Success in Iraq is dependent on Iraqis

[MTAFFI]

U.S. troops target bomb networks By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 50 minutes ago



JISR DIYALA, Iraq - Newly arrived U.S. troops southeast of Baghdad are destroying boats on the Tigris River and targeting networks believed to be bringing powerful roadside bombs from Iran as the military cracks down on extremists from all directions, military officials said.

But a top U.S. commander warned on Monday that three or four times more Iraqi security forces are needed to sustain the progress in clearing the area and stanching the flow of arms and makeshift bombs into the capital.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose command covers the southern rim of Baghdad and mostly Shiite areas to the south, said the reinforcements who arrived as part of a troop buildup have had success in rooting out militants from their sanctuaries and preventing them from fleeing the area in an operation called Marne Torch — one of a quartet of offensives in the capital and surrounding areas.

"All along the Tigris River valley, people knew this is where the Sunni extremists were storing munitions, training for operations, building IEDs to take them into Baghdad," he said, referring to improvised explosive devices, the term the military uses for roadside bombs.

"They just didn't have the reach to get down there. Now with the surge brigades they've got the reach. But the issue is we can't stay here forever and there's gotta be a persistent presence and that's gotta be Iraqi security forces. And that's always our biggest concern," he said while visiting troops from the 3rd Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team at a U.S. patrol base on the southeastern edge of Baghdad.

The dusty base is nestled between high sand berms on what was the Tuwaitha nuclear complex, which was bombed during the U.S.-led invasion and subsequently looted, near the mainly Shiite village of Jasr Diyala, 12 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Lynch said his units had been successful in preventing the militants from fleeing the area ahead of the offensive and overall detained 150 people, including at least 30 high-value targets — most from the rural Arab Jubour area just south of the capital.

"In the past they had exit routes so they saw the operation coming," he said. "What we did is establish blocking positions all around Arab Jubour so the enemy couldn't leave but they had to stay and fight and as a result to either die or be captured."

Lynch's comments were the latest to signal a growing impatience among U.S. commanders with Iraqi security forces amid calls in the U.S. for the Bush administration to start bringing troops home. The Americans have expressed confidence in a new strategy aimed at flooding volatile areas with U.S. troops to quell the violence, but also concern that the progress could be reversed once U.S. troops leave.

Underscoring the dangers, Lynch said two helicopters adjacent to his came under "significant small-arms" fire while flying low over the desert landscape to the patrol base, causing no injuries but leaving one aircraft severely damaged.

The brigade commander, Col. Wayne W. Grigsby, Jr., said 21 boats had been destroyed on the river and in the reeds on the banks since the operation began in force on June 15, most with secondary blasts indicating many were filled with explosive material.

He also said the military had gained intelligence from a local sheik about networks bringing armor-penetrating explosively formed projectiles, known as EFPs, on a major road that travels from the border with Iran through Shiite areas to Baghdad. The U.S. has accused Iran of supplying mainly Shiite militias with EFPs, but Tehran has denied the allegations.

Lynch said the area had two battalions from the 8th Iraqi army division but added "there needs to be three or four times more Iraqi security forces than are currently present to provide for sustained security. That's the critical piece in all of this."

Lynch said the Iraqi soldiers with whom he had worked were professional, although many still lacked training and equipment more than four years after the war started in March 2003. He said the main problem was with Iraqi police, a predominantly Shiite force that has been accused of being infiltrated by militias.

"In my battlespace my concern is police, local police. Either they're nonexistent or the ones that are there tend to be corrupt," he said.

"Then there are large portions of the battlespace where there are no Iraqi security forces at all. And the Iraqi security forces have to be grown to a level where they can occupy these places. This is an enemy sanctuary because nobody's been out there. There are no Iraqi security forces so the enemy fills the void."

He said the extra U.S. troops had provided the numbers to curb the militant activity, which included storing munitions, training and building roadside bombs.

"But if someone doesn't secure that presence, I mean have sustained security then it's not going to work. that's the concern," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070626/...uth_of_baghdad

[Keltoi]

The Iraqi military isn't ready to shoulder the burden by themselves, and to be honest, I don't think they ever will be as long as this current government remains in "control". Too many sectarian divisions and corruption. The Iraqi people have very little(if any) faith in their own elected government. That is why democracy takes practice.

[Pygoscelis]

It strikes me as very wrong when US politicians declare that the horrors in Iraq is the fault of the Iraqi government not standing up rather than any action on the part of the US. The US invaded and destroyed Iraq, then installed this government. And now it seeks to blame these people who were just given control of this chaotic place, and absolve the US of any responsiblity?

Talk about blaming the victim!

[MTAFFI]

It strikes me as very wrong when US politicians declare that the horrors in Iraq is the fault of the Iraqi government not standing up rather than any action on the part of the US. The US invaded and destroyed Iraq, then installed this government. And now it seeks to blame these people who were just given control of this chaotic place, and absolve the US of any responsiblity?

Talk about blaming the victim!

was this government not elected by over 90% of the people of Iraq? Did this government since not make promise after promise that it would get its police and military force up to where it could maintain certain areas? They are making promises and not following through and it is at the cost of US soldiers lives. The US has the responsibility and takes responsibility for the invasion which is why we are still in that garbage country, to continue to help provide security. We are following through on our end as far as what that government is requesting, but they are not following through on theirs, especially when they take 2 month recesses in the middle of all this.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Zman]

It strikes me as very wrong when US politicians declare that the horrors in Iraq is the fault of the Iraqi government not standing up rather than any action on the part of the US. The US invaded and destroyed Iraq, then installed this government. And now it seeks to blame these people who were just given control of this chaotic place, and absolve the US of any responsiblity?

