PDA

View Full Version : Leaked footage of 2007 USAF engaging ''hostiles'' NSFW


Pages : 1 [2]

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-11-2010, 01:40 PM
And feel free to quote me: I'll be glad when we officially lose this war and must recall our troops. I will ask that you don't misquote me, however. I fully expect you or (more likely) WarDen or tooth to suggest that I in some way enjoy seeing our soldiers maimed and killed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I want our men and women back, safe and sound, in their own country and in their own homes yesterday. If I had a Wayback machine, and could somehow prevent them from having been deployed to that hell-hole in the first place, I would do it. I certainly tried at the time. I would argue that I seem to care for our boys and girls more than you do.

This is such an 180 degree BS post!!!

You specifically stated you REJOICE in our losses!!!

In your defence...I do see where this stupid statement is nothing more than a diversion from your original stupid statement in which you implied that guerilla tactics dont work on foreign soil.

By the way....most of us you are vainly trying to argue with have wore the uniform.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-11-2010, 01:43 PM
And sure enough, tooth has already gone and done it...

No, I do not rejoice in the suffering and loss of life among our troops. I submit to you that the cheerleaders of this war are nearer the mark in that regard than I ever will be.

"Atheist" that I am, I have a deep and abiding love for all life, which is not restricted to "Christian" or "Western" life.

:rofl::rofl:

You must be a Cornerback...that is one heck of a backpedal you have!!!

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 01:53 PM
This is such an 180 degree BS post!!!

You specifically stated you REJOICE in our losses!!!

In your defence...I do see where this stupid statement is nothing more than a diversion from your original stupid statement in which you implied that guerilla tactics dont work on foreign soil.

By the way....most of us you are vainly trying to argue with have wore the uniform.

No, I was discussing the notion of winnable wars, a continuation of the sub-discussion with fs76's, regarding his notion of "one hand tied behind our back", as well as what may or may not be Vinny's joke about turning all of the Middle East to glass. So, while they make light of genocide unlike anything the world has ever seen, I am not permitted to state that I'll be glad when we've lost and can leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, I never said guerrilla tactics don't work on foreign soil. I said that they do work on one's home soil. This is in reference to 4th Gen warfare, which includes, but is not restricted to guerrilla tactics. The U.S., Israel, Russia, and all of the other traditional military powers have not come up with a solution to 4G, and I suspect that they never will. The "genius" of 4G (for lack of a better word) is that it turns the entire country into a military target, including pregnant women, babies, churches, hospitals, etc. This makes these wars basically impossible to win for the invading army (us, in this case), unless you are able to completely turn off the emotions of your soldiers and populace back home.

As for you and others in this forum being veterans, I thank you and salute you. You should be exceedingly proud of everything you have done for your country. That I do not think you should have been asked to kill does not diminish the depth of my gratitude to you all, nor the depth of our nation's debt to you. That is not posturing on my part... it is sincere.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-11-2010, 02:00 PM
No, I was discussing the notion of winnable wars, a continuation of the sub-discussion with fs76's, regarding his notion of "one hand tied behind our back", as well as what may or may not be Vinny's joke about turning all of the Middle East to glass. So, while they make light of genocide unlike anything the world has ever seen, I am not permitted to state that I'll be glad when we've lost and can leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, I never said guerrilla tactics don't work on foreign soil. I said that they do work on one's home soil. This is in reference to 4th Gen warfare, which includes, but is not restricted to guerrilla tactics. The U.S., Israel, Russia, and all of the other traditional military powers have not come up with a solution to 4G, and I suspect that they never will. The "genius" of 4G (for lack of a better word) is that it turns the entire country into a military target, including pregnant women, babies churches, hospitals, etc. This makes these wars basically impossible to win for the invading army (us, in this case), unless you are able to completely turn off the emotions of your soldiers and populace back home.

As for you and others in this forum being veterans, I thank you and salute you. You should be exceedingly proud of everything you have done for your country. That I do not think you should have been asked to kill does not diminish the depth of my gratitude to you all, nor the depth of our nation's debt to you. That is not posturing on my part... it is sincere.

