when the job is finished.

What does it mean to you?

Moron99 said...

Truth,

continuing the parralel, put yourself into the shoes of the contractor. Six of the family members want the house to be rebuilt according to their plans, two family members are undecided, and two other family members tear down and vandalize anything that is rebuilt.

What would you do if you were the contractor?

Hurria said...

"What would you do if you were the contractor?"

Go home.

Moron99 said...

can't go home. signed a contract called Total Absolute Liability that says we can't leave until either it is finished, money runs out, or more than half of family members sign termination papers.

Moron99 said...

Obviously, everyone will suffer until the two family members resolve their differences with the other six.

Bill said...

Is Truth Teller the only adult blogger from all of Mosul??

Hurria said...

"Facts like these do not bother "The Truth Teller." The fact IS that you, sir, are an idiot and a fool."

Dan, with all respect due to you, if you are going to have the bad manners to unsult your host in the space he provides us for these discussions, at least make sure you are not guilty yourself of just what you are accusing him of. For years we have seen credible and very consistent reports from a variety of sources confirming over and over again the policy of using religious abuse including desecration of the Qur'an as a means of breaking down Muslim prisoners. Throwing Qur'ans into toilets is, whether they are actually flushed or not, a common technique.

Here are just four examples. There are plenty more where those came from, and they are very, very easy to find.

From The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20, 2005:

"saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey [an attorney in Philadelphia]"

From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

"Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets.

".... They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.

"The disrespect of the Koran by guards at Camp X-Ray was one of the factors prompting a hunger strike.
" Ibid., para. 111-117.

Moron99 said...

Through your silence, when asked to object, it seems apparent that you approve of the following:

1) insurgents targeting civillians
2) insurgents placing bombs in crowded areas (when they can just as effectively attack the americans elsewhere)
3) insurgents sabatauging electrical plants and wiring grids
4) insurgents sabatauging water teatment and sewage treatment plants
5) insurgents attacking construction projects for new electrical, water, or sewage facilities
6) insurgents killing Iraqis who repair, maintain, or build public utilities

Where is the honor in that?

Hurria said...

"I have a set of demands before I will respect the opinion of another:"

I'm so sorry, Moron99, but you must have mistaken me for someone else. I think you mistook me for someone who gives a flying rats backside about your respect.

Moron99 said...

yes, as i suspected. Through your silence, you approve.

waldschrat said...

Time for a little grim humor!

LINK

Hurria said...

Since you raised the issue, however...

Moron99,

1) When will you denounce the targeting of civillians(sic) by anyone at any time for any reason? That includes cutting water, electricity, food and medical supplies to the entire populations of towns and cities and keeping them under violent siege for weeks at a time. It includes refusing to allow delivery of food and medical aid to civilian victims of your attacks, and blocking ambulances from coming to the aid of the wounded. It includes creating hundreds of thousands of permanent refugees by destroying or rendering uninhabitable their homes, neighborhoods, towns and cities. It includes dropping bombs and shooting missiles into residential neighborhoods and crowded marketplaces, driving tanks up and down streets firing at anything that moves and shooting randomly into houses, using helicopter gunships and tanks to fire on columns of families fleeing attacks on their towns and cities, using cluster bombs - the death that keeps on killing - in populated areas, and firing from attack helicopters people attending wedding parties. It includes firing randomly into crowds of unarmed demonstrators. It includes sweeping up, detaining for weeks, months or years, severely abusing, torturing, and sometimes killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, 70-90% of whom are civilians who were picked up "by mistake" (by the U.S. military's own estimate). It includes kidnapping wives, mothers, fathers, and children as hostages when you can't find the person you are looking for.

"2) When will you denounce the placement of bombs in crowded areas by anyone at any time for any reason? That includes dropping one ton and half ton bombs on entire residential areas to get one "bad guy" who may or may not be there. It includes dropping hundreds of bombs per day week after week on a city or town. It includes using cluster bombs - the death that keeps on killing - in populated areas such as Hilla, Basra, Baghdad, and Falluja. It includes virtually destroying entire major cities by dropping thousands of bombs on them. (You can just as effectively attack the "badguys" elsewhere.)

3) When will you denounce the destruction of electrical plants and wiring grids at any time, by anyone, for any reason. That includes denouncing it in 1991 when the U.S. systematically and deliberately destroyed the electrical plants and wiring grids all over Iraq. It includes denouncing it all during the period from 1991-2003 when, as Truth Teller has told us, the U.S. periodically bombed these and other facilities, and used the UN to block the import of equipment, parts, and supplies needed to maintain and repair them. It includes denouncing it from 2003-present as the U.S. systematically destroyed the electrical infrastructure all over Iraq as part of "shocking and awing" Iraqis into submission, and it includes denouncing the ongoing destruction of the electrical infrastructure of cities and towns as part of your "counterinsurgency" actions. And it includes denouncing the virtually total destruction of the electrical and other infrastructure of Falluja in November.

4) When will you denounce the destruction of water treatment and sewage treatment plants at any time, by anyone, for any reason? That includes denouncing it in 1991 when the U.S. systematically and deliberately destroyed water and sewage treatment facilities. It includes denoucing it all during the period from 1991-2003 during which the U.S. was bombing such facilities on a regular basis, and blocking the import of equipment, parts, and supplies needed to maintain and repair them. It includes denouncing the destruction of water and sewage infrastructure as part of "shocking and awing" Iraqis into submission, and as part of the "counterinsurgency" campaign.