Talk about blaming the victim!

Bravo, man. I completely agree with you.

Also, here's a very interesting story. I wonder where the PentaCON, has diverted the $19 Billion, to?

The PentaCON Can't Account For $19 Billion To Train & Equip Iraqi Forces

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602093_pf.html

[MTAFFI]

Bravo, man. I completely agree with you.

Also, here's a very interesting story. I wonder where the PentaCON, has diverted the $19 Billion, to?

The PentaCON Can't Account For $19 Billion To Train & Equip Iraqi Forces

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602093_pf.html

LOL:D

Did you even read the article? LOL The article states

[PIE]The Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today," according to the 250-page report. Details of the document were provided to The Washington Post by congressional staff members.

"We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, noting that the United States investment represents $55,000 per Iraqi recruit.

"The DOD can't tell us how well the Iraqis perform their missions or even plan them," he said in an interview. "The police are in particularly bad shape, although they are critical to counterinsurgency."

The lack of transparency is especially worrisome, the report said, because of the possibility that Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the United States have joined the insurgency or sectarian militias.

"This report details the complete lack of understanding of who we have trained and what happens to them after we train them," Meehan said. "Many of the forces we have trained are unaccounted for, and others are on the rolls but haven't been vetted," he said, adding that forces "could actually be fighting against us."

The subcommittee's report found "strong evidence" that some Iraqi forces trained by the U.S.-led military coalition are involved in sectarian violence and other illegal activities. In addition, the Pentagon "cannot account for whether coalition-issued weapons have been stolen or turned against U.S. forces," the report said.

The $19 billion in appropriations -- about $5 billion each fiscal year since 2004 -- has primarily gone toward recruiting, training and equipping Iraqi security forces but also includes funding for building training centers, managing logistics and creating an Iraqi leadership structure in the ministries of defense and the interior.

I think that statement alone shows where the money has been appropriated dont you?

[/PIE]

I also like how you twisted the headline to make it appear as though the money has been embezzled, when the articles actual headline is

"House Report Faults Pentagon Accounting of Iraqi Forces"

Maybe you should work for informationclearinghouse or prisonplanet, you seem to be able to twist credible news to suit your own agenda pretty well.

For anyone who doesnt care to read the article it basically is saying that the money that we are spending on the Iraqi police and military may well be going to fund insurgent groups that are fighting against us. Which goes back to my original post, of why the Iraqi government is failing in its task to get their own police and military in a position to take care of their own country.

[NobleMuslimUK]

The US government and so called military has lost what little credibility they had. Those murderous tyrants and their army of barbaric invaders has been exposed. Nothing coming from them holds any value, these scum bags should not be there in the first place, now they gonna dictate to us how Iraqis should run their country :raging:
Mtaffi how dare you propagate this nonesense, these barbarians the sooner they leave the better for our Iraqi brothers and sisters. May Allah destroy them and return them in body bags. Ameen. Enough is enough.

[snakelegs]

It strikes me as very wrong when US politicians declare that the horrors in Iraq is the fault of the Iraqi government not standing up rather than any action on the part of the US. The US invaded and destroyed Iraq, then installed this government. And now it seeks to blame these people who were just given control of this chaotic place, and absolve the US of any responsiblity?

Talk about blaming the victim!

i couldn't agree with you more.

[barney]

It's not the Iraqi Governments fault, they have the public support. It's the "Insurgants".

Al Quada has succeeded in setting sunni against shia, thats not the Iraqi Govts fault or indeed the coalition's. People have to take responsibility for their actions and see each other as humans first rather than tribe or sect.
AlQuada has found fertile ground amongst Sunnis to spread their hate, the Shia are lashing back.

Noblemuslim would support the death squads having free reign just because his racism cant tolerate white skin in Iraq, even if these hated, despised Kuffar are rebuilding the place after saddams demolition and trying to protect the innocents. He will, after the coalition do pull out, blame them for leaving.

[snakelegs]

the u.s. created the conditions that have allowed anarchy to flourish.

[barney]

They armed the militia's and told em to fight?

Or did they just try to do good and failed because of Arab & Persian influences and a mighty big heapin' helpin' of tribal hate?

[snakelegs]

do you believe the u.s. attacked iraq for the sake of the oppressed iraqi people - to bring them democracy?
there were no insurgents and there was no shiah-sunni fighting before the invasion as far as i know.

[barney]

do you believe the u.s. attacked iraq for the sake of the oppressed iraqi people - to bring them democracy?
there were no insurgents and there was no shiah-sunni fighting before the invasion as far as i know.

Nope...Self interest. But the fact that Saddam wasnt going to win any "Most Pacifistic Leader" awards leant a great moral weight to it.

If you say that it's the US's fault that sunni's and shias are ripping each other to bits, then IMO, your way off mark.

[snakelegs]

i didn't say that - i said the u.s. has created the conditions that made anarchy possible. this does not mean that the sunnis and shiahs killing each other are innocent of the blood they spill. but this was not happening before the u.s. invaded their country and i find that hard to overlook.

[E'jaazi]

If the Iraqi people would have voted for Qu'ran and Sunnah and NOT Democracy, and been odedient to Allah, then this mess wouldn't be what it is. But people always seem to overlook the obvious.

[Joe98]

the u.s. created the conditions that have allowed anarchy to flourish.