What YOU fail to understand is that wins and losses are measured in blood on a battlefield. Always have been and always will be. To inflict enough damage, in material and human lives, upon your enemy so as to make an objective no longer attractive is the way that wars will always be fought.

Your ability to rejoice in the loss of any conflict...battle...or war fought by American Soldiers...cannot be seperated by the blood involved in that loss. To try and do otherwise is blind idealism.

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 02:06 PM
The editorial quoted below should assist in getting the thread nearer to its original intent, as it refers to the video and the other incident about which I posted. It also reminds me of a point made by Seymour Hirsch (I think, but don't quote me) at the New Yorker when he said that soldiers stop wars, not protesters.

The point being that the journalist or blogger or whoever posted this video didn't actually do a whole lot of investigative journalism to dig this up. All of the actual work was done by people working within the Pentagon and/or within the command structure in our overseas forces. Soldiers are already starting to oppose these wars, and are actively undermining the official line regarding what is going on over there.

I would have just posted the link to the article and saved the page space here, but the fellow's surname is ****burn, and is in the site name, and so SFF won't link to it properly. Sorry.

*****

The Cover-Ups That Exploded

By ALEXANDER ****BURN

The Pentagon is reeling after two lethal episodes uncovered by diligent journalism show trigger-happy U.S. Army helicopter pilots and U.S. Special Forces slaughtering civilians, then seeking to cover up their crimes.

The worldwide web was transfixed on Monday when Wikileaks put up on YouTube a 38-minute video, along with a 17-minute edited version, taken from a U.S. Army Apache helicopter, one of two firing on a group of Iraqis in Baghdad at a street corner in July of 2007. Twelve civilians died, including a Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and a Reuters driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., Wikileaks said it had got the footage from whistle-blowers in the military and had been able to break the encryption code. The Pentagon has confirmed the video is genuine.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has finally admitted that Special Forces troops killed two pregnant Afghan women and a girl in a February, 2010, raid, in which two Afghan government officials were also killed. Brilliant reporting by Jerome Starkey of The Times of London has blown apart the U.S. military’s cover-up story that the women were killed by knife wounds administered several hours before the raid.

It now appears that the knife wounds may have been inflicted by the Special Forces troops retrieving their bullets from the dead or dying women's bodies. Starkey’s story last Sunday in The Times reported that “Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also ‘dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”

The 17-minute video recording the US military’s massacre from the air in Baghdad, is utterly damning. The visual and audio record reveal the two Apache helicopter pilots and the US Army intelligence personnel monitoring the real-time footage falling over themselves to make the snap judgment that the civilians roughly a thousand feet below are armed insurgents and that one of them, peeking round a corner, was carrying an RPG, that is, a rocket-propelled antitank grenade launcher.

The dialogue is particularly chilling, revealing gleeful pilots gloating over the effect of their initial machine-gun salvoes. “Look at those dead bastards,” one pilot says. “Nice,” answers the other. Then, as a wounded man painfully writhes toward the curb, the pilots eagerly wait for an excuse to finish him off. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon,” one pilot says yearningly.

Then suddenly a civilian van, seeing the carnage, pulls up. A man jumps out, and starts dragging the wounded man around to load him in. The pilots implore the intelligence monitors to give them the go-ahead to strafe the van, about which they have made the instant, fatally erroneous judgment that this is an insurgent rescue squad. A few moments later, the intelligence monitors, with zero visual evidence underpinning their judgment, give the go-ahead.

Another salvo finishes off the wounded man and his would-be rescuer, kills other civilians in the van and wounds two children in the front seat.

U.S. ground troops arrive on the scene, report the presence of wounded children. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one pilot tells the other. There are further s******s as a U.S. armored vehicle rolls up. “I think they just drove over a body,” one of the pilots cackles.

One disgraceful exchange discloses a brutal order to the US ground troops not take the wounded children to the nearest military hospital, thus condemning them to the long waits and understaffed, underequipped Baghdad civilian hospitals. It clearly shows the culpability of the next command echelon, which is just as great as that of the pilots.