5. When will you denounce the killing of Iraqis by anyone at any time for any reason?

jemy said...

hurria,

You're right, I was very disjointed.

I simply meant that I havent' seen any real evidence of Americans planting car bombs and I.U.Ds. I tried to track down source articles for Riverbend's claims and came up with nothing. When healingiraq made claims that Americans murdered his cousin, I waited until the evidence came in, and it was verified that his claims were true. As soon as I see some evidence, I'll do the same thing that I did with healingiraq, lobby the people that I can to try to make certain justice is done. But so far, I haven't seen anything to verify her claims.

Here's a good article on the electricity situation today:
http://enr.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=enr_document&article=fepoar050530-1

Isam Al Khalisi wrote an excellent article for MEES as well, that covered the guardian story that contained the information that electricity workers in Iraq were sabotaging lines to prevent their power from being siphoned off to Baghdad.

Here's an article that details Iraqis and Americans doing badly in equal measures:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1055697,00.html

And I believe it is that Garumsha that were credited with massive electricity line looting in Iraq that resulted in the lowering of the world price of copper.

As for the rest,
when innocent civilians are killed it is horrible, no matter who does it. Patrick Leahy should be commended for setting up the first American program that establishes aid to civilians who are harmed during war. That's a positive step. Do Americans need to do more? Absolutely.

Our army needs to be trained the way our police are trained. Our police do not shoot at bank robbers in a crowd, and our soldiers shouldn't shoot at insurgents in a crowd.

Would I be surprised if Americans rioted, looted, shot at foreign troops, blew up restaurants, targeted "foreign collobarotors" in the event of an occupation on American soil? No, I would not be surprised. But I would still think that there actions were doing more harm than good.

All humans act alike. rioting in Los Angeles was a bad idea. Even with reconstruction in those areas that rioted, the situation is worse than before.

America is not an economic powerhouse, or a wonderful place to live, because it killed a bunch of British people in the 1770's. It's powerful because of the people who set aside hatred in the aftermath, and worked on their farms, and their businesses. The South, in the U.S., is still crippled economically to this day because it put its honor before its economic well-being. The "Confederacy" is still strong in the south, and so is extremism, fundamentalism, and bad schools.

Iraq can follow the path of the American South. Or it can follow the path of the America North. India rebelled against the British through peaceful means, then one side spent its energy on militancy, and the other spent it on economic improvements. India is transforming into a world power, Pakistan is not.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "If Americans were occupied, wouldn't they be looting, rioting, blowing up soldiers, targeting collobarotors, etc" (Yes, probably so) And then say "Americans are behind the looting, rioting, blowing up of their own soldiers, and blowing up of civilians".

A variety of people are planting IEDs, blowing up oil pipelines, electricity lines, killing Iraqi policemen, targeting civilians who work for American soldiers and contractors, killing political figures, engaging in revenge killing, killing people for not wearing veils (drinking alcohol, playing music), etc.

It's a lot like Lebanon.

But remember, Lebanon got better! It gets better every day! And why? Because the people there are slowly learning how to operate politically, instead of through their militias. (I do not claim any American credit for any of it at all) Didn't it all start with the Taif Agreement? So, perhaps politics will lead Iraq out.

jemy said...

And truth teller,

If I add to your stress, I'm truly sorry. I genuinely want to help. I'm probably doing a bad job of it though.

I love your family's blog. Specifically, Najma's picture of your clever electrical "lightbulb" notification system gave me a whole new perspective on Iraq.

waldschrat said...

Hurria said...

"What would you do if you were the contractor?"

Go home.


Wrong, Hurria. If you were a contractor you would recognize that the insurgents are unintelligent and innacurate in their attacks. You would correctly recognize that the odds of survival are high, the pay is high, Iraqi locals can be paid to take the greatest risks, and your project will benefit Iraq. You would stay, and you would feel good about what you do and the people who help you do it. If you could keep sane you would not learn to hate. You would a better person than you are, Hurria.

Hurria said...

"I simply meant that I havent' seen any real evidence of Americans planting car bombs and I.U.Ds."

I.U.D.'s? I have not heard any talk at all about Americans planting intra-uterine devices in Iraq. Perhaps if they did, though, there would not be so many of your female soldiers, who apparently are not particularly selective sexually, becoming pregnant during their tours there.

Seriously, though I do not believe Americans have been creating fake "insurgent" attacks in Iraq, I doubt very much you would be seeing any evidence if they were. We knew since May, 2003 that Iraqis were being abused, tortured, and killed by the Americans in all their prisons, but it was not until nearly a year later, thanks to Seymour Hersch, that irrefutable evidence became available to Americans like you.

Given the U.S. past history of "black operations", and given the Bush administration's well documented history of ruthlessness and flagrant mendacity I also would not put it past them at all if they believed it would serve their agenda. From what I can tell, though, I would be surprised to learn they were involved in this sort of thing now.

In the case of Chalabi, Allawi, etc., it would not surprise me at all to learn that they were responsible for some of the "insurgent" attacks.

"I tried to track down source articles for Riverbend's claims and came up with nothing."

Riverbend did not make any claims. She reported information that circulated in Baghdad. It may or may not be factual, and if factual it may or may not mean what it appears to mean. Either way, it is unlikely you would find any evidence at this point in any of the material available to you.