No they did not

When WW2 ended, all the countries of Europe picked themselves up and re-built their countries.

The peoples of each country did not fight like the Shiia and Sunni do.

Or instead I could agree with your comment and credit the economic success of France on the Nazi Germans!

[snakelegs]

this does not make the people doing these horrendous things blameless. but the fact remains, this is not what was going on in iraq before the u.s. invasion so i think it is a bit absurd to only carry on about how horrible these people are and leave the americans completely out of the equation.

[Cognescenti]

i didn't say that - i said the u.s. has created the conditions that made anarchy possible. this does not mean that the sunnis and shiahs killing each other are innocent of the blood they spill. but this was not happening before the u.s. invaded their country and i find that hard to overlook.

This is true...but you are obliged to ask yourself why it wasn't happening. I will volunteer an answer...it is because a secular, murdering, souless, sociopathic dictator brutally suppressed any Shia dissent. Other than that everything was fine....well except for the Kurds too..I forgot about them...oh yeah, Uday..I forgot about him too....

[Cognescenti]

If the Iraqi people would have voted for Qu'ran and Sunnah and NOT Democracy, and been odedient to Allah, then this mess wouldn't be what it is. But people always seem to overlook the obvious.

Guy..the Iraqis didn't vote for democracy. They voted in a democratic fashion. Their elected representatives could pass laws making Shaira the law of the land but that doesn't solve the problem that the Al Quaeda boys regard the Shia with derision.

[snakelegs]

This is true...but you are obliged to ask yourself why it wasn't happening. I will volunteer an answer...it is because a secular, murdering, souless, sociopathic dictator brutally suppressed any Shia dissent. Other than that everything was fine....well except for the Kurds too..I forgot about them...oh yeah, Uday..I forgot about him too....

dictators are very good at holding countries together. tito in yugoslavia, for example.
i have yet to hear anyone say anything good about saddam hussein, but the fact is the u.s. has no problem with dictators.
to be opposed at what the u.s. is doing and its responsibility for what is happening is not the same as condoning the violence that is happening there, or relieving the perpetrators of any responsibility for their actions or thinking that saddam hussein was lovely, either for that matter.

[Cognescenti]

dictators are very good at holding countries together. tito in yugoslavia, for example.
i have yet to hear anyone say anything good about saddam hussein, but the fact is the u.s. has no problem with dictators.
to be opposed at what the u.s. is doing and its responsibility for what is happening is not the same as condoning the violence that is happening there, or relieving the perpetrators of any responsibility for their actions or thinking that saddam hussein was lovely, either for that matter.

Yes..but this is the real world. It is conveninetly glib to blame the US for the Shia/Sunni cauldron in Iraq when the pressure cooker has been heated above the boiling point for generations if not centuries.

It is a bit like blaming Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia. It was an unnatural state. It was historically unsustainable. Evil institutions don't give up power willingly.

I suppose we should blame Lincoln for the deaths of the US Civil War? Mugabe is going to die or be assasinated and then there will be many deaths in Zimbabwe. It just has to be.

Everyone seems to be quick to predict WWIII..perhaps..or perhaps this is the first stage of a transformation toward a more peaceful world.

[snakelegs]

Yes..but this is the real world. It is conveninetly glib to blame the US for the Shia/Sunni cauldron in Iraq when the pressure cooker has been heated above the boiling point for generations if not centuries.

It is a bit like blaming Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia. It was an unnatural state. It was historically unsustainable. Evil institutions don't give up power willingly.

I suppose we should blame Lincoln for the deaths of the US Civil War? Mugabe is going to die or be assasinated and then there will be many deaths in Zimbabwe. It just has to be.

Everyone seems to be quick to predict WWIII..perhaps..or perhaps this is the first stage of a transformation toward a more peaceful world.

i don't mean to be glib and i don't absolve the iraqis. and yes, it would be simplistic to blame it all on the u.s.
but i still think the u.s. bears a heavy responsibilty what iraq is today.

[Keltoi]

The U.S. made the mistake of using a fairly small and mobile force in Iraq, as opposed to the behemoth that participated in the first Gulf War. When the social order broke down in Iraq there weren't enough American soldiers available to turn 20,000 of them into instant cops. The war was planned well, the peace wasn't planned at all.

[Cognescenti]

The U.S. made the mistake of using a fairly small and mobile force in Iraq, as opposed to the behemoth that participated in the first Gulf War. When the social order broke down in Iraq there weren't enough American soldiers available to turn 20,000 of them into instant cops. The war was planned well, the peace wasn't planned at all.

Agreed. We also failed to understand the ease that Al Quaeda would have in finding homicide bombers to eagerly kill the Shia.

The Shia guards of the Samara mosque have also failed to guard their treasure (twice) despite the fact that they would not let any US troops nearby.

The Iranians haven't exactly helped anything either.

[MTAFFI]

i don't mean to be glib and i don't absolve the iraqis. and yes, it would be simplistic to blame it all on the u.s.
but i still think the u.s. bears a heavy responsibilty what iraq is today.

I would agree with this, the US does bear heavy responsibility for what is going on in Iraq today. However what should be added to that is the reason our troops are still in Iraq today is to help provide the security that is so badly needed, to train police and military personel, to help rebuild a country or in otherwords to help bear the responsibility for the state Iraq is in today. I do not think however that the US went in with the notion that an all out civil war would break out, nor do I believe the US gov. thought that Al-Qaeda would come to town killing everyone in sight. The US gov. was without a doubt caught off guard. But the Iraqi people also bear a heavy weight here as well, a brutal regime was ousted, they have had democratic elections, they are being helped with security, etc., but they are not doing anything for themselves.