In the wake of the lethal onslaught, the U.S. military denied that any error had taken place, its version of events faithfully cited by the New York Times under the headline “2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias”:

“According to the [U.S. military’s] statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine [sic] insurgents were killed.”

The footage made public by Wikileaks makes it clear this was fiction, from start to finish.

Defense analyst Pierre Sprey, who led the design teams for the F-16 and A-10 and who spent many years in the Pentagon, stresses two particularly damning features of the footage. The first is the claim that Noor-Eldeen’s telephoto lense could be mistaken for an RPG. “A big telephoto for a 35mm camera is under a foot and half at most. An RPG, unloaded , is 3 feet long and loaded, 4 foot long. These guys were breathing hard to kill someone.”

Sprey’s second point is that an Apache helicopter makes a very loud “whomp, whomp” noise. “ Twelve guys are unconcerned, with loud helicopters right overhead. Imagine if they were planning an assault on American troops. They’d be crouched down and skulking along walls, spread out. They would not be walking casually down the middle of the street, totally ignoring the helicopters.”

A retired U.S. Marine was even blunter in an email exchange:

“Not a good show at all. The group on the ground were banishing nothing that ‘looked’ or appeared as weapons, especially the voiced ‘RPG’ which is so obvious when loaded. And then again – they were told in advance by intelligence (I am sure by the tone in the flight) that these people were bad guys. The Apache crews were just stupid and the intelligence clowns pointing them and egging them on are guilty of murder – ‘you are clear to engage’. GMAFB.”

In the aftermath the US military claimed that some AK-47s and a grenade launcher had been found at the scene. Sprey comments that, in the course of the subsequent coverup, the weapons may well have been planted, LAPD style. According to Reuters their men had been working on a story about weight lifting when they heard about a military raid in the neighborhood, and decided to drive there to check it out. Local witnesses say there was no fire fight anywhere near where they were gunned down by the Apaches.

Reuters, which by that time had already had four employees killed in Iraq by the U.S. military (ultimately, to date, eight), demanded an investigation, which the Army says it undertook but found no breach of its Rules of Engagement by the pilots or U.S. Army intelligence.

The reaction of David Schlesinger, Reuter’s editor in chief, to the release of the footage by Wikileaks was appallingly feeble. Schlesinger said on April 5, “The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognize the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular.”

This anodyne blather elicited a furious email aimed at Schlesinger – sent two days later to The Baron site, “For Reuters people past and present” – from a former Reuters editor in chief and general manager, Michael Reupke. Wrote Reupke, “The flabby response to the shameful murder of photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh by reckless U.S. forces is not reassuring. What of their families? Why do we leave it to others to make the running? Is this a Thomson effect? Michael Reupke (outraged and angry!).” The final sentence alludes to the 2008 takeover of Reuters by the media conglomerate Thomson.

In fact, Reuters was shown the Apache video by the U.S. military shortly after the killings but raised no stink. Requests for public release under the Freedom of Information Act were denied. Finally, whistleblowers handed the video to Wikileaks.

Leave the last word to a retired U.S. Army man, answering the email from the retired U.S. Marine quoted above:

“The damage this incident and its video evidence will do is immense … it will irrefutably confirm for many that large chunk of anti-American propaganda which insists the American flyers are just playing computer shoot-em-up games using real flesh and blood as a proxy for the digital figures they usually slaughter only in the arcades.

“How much is simulator training responsible for the disconnection from reality demonstrated in this incident? The crew was detached from reality … How [is] the Army … producing crews that, having the potential for such incompetence, cannot detect it among themselves. If anyone in that crew had paused and asked if the action being taken was correct, surely it would have been aborted … The Army has to find out why.”

MACH1
04-11-2010, 02:26 PM
I'm gonna help ya out a bit.

Obama: Continuing Bush’s War Crimes with Drone Bombing Campaign

When Obama was campaigning on ‘Hope and Change’ in 2008, many Americans thought he was committed to implementing future foreign policies that would drift drastically away from the ’war on terror’ initiatives directed under the infamous Bush II administration.