"When healingiraq made claims that Americans murdered his cousin, I waited until the evidence came in, and it was verified that his claims were true."

That is a good practice, of course. And do you show the same caution with respect to claims that favour your own beliefs and wishes?

"As soon as I see some evidence, I'll do the same thing that I did with healingiraq, lobby the people that I can to try to make certain justice is done. But so far, I haven't seen anything to verify her claims."

Riverbend did not make any claims, she merely reported information that has circulated in Baghdad about an incident. In my judgment it is very possible that the Americans did not perpetrate the incident, though the rest of it might be true.

Hurria said...

Waldschratt,

Moron99's contractor analogy is so absurdly out of sync with reality that it is not even worth discussing. It is one of the best examples I have seen so far of his ability to combine a total failure to grasp even the most obvious realities and a spectacular lack of logic at any level of his thinking.

Bill said...

"Moron99's contractor analogy is so absurdly out of sync with reality that it is not even worth discussing."

That sounds like a cop-out

If it swims like a fish and looks like a duck...it ain't a trout.

Hurria said...

"Here's an article that details Iraqis and Americans doing badly in equal measures:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1055697,00.html
"

What is your point with all this “Iraqis are doing bad stuff too” business? Are you attempting by this classic use of the tu quo que fallacy to exonerate your government and its military by showing us that they have competition from the worst elements of Iraqi society in their headlong moral and ethical race to the bottom?

That Iraqis are doing bad stuff too merely illustrates the universal reality that disasters, whether real or man-made, provide opportunities for criminals, opportunists, and desperate people, and anyone else with low ethical and moral standards to take advantage of. It also is dramatic proof of your government's absolute failure to meet even its minimum responsibilities as an occupying power.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

your silence still rings loudly.

Hurria said...

"Patrick Leahy should be commended for setting up the first American program that establishes aid to civilians who are harmed during war. That's a positive step."

A far, far better step would be not to go around invading countries and starting wars.

"Our army needs to be trained the way our police are trained."

Your army needs to not be used to invade and occupy countries in politically motivated wars of aggression. It needs to be used strictly as a defensive force in the case of an actual attack or a genuine threat.

"Our police do not shoot at bank robbers in a crowd, and our soldiers shouldn't shoot at insurgents in a crow."

1. If your soldiers had not been used as an invading and occupying force in a politically motivated, ill-conceived illegal war of aggression there would be no "insurgents" and no crowds for it to shoot at.

2. You are right that they should not be shooting at "insurgents" or anyone else in crowds. However, there are plenty of incidents in which there were no "insurgents" and no weapons, and they shot the demonstrators anyway.

"Would I be surprised if Americans rioted, looted, shot at foreign troops, blew up restaurants, targeted "foreign collobarotors" in the event of an occupation on American soil? No, I would not be surprised. But I would still think that there actions were doing more harm than good."

And what would be the right response to a foreign invader who bombed you into "shock and awe", overthrew your government, took over your country, behaved like arrogant, brutal goons, and set out to impose on you, by force when necessary and without giving you any say-so, its own hand-picked appointed local and national leaders, and its own self-serving choices of economic, political, social, cultural, and infrastructure systems? What is the appropriate resonse? To sit quietly and let them impose their will on your country? Cooperate with them? Open your arms to receive their bombs while singing kumbaya?

"All humans act alike. rioting in Los Angeles was a bad idea. Even with reconstruction in those areas that rioted, the situation is worse than before.

Sorry, were the rioters in Los Angeles trying to rid themselves of a deadly and destructive foreign power that bombed its way into their city, occupied it, and tried to impose its political, economic, social, and cultural will on it? I did not ever hear of that.

"America is not an economic powerhouse, or a wonderful place to live, because it killed a bunch of British people in the 1770's.

No, but it IS an independent state instead of a British colony because of that, and it fought a fierce, bloody, and deadly war to win its independence from the colonial power that had ruled it, more or less benignly, from the beginning, not a foreign power that brutally invaded and occupied it.

"It's powerful because of the people who set aside hatred in the aftermath, and worked on their farms, and their businesses."

What does this have to do with what is going on in Iraq today?

"The South, in the U.S.... "Confederacy"...Iraq can follow the path of the American South....Or it can follow the path of the America North."

Your comments are becoming more and more irrelevant in incoherent. I know you mean well, but please...

Hurria said...

"India rebelled against the British through peaceful means"

If you think India won its independence from Britain by only peaceful means, then you need to learn more about the Indian rebellion. In any case, there is no analogy here with Iraq's present situation.

"Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "If Americans were occupied, wouldn't they be looting, rioting, blowing up soldiers, targeting collobarotors, etc" (Yes, probably so) And then say "Americans are behind the looting, rioting, blowing up of their own soldiers, and blowing up of civilians"."

Pardon me, but I have not said that, have I?

"It's a lot like Lebanon."

No, it isn't. Lebanon does not now and never has had its entire country violently invaded and brutally occupied by a foreign power. Lebanon has not had even part of its country under foreign occupation since the Israelis were finally forced out by Hezbollah years ago.

"But remember, Lebanon got better! It gets better every day! And why? Because the people there are slowly learning how to operate politically, instead of through their militias."

The situation in Lebanon has no relevancy whatsoever to the current situation in Iraq.