What do people think is going to happen when the US leaves this country? Do you think that magically the violence will stop? Al-Qaeda, etc will all just pick up their mines and leave.... That is not only negligent but just plain wrong, the Iraqis will be left to defend themselves, which as stated in the original article, they cannot do, so then what will happen? Think about it, how many US troops have died in Iraq? Now how many Iraqis have died in Iraq? I would venture to say (because I cant find any real statistics) that 90% of the the Iraqi deaths are caused by insurgents, murderers, militias, Al-Qaeda or whatever label you would like to apply to them, and when the US leaves, they will take the country by hard force. Then who is to blame? Everyone who pushed the US out

I care about the people of Iraq, I think that they have lived so many years in oppression and violence and have never had a chance to experience a day without some sort of fear. It is truly sad. What is even more saddening is that people on this forum and around the world, care more about the insurgents stated religion than what their actual role has been in Iraq. Many Muslims I see here say may Allah help our brothers kill the occupiers in Iraq. Just because they say they are Muslim does not make them Muslim, and that does not make them anyones brother, especially when day after day we find evidence that they are in fact not, it makes us fools. The insurgents are not there for the good of the Iraqis, they are there for themselves. I hope God can help the Iraqis find a way to peace one day

[snakelegs]

frankly, i don't think the u.s. gave much thought to what would happen after we invaded iraq or even who are the people of iraq. (despite all the bogus concern about the "liberation" of the iraqis).
however, though i was strongly opposed to the u.s. invasion of iraq in the first place as well as just about everything we have done since and felt very sure about all that....now that we have done it and are there, i honestly have no idea what we should do next. no matter what we do or don't do, it is hard to imagine things getting better there any time in the near future...trouble is, i don't think anyone else knows either.

[Zman]

it is because a secular, murdering, souless, sociopathic dictator brutally suppressed any Shia dissent.Other than that everything was fine....well except for the Kurds too..

60% of Saddams government and forces were comprised of Shia. So, they partook in the suppression of their own.

Let's not forget that Bush Sr. lured the Shia & Kurds into uprising after the first Gulf War, and his promise of military aid never materialized.

He Just left them to be slaughtered. In the end, it was less Muslims alive.

We have a history of breaking our promises. Remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco?

[MTAFFI]

Dems call for combat to end by 2008 By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers
20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A senior Democrat said Tuesday it was obvious the Iraqi government has made no progress and the only way to propel it was to begin pulling out U.S. troops.

In a countermove, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley and war adviser Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute arrived on Capitol Hill to consult with members.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, proposed legislation with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would order President Bush to begin pulling out troops in 120 days and end combat by April 30, 2008.

The measure would allow for some troops to remain to conduct counterterrorism, train the Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. infrastructure.

"There is much too little pressure on Iraqi leaders to do what they have to do," Levin, D-Mich., told reporters.

Democrats are reviving their push for troop withdrawals as a progress report on the war finds Baghdad has not met key targets for security, economic and political reform.

Members said they planned to receive details on the assessment Thursday morning, just as they likely will vote on the Levin proposal.

Rebuffing all such talk, President Bush said he won't succumb to political pressure. During a visit to Parma, Ohio on Tuesday, he reiterated that troop levels in Iraq "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."

"I fully understand that this is a difficult war. It's hard on the American people but I will once again explain the consequences of failure," he said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow earlier Tuesday confirmed that the coming administration report to Congress would say that Iraq has not met all the benchmarks set for it. The nature of that report was revealed earlier to The Associated Press by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But Snow argued that the assessment is only "a look at the starting line" of the U.S. troop surge and shouldn't be used by critics to demand withdrawal.

"What Congress will get this week is a snapshot of the beginning of the retooling of the mission in Iraq," he said.

Levin's proposal, offered as an amendment to a $649 billion defense policy bill, is expected to fail because Republicans say they still oppose setting a timetable on troop withdrawals.

But in a sign that GOP frustration with the war is growing, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine said she was considering switching her position and backing the measure. Also considered likely supporters were Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Sen. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and other moderates said they were considering an alternative proposal that would demand an end to combat and allow U.S. troops to conduct only a narrow set of missions. The measure would not identify a date.

"What many of us are looking for is a new strategy that would not be a precipitous pullout with all of the problems that would cause, but rather a plan to exit over the next year," said Collins, R-Maine.

Sen. John McCain, upon his return from Iraq, on Tuesday defended Bush's troop build up, contending that reinforcements had only just recently been put in place.

"I believe that our military in cooperation with our Iraqi security forces are making progress in a number of areas," he said, noting specifically a dramatic drop in attacks in Ramadi in the western Anbar province.

"Make no mistake. Violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels," McCain added. But the U.S. and Iraq seem to be "moving in the right direction," he said.

Reed of Rhode Island, who also visited Iraq last week, said he did not see enough progress to warrant the U.S. commitment there. Reed said that Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, told him that the limits of U.S. military resources will factor into his recommendation on what to do next.

"Come next spring, the ability to generate 160,000 soldiers and Marines in country virtually comes to an end," said Reed.

The administration, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has stressed a September time frame for a wide-ranging assessment of operational strategy after about 4 1/2 years of battle, and has said such a review would be more appropriate then.

Gates planned to talk to various lawmakers on Tuesday, after abruptly canceling a trip to Latin America this week so he could help shape this week's report to Congress.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said that military commanders believe that, "we would be able to be in a better place in September to be able to provide some assessments and make some decisions with respect to the way forward."