Yet over one year into his Presidency, Obama has actually expanded upon one of Bush’s gross military endeavors: the United States’ drone bombing campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

For many Americans, it is unfathomable to think that Obama has been more gruesome than Bush. Even putting the two in the same sentence sounds like blasphemy. But the fact is the Obama administration has used the Predator and Reaper drones much more often than the Bush administration.

The truth hurts.

And the numbers do not lie. In his first year as President, the United States used the Predator and Reaper drones 53 times, a more than 50% rise from the 36 under Bush in 2008. In his second year as President, Obama is on track to triple his drone strike total from 2008.
Many may think ‘who cares’ when the drone strike total almost triples over a two-year span. The logic of many Americans is that the drone campaign is cost effective and efficient. Instead of putting thousands of Americans in harm’s way, why not just use the Predator and Reaper?

Are not drones saving the United States millions of dollars anyways?

All of these are fair statements. The drone campaign is saving Americans lives and dollars. But what is the mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan anyways? Is it not to remove the Taliban from governing Afghanistan and to rid the world of the al-Qaeda network?

I wonder if people realize that the drone campaign has been moderately successful at best and that it is actually emboldening the Taliban and giving al-Qaeda even more recruitment resources than they already had.

What are the reasons why the drone campaign has been harmful to the United States? The answer is the civilian casualties they have wrought. Why are civilian casualties harmful to the effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The answer is obvious: it stirs anti-American fervor, it makes more enemies and it destabilizes the frail and corrupt government in Pakistan.

The Brookings Institution has figured that roughly 14 of the 700 deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan during 2009 were considered ‘high valued’ al-Qaeda targets. At this rate, 50 civilians die for every militant. This puts the success rate of the drone campaign at an abysmal 6%. To put it simply, as Al Jazeera has, ‘if you look at the number of strikes and the number of casualties on the ground the militants do not figure very prominently’.

Civilian casualties, most Americans will say, are simply the unfortunate result of liberating the Afghan and Pakistani people from the stronghold of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But let us be honest for a second: does the Obama administration seem to even have any sincere interest in differentiating between militant and civilian?

An anonymous ex-military officer of the United States has recently said that ‘if there’s one guy we’re trying to hit and there is thirty-four other people in the building, thirty-five people are going to die that day’.

Does that sound like differentiating between militant and civilian?

This type of behavior alerts us to possible American war crimes in Pakistan.

How would you define terrorism? Is it the killing of people in drone attacks? These were two questions that a Pakistani woman asked Hillary Clinton when visiting Pakistan in December, 2009. The Pakistani woman also asked if Clinton considers the killing of innocent civilians as ‘acts of terrorism’. Clinton casually responded with ‘No, I don’t’.

Clinton, like a good politician, would never admit to the obvious. Drone strikes and their killing of civilians are acts of terrorism.

Have Americans forgotten what it feels like to be victims of terrorism? Have they forgotten about 9-11? How can they consider the 9-11 attacks as terrorism and not the drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Did not both incidences kill a gross amount of innocent civilians?

While the Obama administration may not consider the drone campaign as terrorism, Afghan students, as they exhibited in May, 2009, certainly do. In Kabul, hundreds of Afghan students held protests for an American drone strike that then recently killed roughly 150 civilians in the Farah province of Afghanistan. Students held up signs reading ‘America: the biggest terrorists in the world’.

Even the United Nation’s and its Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions is concerned that the United States’ drone campaign is terrorism. ‘My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law’.

Where is the evidence suggesting that drones have been even moderately successful in Afghanistan? When enemy leaders are killed, are they not simply replaced by the next in the chain of command?

And are not drone strikes and their indiscriminate killing of civilians providing justification for the fervent anti-American militaristic movement of the Taliban and al-Qaeda? Instead of isolating extremists, are not drone strikes being used as tools of recruitment? Are they not giving rise to anger that is coalescing Afghans and Pakistanis around the extremists? Will this not lead to more extremism?