Jemy, I believe you mean well and are trying to be positive and helpful, but a lot of what you are saying just doesn't make any sense.

An Italian. said...

@Jemy, 5/29/2005 01:52:34 AM.

"As soon as I see some evidence, I'll do the same thing that I did with healingiraq, lobby the people that I can to try to make certain justice is done".

It reflects rather badly on American 'democracy' (and especially on American 'justice') that all your lobbying was in vain, Jamy: for a 1st degree aggravated murder Sgt. Perkins got 6 months (& was kept in the US army), and Lt. Saville got a grand total of... 45 days in jail! Much less than one would get in most of Europe for torturing and killing a dog the same way Zeytun was killed.
So, please, be a bit less naive. Actually 'justice' and 'democracy' are two terms that don't apply very much to the US of America nowadays.


@Superape, 5/28/2005 09:36:37 PM.

"thanks for correcting me, you don't hate all Jews, just the Israeli ones. I guess we can agree on who you hate".

No, my silly liar, as was evident from my post I just strongly dislike your Nazi-Fascist pals, the Likhudniks, not 'the Israelis'.
As for your "Hitler was part jewish as well", no, you are wrong, it is just an unsubstantiated bit of speculation (never any evidence of it; do ask any historian of Nazism).


@Moron99, 5/29/2005 03:53:25 AM.

"Hurria, your silence still rings loudly".

As any human being of average intelligence realises, Hurria has already answered you fully, and more than once.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

you are so full of bullshit that your eyes are brown.

First and foremost, the insurgency doesn't have shit to do with the protecting the integrity of Iraqi soil against american occupation. Only the stupidest and most ignorant people believe your rhetoric. The baathi use that as a cover to simultaneously expand their ideological base of appeal to a broader pan-arab context while hiding their true motives. Anyone with half a brain knows that you will turn on the muj and slaughter them the very instant they no longer serve your purpose. It is also crystal clear that the baathi intend to ascend to power through a series of assasinations and an expanding net of oppression. If only they could get rid of the americans ..... it ain't going to happen. Don't be stupid. Make peace with democrats because what they offer you now is as good an offer as you will ever see.

The shia and kurds are learning to trust each other and negotiate with each other. You will be a day late and a dinar short if you don't wake up to reality very, very soon.

Oh, oh, oh you cry. They are going to establish an Islamic state like Iran!! That's bullshit and you know it. Link

You are worthless human being who is unable to accept the fact that you do not have the right to force others into submission.

As my friend from the south likes to say. Gehbi.



"Your army needs to not be used to invade and occupy countries in politically motivated wars of aggression. It needs to be used strictly as a defensive force in the case of an actual attack or a genuine threat."

Let us debate. I will gut you like a fish.

Bill said...

Hot damm...I smell a deeebate a commin' or maybe its just fish guts

An Italian. said...

@Moron99, 5/29/2005 04:54:06 AM.

"First and foremost, the insurgency doesn't have shit to do with the protecting the integrity of Iraqi soil against american occupation".

Dear pontificating animal, how can you have the cheek of blathering in this outrageous way? Do you personally know any Iraqi 'insurgents' (i.e., Iraqi patriots precisely resisting your beastly occupation)?

"If only they could get rid of the americans ..... it ain't going to happen".

Oh noble fruit of a process of inverted evolution, I see that you gaze into a crystal ball (holding it tightly with your two lower hands), being able to reveal the future to us, blind humans that we are.
Do you remember the Vietnam war (another example of your simian wars of aggression)? There were some grotesque American war-pimps in those days as well: "US withdrawal ain't going to happen... we'll stay the course... we cannot cut & run...".
Do you remember what actually happened? The 30th of April 1975, Graham Martin & your glorious Marines, yellow with fear, running out of Vietnam in helicopters, kicking away their silly collaborators who wanted to escape as well?
I'm quite confident the same will eventually happen in Iraq, please God; the Iraqi patriots will hit your apes-at-arms harder & harder, and you'll have no choice but to go.
Shall we make a bet?

"You [= Hurria] are [a] worthless human being who is unable to accept the fact that you do not have the right to force others into submission".

My dear gentleape, this is very very cheeky of you. Who is trying "to force others into submission", I wonder? And not just in Iraq, but all through the world? Isn't it, by any chance, "the gweatest nation in the world", also known as Apeland?

Superman said...

Hurria, Italian and others - please explain what the appropriate response to Saddam Hussein should have been? Should the sanctions have ended? Should the no-fly zones been abandoned? Should America's military bases in SA been abandoned? Should the US have established a peace treaty with SH, put the Kuwait war behind, and establish normal relations with Saddam's government? What SHOULD have happened? Nothing at all? Please try to debate without the hateful diatribes.

Bill said...

"(holding it tightly with your two lower hands)"

There is something sexy about that, can't quite put my finger on it though.

Moron99 said...

Italian,

butt out. allow hurria to defend her own opinions in an open forum.

jemy said...

hurria,

Perhaps I should back up a step. I'm from Mississippi, and my ancestry goes back here since the colonists first set foot here. The South in the civil war reminds me the most of Iraq today.

In the South, after the civil war, the northern occupation force fought against the KKK and the militants that were trying to subjugate black people. The north got tired of the fight, and threw their resources into coming to terms with the white militants, who then used their power to enact Jim Crow laws which denied equal treatment to black people. It took nearly a hundred years, Martin Luther King, and thousands of lawyers and religious men to finally put an end to that injustice.