So far, he said, commanders are saying the build up — which brought troops levels to about 157,000 — has had a "positive" effect.

But concern about continued U.S. troop losses, indications of drift within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad and declining public support in this country for the war have driven some key Republicans closer to the position of Democrats demanding withdrawal.

One U.S. official said late Monday that the July report would push the administration to consider its next move. Another senior official, however, said that Bush and his advisers had already decided no change in policy was justified as yet because there was not enough evidence from Iraq.

Whether conditions merited a course shift, such as troop reductions or other scaling back of U.S. operations, would be decided after the September report, said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk more freely about internal deliberations.

This spring, Congress agreed to continue funding the war through September but demanded that Bush certify on July 15 and again on Sept. 15 that the Iraqis were living up to their political promises or forgo U.S. aid dollars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[Keltoi]

If there is a vote of no-confidence by the Iraqi parliament for Maliki, two things could occur. Either a new president is chosen by election...which would be a bloodbath, or the parliament chooses one themselves, which will harm the legitimacy of the government. Either way, I see this Iraqi government falling. If that happens the U.S. will have no choice by to re-deploy and re-think our commitment to this affair.

[islamirama]

If there is a vote of no-confidence by the Iraqi parliament for Maliki, two things could occur. Either a new president is chosen by election...which would be a bloodbath, or the parliament chooses one themselves, which will harm the legitimacy of the government. Either way, I see this Iraqi government falling. If that happens the U.S. will have no choice by to re-deploy and re-think our commitment to this affair.

The current iraqi gov't is illegal and can't be recognized. No gov't can be formed while a nation is under occupation. This is international and UN law. All occupying forces have to leave the country and only then can a true and legtimate gov't be formed and recognized.

[ISLAMASWEENEY]

Iraq will never calm down from violence and bloody civil war it is in until the Americans leave then Malaki will be overthrown and Ansar al sunna and the Mahdi army Suni and Shia will rule Iraq together.

[wilberhum]

Suni and Shia will rule Iraq together

What have you been smoking?
Suni and Shia are not killing each other because the US is there.
They kill each other because the hate each other.
When the US leaves there will be blood shade like never before.

[ISLAMASWEENEY]

Good point but were they killing each other before foreign invaders came?

[wilberhum]

Good point but were they killing each other before foreign invaders came?

No SH was killing them. :skeleton:

[islamirama]

Good point but were they killing each other before foreign invaders came?

there were some killings but nothing like what is going on there now. Even if they do attack each other, it's nothing compared to wat bush has done. Bush killed 655,000 in 3yrs where as saddam allegedly killed 250,000 in 20yrs. If saddam and his army could kill only that many in 20yrs, how much do you think people can going against each other? it's all cries from the kuffars to stay there to steal more oil, kill more innocents and rape some more.

There are plenty of big groups there like mahdi army and iraqi army and few other ones. The moment this occupation ends, their illegtimate gov't will be toppled and trashed and these armies will put a more legtimate gov't in place. They will inshallah provide better security then these kuffars have done, who only care about their green zone which is size of a city for only their own kind.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years, they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD. In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[snakelegs]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years, they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD. In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

i agree.

[wilberhum]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years, they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD. In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

I too agree, but we don't get do-overs.
And drilling holes in your neighbor's joints before he is shot in the head and dump him on the streets will not solve the problems.

[snakelegs]

what the iraqis are doing to each other is horrendous.
but it was the u.s. who brought them the gift of anarchy.
no good guys anywhere in sight.

[wilberhum]

what the iraqis are doing to each other is horrendous.
but it was the u.s. who brought them the gift of anarchy.
no good guys anywhere in sight.

Again total agreement. But if we stay more will die. If we leave more will die. I have a hard time trying to figure out which is the least bad.

[snakelegs]

wilber - i truly have no idea either what we should do with this mess we have created. no matter what we do, more people will die, more orphans, more people emotionally scarred and physically crippled for life.

[Keltoi]

Perhaps if a true international coaltion could be formed, there would be enough manpower and enough trained "cops" to keep the peace. The U.S. military isn't trained to be nation builders, they are trained to destroy nations...let's be blunt. The bombing of the U.N. HQ in Baghdad spelled the end of any true international involvement, but that issue should seriously be looked at again.

[ISLAMASWEENEY]

The occupation is a total farse and it must end soon so Iraqis can live a half decent life.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

Any solution for the Iraqi people must be based on justice and fairness.

In Britain and America there is a justice system that works fairly well in theory, if your car gets bumped by someone else you can get compensation through the legal system. You would expect this as a right because someone has ruined what was yours.

Working on the justice system that Americans and the British citizens expect as a right, how can this be applied in Iraq. After all what is fair and right for an American must be fair and right for an Iraqi also.

So if an Iraqi man has had his home destroyed, his son killed, he has lost his job due to unfair economic sanctions and he has been made redundant because his employers have gone bust.

Which court will he get justice through, were will he get compensation from, will the criminals be brought to justice?

Sadly it seems our Iraqi brother in humanity is going to get nothing in return for all the injustice done against him.

What should he do, buy a gun and a bomb or should he learn to forgive?

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[guyabano]

Again total agreement. But if we stay more will die. If we leave more will die. I have a hard time trying to figure out which is the least bad.

agree on this one. Iraq without Saddam is still too 'fresh' to take control by itself.