The drone campaign is, perhaps, one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree upon. Republican Senator McCain and Independent, Republican-leaning Senator Lieberman recently hailed the drone campaign as ‘a critical element in our effort, our campaign, and our strategy to deny the terrorists who are terrorizing the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan’. McCain has gone as far as claiming it is ‘part of an overall set of tactics which make up the strategy for victory’.

Would you expect anything else but this type of rhetoric and propaganda from those ‘leaders’ in Washington?

And how sad it is that one of the only issues Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is their own acts of terrorism!

Obama is taking the lazy route and ‘easy way out’ with his war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In his own blindness, he continues to assume that taking out one militant, even if the drone strike kills dozens of civilians, is a sign that the drone bombing campaign is working. Instead of looking down the road at the future consequences of his own administration’s terrorist actions, Obama is using drones as quick fixes to short-term problems.

I guess short-term fixes is what any effective politician cares about anyways. For Obama, the use of drones and the appearance that progress is being made is quite the sly way to try to boost his own approval rating.

Obama, like Bush, continues to deal with the symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself.
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/home-mainmenu-289/6248-obama-continuing-bushs-war-crimes-with-drone-bombing-campaign

See I can post idiot blogs too.

bu....bu...bu....bush.

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 02:34 PM
I'm gonna help ya out a bit.



See I can post idiot blogs too.

bu....bu...bu....bush.

Indeed, as I have stated multiple times, Obama deserves to rot in a cell right next to Bush and Cheney and Clinton and Bush Sr. I say impeach the bastard. Thanks for the post, Mach.

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 02:44 PM
I'd like to highlight one point from the editorial:
A retired U.S. Marine was even blunter in an email exchange:

“Not a good show at all. The group on the ground were banishing nothing that ‘looked’ or appeared as weapons, especially the voiced ‘RPG’ which is so obvious when loaded. And then again – they were told in advance by intelligence (I am sure by the tone in the flight) that these people were bad guys. The Apache crews were just stupid and the intelligence clowns pointing them and egging them on are guilty of murder – ‘you are clear to engage’. GMAFB.”
Why is a veteran allowed to make a point that I, evidently, cannot: that it is the commanding officers that are guilty of the crimes? In fact, I think that this war has really been a watershed moment in some ways in terms of a reversal of that truth. I'm seeing grunts getting convictions and court-marshals while everyone from their COs to Bush and Obama remain squeaky-clean. How can you guys support that?

Leftoverhard
04-11-2010, 03:29 PM
I read through EVERY page of this thread..went back and re-read it...and was still offended by your lunacy.

So, you think i'm crazy? And you're offended. Why? Because I think an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind? OK. Well, that's true and has been proven time and time again. If you think I'm offensive you haven't really been offended yet.

Peace can only truly be secured with force of arms.

Prove it. You can't.

I don't expect you (a sheep) to understand that.

I'm not a sheep. You assume much.






Oh, Vincent - My family (or lack of one) is none of your business. I wouldn't tell you what color my hair is. :hatsoff:

Vincent
04-11-2010, 04:16 PM
Oh, Vincent - My family (or lack of one) is none of your business. I wouldn't tell you what color my hair is. :hatsoff:

I don't care what color your hair is. I asked how many children you have reared because you were dispensing "parenting" advise. No surprise. Why would a lib need any experience in matters on which they opine?

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 04:27 PM
I have kids, Vincent. I teach them to respect others, to speak frankly when someone is not respecting them, and to come to me if needed. What else did you want to know? Mind you, I'm not a "lib", but still...

MACH1
04-11-2010, 04:34 PM
I don't care what color your hair is. I asked how many children you have reared because you were dispensing "parenting" advise. No surprise. Why would a lib need any experience in matters on which they opine?

Look no further than our Organizer n Thieve

tony hipchest
04-11-2010, 04:46 PM
We did have a motive. Most people are under the false impression that the 9/11 commision absolved Iraq from having any relationship with Al Qaeda whatsoever. The truth is...the commison said in a carefully worded conclusion that it could find evidence of no ``collaborative operational relationship' of Iraqi involvment in 9/11. .....Big difference.