What would have happened if the North continued to occupy the South until they were certain that black people would have an equal voice in the political process?

The Northern army razed the South. It salted fields, and murdered civilians. There was no law. Civilians who tried not to take sides found themselves hating whichever side harmed them first, since just about everyone was behaving badly. Law and order broke down. Kidnappings, murder, were widespread and prevelant.

My ancestors were unionists. Some of them were murdered by union soldiers. Others were murdered by angry Confederates (Because they were "collobarators"). Their children fled to live with relatives.

Was the union army "evil"? They certainly did horrible, brutal things. Would us Southerners have been better off if the north had minded their own business? Well, the white people might have been.

There was no "justice" for my dead ancestors. no one was ever held accountable. Yet Abraham Lincoln is still a hero of mine.

The sanctions in Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people, and the war killed tens of thousands of people. There are no noble tools around.

I wish I knew a better way. Do I think this war was evil? yes. Do I think the Union way of fighting against the South was wrong? yes. But where do we go from here? more killing?

The Americans WILL go. No American soldier wants to live in Baghdad. You can kill them now, but to what end?

An Italian. said...

"What the appropriate response to Saddam Hussein should have been? Should the sanctions have ended?"

Yes, for sure, after some suitable UN sponsored negotiations. The sanctions didn't hit so much Saddam as the Iraqi people, anyway.

"Should the no-fly zones been abandoned?"

Of course they should have been. They were a unilateral US-British imposition, anyway.

"Should America's military bases in SA been abandoned?"

That was a matter to be decided between the US & Saudi Arabia; a State (whatever the regime, autocratic like the Wahabi one or democratic) may decide to keep foreign troops inside its own borders. The decision may then create reactions, among its own population, prejudicial to the well-being, or even the survival, of the same regime; but it was up to the Saudis (& to the US, of course) to evaluate the dangers. The case of the Iraq of today is completely different, since the present Iraqi regime was created as a consequence of the US invasion, and the 'reactions' (to use an understatement) have been patent almost from the very start of the occupation. Any comparison with the situation of Germany, Japan, & Italy after WW2 is unfounded as well. In that case the Axis regimes had unleashed a worldwide war of conquest to the death; and the Allied Powers had the moral right of occupying those countries.
The only marginally 'moral' chance of getting rid of Saddam's regime by military means was in 1991, but Bush Senior failed to avail of it (being worried, apparently, by the link between the Shiite insurgents and Iran, and by the Turkish displeasure at the Kurdish insurgents).

"Should the US have established a peace treaty with SH, put the Kuwait war behind"

Since the US never declared war on Iraq, there would have been no need of a 'peace treaty'. From the point of view of the international community, some alert vigilance would have been required to ensure that Saddam would not pose a danger to its neighbours again.

"and establish normal relations with Saddam's government?"

That would have been a decision only the US Govt. had the right to take.

Moron99 said...

jemy,

You need to understand that Hurria wants to wear the hooded robes. Anything else is a travesty of existence.

An Italian. said...

@Moron99, 5/29/2005 07:05:26 AM.

"You need to understand that Hurria wants to wear the hooded robes. Anything else is a travesty of existence".

Everybody by now knows that you are just a pompous liar, moronic Moron, but you seem to become more & more obvious in your mendacity. Have you lost the plot altogether?
Anybody who has read Hurria's comments, to Truth Teller's or to other Iraqi blogs, knows at once that what you say here is completely false (but all your pontificating clownery is, after all, as fake, bogus & false as this, only a bit less obvious at a first glance).

Moron99 said...

Italian,

Would you like to own one of the booby trapped pens that saddam's minister of information talked about? For a mere $200US I can send you one.

Hurria said...

Moron99,

Gut me like a fish? Oh, dear, no. I do not wish to be gutted like a fish, so I think I will decline your gracious invitation to debate.

Hurria said...

Jemy,

I do not want to be impolite, but all of your lengthy analogies are not helpful. Perhaps trying to draw analogies is your way of trying to understand the Iraqi situation, but none of them makes any real sense in terms of any of the realities of Iraq.

Also, you are burying your point completely with all the analogies and other verbiage. It would be much more helpful if you would simply state your point clearly along with any supporting information you have for it.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it, by any chance, "the gweatest nation in the world", also known as Apeland?

"Apeland". I'll have to put that on my "to-do list". Sounds like a fun place to take the kids this summer.

Hurria said...

"please explain what the appropriate response to Saddam Hussein should have been"

When? In 2002? Response to what? Saddam had not given anyone anything to respond to for over a decade. As a matter of fact, the Bush administration was forced to manufacture a false crisis in order to justify doing anything.

"Should the sanctions have ended?"

The sanctions should have ended as soon as it became clear that they were doing unspeakable harm to the people and the country, and strengthening the regime. Most of the rest of the world wanted them ended. It was only the U.S. that prevented that.

"Should the no-fly zones been abandoned?"

The no-fly zones should never have been instituted. They had nothing at all to do with the U.N., and they certainly did nothing but allow the U.S. to aggravate tensions, and conduct bombings once or twice a week for 13 years.

"Should America's military bases in SA been abandoned?"

That is purely a decision for the Saudi rulers to make.

"Should the US have established a peace treaty with SH"

The U.S. was not at war with Iraq, so a peace treaty made no sense at all.