[MTAFFI]

I agree with you in some parts and disagree in others

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years

The sanctions were applied for good reason, humanitarian aid, etc was not barred from the country (oil for food turned out to be a fluke because of Saddams side deals), it was SH who wouldnt allow it to reach the people, he did that to his own people that was not the fault of the US, IMO

they bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD.

In retrospect it is easy to see this was a mistake, but at the time you have to remember it didnt seem illogical, SH threatened repeatedly that he had the means to "destroy the US". What if we didnt invade and Saddam did have these weapons? What if an attack was carried out under the umbrella of a terrorist organization, supplied by Saddam with such a weapon? I believe the president thought that the risk was too high and something had to be done. Now knowing the evidence he was given he was probably in a 50/50 situation on whether or not the WMD were actually there, unfortunately they were not and the situation is what it is now

In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.

It is an absolute shame and I feel terrible for these families and people, nothing in the world could compensate them for what they have lost, hopefully in the end God will reward them for their troubles as long as they continued to live righteous despite their problems.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country

They were happy at the first, try and remember when we first invaded, there was practically no resistance, these people no doubt wanted SH and his people out, it was only after he was caught that Al-Qaeda and other groups came in to cause the majority of the damage you are speaking of

At some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.

They will no doubt


Peace be with you

[Keltoi]

I will also add that those who blow up women and children with suicide bombs will also answer to God, standing in line with Blair and Bush.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I believe that success in Iraq is dependent on Iraqis finding justice. America is spending billions on an American agenda in Iraq. If there was a commitment to spend this money bringing about some kind of justice then I feel this would be the solution. You did not answer the last part of my previous post which I feel is the real problem.

So if an Iraqi man has had his home destroyed, his son killed, he has lost his job due to unfair economic sanctions and he has been made redundant because his employers have gone bust.

Which court will he get justice through, were will he get compensation from, will the criminals be brought to justice?

Sadly it seems our Iraqi brother in humanity is going to get nothing in return for all the injustice done against him.

What should he do, buy a gun and a bomb or should he learn to forgive?

In the spirit of praying for peace on earth

Eric

[MTAFFI]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

I believe that success in Iraq is dependent on Iraqis finding justice. America is spending billions on an American agenda in Iraq. If there was a commitment to spend this money bringing about some kind of justice then I feel this would be the solution. You did not answer the last part of my previous post which I feel is the real problem.

I have a question for you, how do you think justice should be served to these people? Should we pay reparations? Should we pay to rebuild infrastructure? Do we owe people for the suicide attacks, etc? If so do they then owe the 3500 families and countless injured that have been wounded on the US's side?

So if an Iraqi man has had his home destroyed, his son killed, he has lost his job due to unfair economic sanctions and he has been made redundant because his employers have gone bust.

Who is directly responsible for his home and son? In most cases I am sure that it would be an insurgent, not the US. As far as economic sanctions, I believe that it would be because of SH that he lost his job, not the sanctions.

I think the main problem is how do you know who is civilian and who is not? We could be giving money or assistance to someone who on the surface looks and acts like a nice guy, but may be planning a car bomb in the market the next day. Compensation cannot be given to those whose identities are unknown.

Which court will he get justice through, were will he get compensation from, will the criminals be brought to justice?

Sadly this must come from the government, but from the shape they are in, it may seem as though justice will never get served. Who are the criminals? I think you can find that many times if a US soldiers is accused of a criminal act they are very often brought to light and justice.

Sadly it seems our Iraqi brother in humanity is going to get nothing in return for all the injustice done against him.

What should he do, buy a gun and a bomb or should he learn to forgive?

That is up to the Iraqi, if he feels the US has done him wrong or taken from him, then he should pick up a gun and fight the occupation forces, but the second he blows up a market or commits suicide in traffic is when he will become a terrorist. Also he probably shouldnt expect to recieve compensation after all is said and done.

[islamirama]

'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'

Interviews with US veterans show for the first time the pattern of brutality in Iraq

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 12 July 2007

It is an axiom of American political life that the actions of the US military are beyond criticism. Democrats and Republicans praise the men and women in uniform at every turn. Apart from the odd bad apple at Abu Ghraib, the US military in Iraq is deemed to be doing a heroic job under trying circumstances.

That perception will take a severe knock today with the publication in The Nation magazine of a series of in-depth interviews with 50 combat veterans of the Iraq war from across the US. In the interviews, veterans have described acts of violence in which US forces have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and children with impunity.

The report steers clear of widely reported atrocities, such as the massacre in Haditha in 2005, but instead unearths a pattern of human rights abuses. "It's not individual atrocity," Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, a sniper from the 263rd Armour Battalion, said. "It's the fact that the entire war is an atrocity."

A number of the troops have returned home bearing mental and physical scars from fighting a war in an environment in which the insurgents are supported by the population. Many of those interviewed have come to oppose the US military presence in Iraq, joining the groundswell of public opinion across the US that views the war as futile.

This view is echoed in Washington, where increasing numbers of Democrats and Republicans are openly calling for an early withdrawal from Iraq. And the Iraq quagmire has pushed President George Bush's poll ratings to an all-time low.

Journalists and human rights groups have published numerous reports drawing attention to the killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces. The Nation's investigation presents for the first time named military witnesses who back those assertions. Some participated themselves.

Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.

"It would always be an AK because they have so many of these lying around," said Joe Hatcher, 26, a scout with the 4th Calvary Regiment. He revealed the army also planted 9mm handguns and shovels to make it look like the civilians were shot while digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

"Every good cop carries a throwaway," Hatcher said of weapons planted on innocent victims in incidents that occurred while he was stationed between Tikrit and Samarra, from February 2004 to March 2005. Any survivors were sent to jail for interrogation.