"put the Kuwait war behind"

The Kuwait war ended in 1991. It was history. There was nothing TO "put behind".

"and establish normal relations with Saddam's government?"

That is a decision for the U.S. government and the Iraqi government. It certainly didn't bother the U.S. government to treat him like their best friend in the '80's while he was committing his worst atrocities.

"What SHOULD have happened?"

When? In 2003 when the Bush administration had to manufacture a false crisis in order to scare people into agreeing to attack a broken, harmless country?

"Please try to debate without the hateful diatribes."

You might take a bit of your own advice there.

Programmer Craig said...

Enough... you Europeans who come here to do your America bashing are ruining this man's blog. Isn't there enough audience for that in Europe?

I can understand American's coming here to bash their own country, because they'd get punched in the face the first time they publicly made the kind of comments I've seen here. And you KNOW that's true :D

If you don't believe it, walk down to walmart and start telling everybody how Bush is a war criminal and US troops are murderers. Then try to make it to the door.

American America-Haters, do your fellow americans a favor and at least become ex-pats before you start insulting your own countrymen. Nobody will miss you, and there are millions of people trying to get to the United States who would be more than happy to take over your job. Hell, I bet there's Iraqi's reading this blog who would literally KILL to swap places with you.

Moron99 said...

How should the future government of Iraq be organized?

and - btw - the plan to simply vote against it. That's stupid. It's on par with telling everybody not to vote last time. It will only give basrah, arbil, kirkuk, and najaf additional time to finish their infrastructure, promote economic development, and start building industires. By the time you idiots wake up, you'll have succeeeded in defining Iraqs poorest population segment. Money is power and you won't have jack in comparison to the east.

Anonymous said...

Riverbend is stupid enough why the bomb did not explode when the US Armed Force was near by. Did he thought US Armed Force knew nothing about remote bombs and did nothing to counter it? Truth Teller, think about the background of that news before you trust anything from Riverbend. One Iraqi said she was a family member of Baathist party that was working at an embassy overseas. Do you want to trust news from a Baathist party family member?

Superman said...

hurria and italian - by "what should have been the response to Saddam" I mean, is there anything that any country should have done to "contain" him. By contain I mean, to prevent him from re-entering Kuwait, or Iran, or building a nuclear facility, or shooting scud missiles into Saudi Arabia or Israel, or whatever. Your answers seem to indicate that, after the Kuwait war, Saddam was so "weakened" that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbors. You also say the no fly zones and sanctions were both inappropriate. Therefore, how would you have proposed that the world keep Saddam in this weakened state so as to limit Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors? Was Iraq in such a weakened state that there was no threat to worry about ever? Or should everyone have just assumed that the war had changed Saddam for the good, and therefore nothing, really, should have been done to prevent future conflict. No sanctions, no weapons checks, no "no fly zones", nada...If your answer is going to be, "well, the US just should not have done what it did back in the 1980's, or in Vietnam, or it should have saved the Shiites right after the Kuwait war, or should have removed Saddam then..." or whatever, then don't bother responding. My question is about Saddam and whether or not he should have been "contained" - from after the Kuwait war to 2003. And feel free to argue that he should have been "contained" for 3 years, or whatever, and then he changed for the better so that, by 2003, there was no need to contain him. There I did half your arguing for you, now go ahead with the rest...

Truth teller said...

jemy

Thank you jemy for your nice comment. I really appreciate your desire to help. But I think no body can help us but the Iraqis themselves.

Hurria said...

"you won't have jack in comparison to the east."

The east? What is this "east" you are blathering about now?

Albatroz said...

Just for the record:

I strongly condemn any killing of innocent Iraqis, whether as a result of American or insurgent action. At the same time I believe insurgents have not only the right but also a duty to oppose American occupation by force.

Does this satisfy everybody?

Anonymous said...

"On August 9th, the insurgents in the city kidnapped the two Iraqi National Guard battalion commanders within the city subsequently killing at least one of them. It is another clear example of the savagery of the enemy here. The city is now without any coalition influence other than our fires. The local militia that was created as a solution to the April fighting has become a defensive army that is in collusion with the insurgents. The police are complicit with the enemy and the city is literally run by terrorists.



The Iraqi National Guard battalion commander that was killed was Lt Col Sulaiman Hamad Ftikan. We knew him as Sulaiman. He was the closest thing to a true patriot and leader we have found who is actually from the local Falluja area. He was kidnapped and murdered because he had finally gotten his battalion to stand up to the criminals and insurgents who have had their run of the city all these months.



Of course his murder was not merciful. He was tortured and beaten to death. He was so disfigured by the torture that his friends could not bear to look at his body - this from a people who have seen their share of death and torture. There are still at least two soldiers missing that were kidnapped with Sulaiman and more good men are taken every day.



The city has continued to be an epicenter of terror and instability. With everything that I know, I cannot fathom a resolution of this problem that does not include us being allowed to take the city down once and for all. Time and space does not allow me to recount the horrible tales of torture and murder that have taken place inside this town. Too many good men have been taken into the town and beaten savagely because they are trying to be honest policemen or soldiers. It seems that the favorite torture techniques include hanging people upside down and pulverizing feet and toes. However, we have had bodies show up with various unimaginable wounds including some that have had their faces melted off by welding torches. The enemy is savage and will never come around to cooperate with the coalition or the new Iraqi government.