There were also deaths caused by the reckless behaviour of military convoys. Sgt Kelly Dougherty of the Colorado National Guard described a hit-and-run in which a military convoy ran over a 10-year-old boy and his three donkeys, killing them all. "Judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down. But, I mean... your order is that you never stop."

The worst abuses seem to have been during raids on private homes when soldiers were hunting insurgents. Thousands of such raids have taken place, usually at dead of night. The veterans point out that most are futile and serve only to terrify the civilians, while generating sympathy for the resistance.

Sgt John Bruhns, 29, of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armoured Division, described a typical raid. "You want to catch them off guard," he explained. "You want to catch them in their sleep ... You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall... Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds. You'll ask 'Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda?'

"Normally they'll say no, because that's normally the truth," Sgt Bruhns said. "So you'll take his sofa cushions and dump them. You'll open up his closet and you'll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it." And at the end, if the soldiers don't find anything, they depart with a "Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening".

Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003.

"The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said. "He just seemed to view every Iraqi as a potential terrorist."

'It would always happen. We always got the wrong house...'
"People would make jokes about it, even before we'd go into a raid, like, 'Oh ****, we're gonna get the wrong house'. Cause it would always happen. We always got the wrong house."

Sergeant Jesus Bocanegra, 25, of Weslaco, Texas 4th Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour that began in March 2003

"I had to go tell this woman that her husband was actually dead. We gave her money, we gave her, like, 10 crates of water, we gave the kids, I remember, maybe it was soccer balls and toys. We just didn't really know what else to do."

Lieutenant Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia, Marine Corps civil affairs unit. In Ramadi from August 2004 to March 2005


"We were approaching this one house... and we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it... So I see this dog - I'm a huge animal lover... this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, what the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words."

Specialist Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade. In Kirkuk and Hawija on 11-month tour beginning November 2004

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."
Specialist Michael Harmon, 24, of Brooklyn, 167th Armour Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. In Al-Rashidiya on 13-month tour beginning in April 2003

"I open a bag and I'm trying to get bandages out and the guys in the guard tower are yelling at me, 'Get that **** haji out of here,'... our doctor rolls up in an ambulance and from 30 to 40 meters away looks out and says, shakes his head and says, 'You know, he looks fine, he's gonna be all right,' and walks back... kind of like, 'Get your ass over here and drive me back up to the clinic'. So I'm standing there, and the whole time both this doctor and the guards are yelling at me, you know, to get rid of this guy."

Specialist Patrick Resta, 29, from Philadelphia, 252nd Armour, 1st Infantry Division. In Jalula for nine months beginning March 2004

"Every person opened fire on this kid, using the biggest weapons we could find..."

"Here's some guy, some 14-year-old kid with an AK47, decides he's going to start shooting at this convoy. It was the most obscene thing you've ever seen. Every person got out and opened fire on this kid. Using the biggest weapons we could find, we ripped him to shreds..."

Sergeant Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, 256th Infantry Brigade. In Abu Gharth for 11 months beginning November 2004

"Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement. Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat."

Lieutenant Brady Van Engelen, 26, of Washington DC, 1st Armoured Division. Eight-month tour of Baghdad beginning Sept 2003

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, 'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'... [Only when we got home] in... meeting other veterans, it seems like the guilt really takes place, takes root, then."

Specialist Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry. In Baquba for a year beginning February 2004

"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."

Specialist Aidan Delgado, 25, of Sarasota, Florida, 320th Military Police Company. Deployed to Talil air base for one year beginning April 2003

"The car was approaching what was in my opinion a very poorly marked checkpoint... and probably didn't even see the soldiers... The guys got spooked and decided it was a possible threat, so they shot up the car. And they [the bodies] literally sat in the car for the next three days while we drove by them."

Sergeant Dustin Flatt, 33, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. One-year from February 2004

"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population..."

Sergeant Camilo Mejía, 31, from Miami, National Guardsman, 1-124 Infantry Battalion, 53rd Infantry Brigade. Six-month tour beginning April 2003

"I just remember thinking, 'I just brought terror to someone under the American flag'."

Sergeant Timothy John Westphal, 31, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour beginning February 2004

"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

Specialist Josh Middleton, 23, of New York City, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division. Four-month tour in Baghdad and Mosul beginning December 2004

"I felt like there was this enormous reduction in my compassion for people. The only thing that wound up mattering is myself and the guys that I was with, and everybody else be ****ed."

Sergeant Ben Flanders, 28, National Guardsman from Concord, New Hampshire, 172nd Mountain Infantry. In Balad for 11 months beginning March 2004

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness, by Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian, appears in the 30 July issue of The Nation

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2758829.ece

[wilberhum]

islamirama.
War is burtal? I would never have guessed.

Thinks for bringing that to our attention.

I guess I just never thought of driling holes in peoples kneecaps before shooting them in tha back of the head and dumping them on the street as brutal.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI

I received this email today from the ‘Fellowship of Reconciliation’ a peace organisation that operates in many parts of the world.
The full story is here, http://zmagsite.zmag.org/June2007/nygaard0607.html

The full story is worth reading but I have posted their conclusion,

A relentless attack from the air against Iraq and Afghanistan has been going on for years, with the United States conducting an average of 75 to 100 airstrikes in the 2 countries every day. The death toll from these attacks is unknown, but a reasonable estimate is in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 in Iraq, with the number in Afghanistan as yet unexplored. Yet the story of these air wars is almost unknown in the United States.