Sulaiman's death in large part ended the Regiment's restraint around the city. The Marines have invested so much time, energy and passion into training the two battalions of Iraqi National guards that were headquartered in and around the town. The enemy surrounded the two battalion headquarters and threatened to destroy them in total. They lured Sulaiman out with promises that they just wanted to talk and that if he exited, he could spare his men. Long story short, immediately after the commanders left their headquarters with the insurgents, the enemy poured into the buildings and beat the soldiers. After a beating, they chased the soldiers out of the headquarters and proceeded to steal all the weapons and ammunition that we had provided and loot all of the garrison property (trucks, TVs, air conditioners, etc...) that we had purchased to stand up the force. The weapons, ammunition and vehicles were taken and are now in the hands of the enemy. The garrison property was sold in the street. The leading insurgent and leading imam (go figure that) then declared that "the Iraqi National Guard no longer exists in Falluja" and that any soldiers seen in uniform should be killed. This same guy controls the Falluja Brigade as well as other insurgents inside the town."
(Excerpt from a letter from Dave Bellon who was stationed near Fallujah.)

Hurria,
If these are your "innocent inhabitants" of Fallujah then I worry about Iraq's future.

Lynnette in Minnesota

waldschrat said...

Here is a link to some interesting U.N. stuff about Iraq.

http://www.uniraq.org/

waldschrat said...

Albatroz said...

Just for the record:

I strongly condemn any killing of innocent Iraqis, whether as a result of American or insurgent action. At the same time I believe insurgents have not only the right but also a duty to oppose American occupation by force.

Does this satisfy everybody?


There is a California law that says a citizen has a right to resist a crime "by any force necessary". I would be more satisfied if the wording of your statement read the same. Except for that, I commend it.

olivebranch said...

I think all you OUTSIDERS who criticise this mans search for the truth as to why so many blast victims and friends of his are coming to be treated by him, a skilled 56yr old doctor.

Look beyond your own lives, beyond your own eyes and into the hearts of those who are dying, are preparing to die.

The iraqi citizenry are taking the fall for whomever, the americans - SCIRI, Da'wa, Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, believes they have the highest right to impose their belief system and system of governance upon them.

Your comments are wholly unjust in attacking this mans integrity. He is scrambling to find the truth behind the bombings which even the coalition troops themselves can't put a face to, and admit that the bombs are being done by whomever will profit from Civil War in Iraq.

Surely continuing military conflict in Iraq benefits the USA, since it is the worlds largest arms producer. Surely it benefits Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.

Surely it keeps the eyes of Damascus and Tehran busy and away from a steely resolve about Jerusalem.

Whatever your argument tread wisely, this man is very intelligent, and though his english is not 100% I bet your Arabic isn't either.

Do not insult good people and their attempts to understand. You don't understand either, otherwise the troops would be home by now

Hurria said...

Lynette,

Would you be so kind as to remind us of the purpose for which your government forced hundreds of thousands of residents of Falluja - men,women, children, infants, elderly - out of their homes and out of their city, then bombed most of the city to rubble, destroying homes, businesses, houses of worship, medical clinics, schools, and basic infrastructure, killing thousands of men, women, children, infants and elderly who were unable to escape, and rendered most of the rest of the city uninhabitable?

What was that intended to accomplish?

Superman said...

Olivebranch - nice post. Jeme - nice post. If more people thought like you guys, this war would be over by now. Better yet, it never would have happened.

Hurria and Italian, please try to respond to my last post. What would have been your policy on containment?

jemy said...

Truth teller,

I just saw your previous post where you said Here in Iraq we all wanted the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police have enough power to control the situation, but not in the present coposition. They are both sectarian and very extremist.

I read a few articles where it said that the U.S. went into a community and ended up funding the militia of a local strongman, thinking they were creating a new police force. I think this was in Nassariya? A man named Al-Ghiza? I'll have to track that down. In any case, the locals said the problem was that the police force was loyal to this leader, not to the community, and wasn't helping to stabalize anything.

Is this what you meant? Is Mosul suffering from the same problem? Or are the Mosul police just badly trained?

I'm glad I haven't offended you, by the way. Let me know when I'm being foolish or rude or arrogant.

I think that if the citizens in Mosul can figure out how to cobble together such an elaborate personal electrical generation system (in the face of such bad electrical management at higher levels) then they will certainly figure out a way to establish security for themselves (in the face of poor planning for security at higher levels).

You're right, it is Iraqis themselves that will find a way out of this mess. And your three lightbulb electrical notification system is the reason I think that's true.

Although, I do find it extremely depressing that I can't find a more pro-active way to help.

An Italian. said...

@Moron99, 5/29/2005 07:38:05 AM.

"Italian, Would you like to own one of the booby trapped pens that saddam's minister of information talked about? For a mere $200US I can send you one".

Poor clownish ape, you seem to be getting more & more incoherent.
So your rants & your lies did not impress anybody (apart, maybe, from some American of the four-handed persuasion), and since you are losing your plot you rave more & more.
What a sad & silly sight.

An Italian. said...

@Lynnette in Minnesota, 5/30/2005 01:30:42 AM.

Before these Iraqi blogs' comments pages came out, we in the rest of the world used to think of Minnesota as a quiet, woody place, where the most dangerous wild beasts would be bears, or wolves.