British medical journal the Lancet, remains the best estimate of the number of people who have died in Iraq—violently and otherwise—as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation.
As Nick Turse tells us in “Bombs Over Baghdad,” the Lancet report “estimated 655,000 ‘excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war.’ The study...found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13 percent of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate—and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636—this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began, and last June when the study concluded.” Turse adds that, “According to statistics provided to TomDispatch by the Lancet study’s authors, 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.”
Here, then, are the final rough numbers: Every day, between 50 and 100 Iraqis die as a result of “coalition” airstrikes. Every airstrike kills, on average, one Iraqi, and wounds three more. Updating the numbers from the Lancet study, we discover that overall, since the U.S. invaded Iraq, somewhere between 102,180 and 147,051 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. airstrikes alone. Between 306,540 and 441,153 have been wounded.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[MTAFFI]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI

I received this email today from the ‘Fellowship of Reconciliation’ a peace organisation that operates in many parts of the world.
The full story is here, http://zmagsite.zmag.org/June2007/nygaard0607.html

The full story is worth reading but I have posted their conclusion,



In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

I dont find zmag or the lancet study to be credible

[islamirama]

I dont find zmag or the lancet study to be credible

because they contradict the lies of your gov't?

[Zman]

because they contradict the lies of your gov't?

:D :thumbs_up

[Keltoi]

because they contradict the lies of your gov't?

Because they don't operate under the rules of professional journalism, at least in the case of the vast majority of articles copied and pasted in these threads.

As for the Lancet study, it cannot be taken seriously because of the political motivations behind it, the destruction of the necessary data evidence, and the illogical methods used to reach its findings. In the end though, it doesn't matter whether the insanely high number of 650,000 is true, or the more widely accepted number of around 150,000 is true. Many people have died, that isn't in dispute.

[Zman]

They voted in a democratic fashion.

Voting in a democratic fashion, under occupation, is completely contradictory.

Their elected representatives could pass laws making Shaira the law of the land but that doesn't solve the problem that the Al Quaeda boys regard the Shia with derision.

The "elected" representatives didn't vote for sharia, but instead voted for the oil laws that were written by US oil giants, and were passed by the "democratically elected" representatives of American oil giants/occupation, not the Iraqi people...

[MTAFFI]

because they contradict the lies of your gov't?

because I find most of them to be baseless or unfounded, the majority of articles that come from there come from bias surveys, quotes that are taken out of context and the articles that are written are not written from an objective standpoint. They would be the equivalent to "Fox News" to you, I do read it and take it for what it is worth, just like fox news.

As far as lancet, well I think that issue has been thoroughly covered and the last time I posted facts about it they went unanswered so I will leave them like that.

[islamirama]

Voting in a democratic fashion, under occupation, is completely contradictory.

Not to mention that this gov't is illegtimate and can't be recognized under international law. No gov't can be formed while a nation is under occupation by international law.

The "elected" representatives didn't vote for sharia, but instead voted for the oil laws that were written by US oil giants, and were passed by the "elected" representatives of American oil giants/occupation, not the Iraqi people...

Only thing these "elelcted" offical did was give oil jaints 100yr contracts with 65% profit rights. Like i said, illegtimate gov't serving occupiers interests...

[Gator]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=74e_1184266513

[Zman]

:sl:/Peace To All

operate under the rules of professional journalism

Here's a sample of your "professional journalism," as reported by World Net Daily:

Report: Al Qaeda Bakes Little Boys

A reporter embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq reports a government official has recounted a new atrocity by al-Qaida: several instances in which terrorists baked a young boy, then invited his family to lunch with the victim as the main course.

Source:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=56643

[MTAFFI]

:sl:/Peace To All



Here's a sample of your "professional journalism," as reported by World Net Daily:

Report: Al Qaeda Bakes Little Boys

i really wish i hadnt read that

I hope to God it is not true

[Keltoi]

:sl:/Peace To All



Here's a sample of your "professional journalism," as reported by World Net Daily:

Report: Al Qaeda Bakes Little Boys

I don't consider World Net Daily to be a very good source either, as they have a political agenda. Not unlike the far-left websites you copy and paste from day to day.

[MTAFFI]

I don't consider World Net Daily to be a very good source either, as they have a political agenda. Not unlike the far-left websites you copy and paste from day to day.

now what I would like to see is Mr. Zman post a story that is "middle" not far right or left, and try to do that for the duration of his life

[Zman]

now what I would like to see is Mr. Zman post a story that is "middle" not far right or left, and try to do that for the duration of his life

What sources do you consider to be in the middle of the road?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI,

I am starting to understand why Bush felt compelled to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that the American and British people would not be satisfied with anything less.

The voice of devastating revenge rather than justice seems to be the loudest.

If America were to seek real justice for 9 / 11 then they should only seek the people responsible.

By their very actions Britain and America have created thousands of potential suicide bombers; simply because we have killed so many innocent ordinary working class people who have no voice.

Alongside with Bush and Blair the suicide bombers will also stand before God. The more frightening prospect is that each one of us here will also stand before God. How do we each stand for justice and peace; I doubt if the creator of all that is seen and unseen will distinguish between American, British, or Iraqi.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[MTAFFI]

What sources do you consider to be in the middle of the road?

how about NBC's Meet the Press?

[ISLAMASWEENEY]

Did you hear about Sunni militants posing like Iraqi police shooting dead 30 people today in northern Baghdad.