Your apparition meant that by now we know for positive that there are other, worse beasts in the woods of Minnesota: homicidal apes of the worst & most lying variety, precisely like you are, oh 'Lynnette'.

So, oh you genius, what do you think ever happened in the world to traitors, collaborators and puppets of an invader, like this poor Col. Sulaiman? In 1944-45 similar scenes took place all over Europe (would you like a nice poster of Mussolini the cowardly puppet & former dictator, executed, well kicked, & then hung upside down?).

I do understand that your brain is about 300 cc (cubic centimetres) wide, but I suspect that your ancestors were human. Don't you know that in the American War of Independence against Britain (1775-83) some thousands of British Loyalists suffered a worse fate than Col. Sulaiman's? Whole families were killed with kicks, bludgeons and pitchforks. Before the killing, the womenfolk were often raped. Mind, beastie, that those 'collaborators' with the Brits were not foreign invaders (like your troops undoubtedly are in Iraq), but of the very same stock as the glorious 'American Patriots'. But they were perceived as 'traitors', and that was it. Didn't they tell you at school, silly 'Lynnette'?

So what you are trying to show, pathetic & hypocritical wild beast, with your "If these are your 'innocent inhabitants' of Fallujah then I worry about Iraq's future"?

As for this Dave Bellon or whatever, "stationed near Fallujah", I do hope that the criminal animal got caught, then or later, by the Iraqi patriots, and that he suffered a much worse fate than this poor puppet Sulaiman.

Most of your ludicrous puppets in Iraq will suffer a similar fate; not being idiotic Americans, they did calculate their odds, and thought they were sort of 'even' (like all collaborators, traitors & puppets always do). But, most probably, they are wrong indeed.

An Italian. said...

@Programmer Craig, 5/29/2005 09:27:58 AM.

Programmer... what!? You, piteous bully & buffoon, ape of the trailer-trash variety, cannot even write your own language (see, animal Craig, your "American's" and "Iraqi's", a plural spelled as a genitive singular, you illiterate & unreasoning beast)so how can you 'programme' anything?
I do understand why the still human Americans hate the likes of you...

Anonymous said...

Ahh, "italian's" descent into rabid lunacy continues unabated. As disturbing as it is to witness the complete mental breakdown of a human being, I have to admit it is morbidly fascinating to watch.

Grab some popcorn and pull up a chair, folks. This is getting interesting. :-)

And yes, I see you, Hurria, Albatroz and others, cringing in the background wondering why the fates have intervened to have this lunatic arguing for your side. :-)

An Italian. said...

"My question is about Saddam and whether or not he should have been 'contained' - from after the Kuwait war to 2003. And feel free to argue that he should have been 'contained' for 3 years, or whatever, and then he changed for the better so that, by 2003, there was no need to contain him".

Now the bashing Saddam got in 1991 did indeed put a final stop to his 'foreign expansion' ambitions. Apart from the rhetorics, there is no sign that the man was able, after 1991, to pose any danger to any of Iraq's neighbours. This, regardless of any sanctions.
Would Saddam pose a danger to Iran ever again? That is laughable.
To Turkey? Again...
To Syria or Jordan? Why should he?
To SA and/or the Gulf States: about those he had got ample vaccination, don't you think?

So, for sure, by 1991, end of the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's regime did not pose any longer a danger to its neighbours. It is not a matter of his 'changing for the better': he just didn't have any longer the ability to harm anybody outside his borders.

So these 'sanctions' were kept up by the US just for the show, as everybody knew: but this massmedial show was extremely costly to the Iraqi population, while it left the regime unharmed.

Rama said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rama said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jemy said...

Here's info on the Hilla bomb that killed 130 civilians back in March. Apparently it was detonated by a jordanian guy named Raed Mansoor Albanna as reported by a paper called Al Ghad. Don't know how accurate all of this is. I'll try to do more fact checking.

http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2005/03/jordanian_suici.html

Hurria said...

Jemy,

The perpetrator of the Hilla atrocity was indeed a Wahhabi from Jordan (Jordanian Wahhabis are the most sick, disgustingly venomous sort. They are to Islam as the Nazis are to Christianity.). I don't recall his name, and would prefer it were erased from all memory anyway.

What was your point in bringing up this horrible incident?

Hurria said...

PS Jemy, do you think a site that calls itself "terrorism unveiled" might just have a particular agenda that could make it less than the best place to find unbiased, reliable information?

Hurria said...

Superman,

Where are you going with all this? If you are trying to justify the 2003 U.S. war of aggression, you are certainly heading in the wrong direction. One way or another Saddam was clearly effectively "contained" after his 1991 fiasco. Why, we even received the definitive word on that in 2001 from no less than Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell (among others).

Superman said...

Hurria - are you avoiding the questions? I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. And I didn't ask whether or not Saddam was "effectively contained..." I asked whether there was a need to contain him. Italian said, basically, there was no need to contain him because his military was destroyed. Therefore, I'm wondering why he didn't just build the military back up. Did he become a pacifist or something and realize that war with his neighbors was not the answer? Seriously, I'm very curious about what you think.

Hurria said...

"Did he become a pacifist or something and realize that war with his neighbors was not the answer? Seriously, I'm very curious about what you think.a"

Yeah, I'll just bet you are! Forgive me if your past remarks have caused me to be skeptical about this one.

I do not have time to answer you now, but will make an effort to find the time later.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 319   Newer› Newest»