Before the War in Irag... Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he saw a ``substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.'' ...and it was Senator Hillary Clinton who said "Iraq has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members"

In 1998....In the legal indictment against Osama bin Laden in Federal Court ,during the Clinton Administration, stated....`Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.''
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Al Zawahiri who with the help of Osama bin Laden issued the "fatwa" against the United States .. is know to have consulted with Iraqi officials 1998 and received $300,000 for his efforts.

Our government has also released documents from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, in which an Al Al Quada prisoner admitted to having traveled with an Iraqi intelligence agent to discuss blowing up US and British embassies.

Right after the war The US military also found documents from the Iraqi Intelligence Service that described Al Qaeda members as "useful assets" and that, "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreements.''

Unfortunately...the media presented a straw man argument...and equated the lack of evidence between Iraq and 9/11 and the percieved lack of evidence in finding WMD's with our having NO JUSTIFICATION in attacking Iraq.

Some of this blame falls on George Bush. His adminsitration did a piss-poor job of educating the American people of the al Queda connection to Iraq and instead put all their eggs in the WMD basket.. Had they done this...(in light of 9/11 and the American emotion of the time)...the public would have probably felt the war was more justified .



Here is an article from the right-wing publication....Time Magazine.:chuckle: (jk)

Who Owns The Oil?
Do oil and Islam mix? Several prominent Iraqi exiles have tentatively endorsed a plan from the U.S. designed to give Iraq's vast oil reserves to "the Iraqi people." The plan defines oil as a government asset, but recommends sharing production with foreign oil companies in exchange for development costs. Now many scholars of Islamic law (Shari'a) say the U.S. plan inadvertently (or perhaps cunningly) delivers a more "Islamic" arrangement than the one followed in supposedly Islamic Saudi Arabia.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...443143,00.html




Before anyone jumps on the portion that states "recommends sharing production with foreign oil companies in exchange for development costs"...

According to GlobalPolicy.org, The United States and Great Britain "envy" France, Russia, and China who have obtained the majority of the major contracts.

good post, but it still doesnt address whethir it is logical to think we are still getting some oil out of the deal. i would say there is evidence that says we are (the article you provided suggests as much).

but several things first...

"bu...bu..bu...bush".

im not so certain it was his admins responsibility to educate the population. and blaming the media doesnt hold water either. both FOX and CNN did a fine job of presenting the links of al qaeda and iraq before the war. infact there was more evidence supporting that, that was presented as opposed to the phantom WMD's.

the american people were educated enough. americans arent dumb. the problem wasnt the education, but the justification. sure there were links to iraq. but the same al quaeda links could be found to pakistan our saudi arabia, and plenty of other islam countries. we werent justified in attacking them (primarilly the ones who were our allies) so how could we be justified in attacking iraq.

enter WMD. what were they? where were they? the UN weapons inspectors had already educated us on everything there was to know. the catchphrase WMD was used to tug on our heartstrings and drum up support for the war. it had already been proven that 20 men on planes was far more of a threat to us in our homeland than iraqi chemical/nuclear labs (threats we had already extinguished).

i woulda been much more satisfied if the admin had just been straight shooters w/o blowing smoke up our ass and saying, "sadaam is a bad man, and the world will be a better place if we finish the job begun in '91".

the admin treated us all like freaking idiots. im easy. i will suport just about any war, just be real about the premise for engagement and its justification.

as for the article addressing who actually owns the iraqi oil, it shows what most suspect. nobody but the US controls it as of now.

Several prominent Iraqi exiles have tentatively endorsed a plan from the U.S. designed to give Iraq's vast oil reserves to "the Iraqi people."

would you agree that it is fair to infer that you cant give away that which you dont have, because if you dont have it, there is nothing to give away?

how could the US posibly have a designed plan to give away iraqi oil to the people?

from what we know, we can surmise this-

-the iraqi people currently dont own the oil.
-sadaam and his old regime most certainly dont own it.
-iraqi publicly traded companies dont own it (or how else could we be designed to give it away?).
- a few oil tycoons dont own it (or how else can we be designed to give it away?).

who does that leave? :scratchchin:

somali pirates are said to have just hijacked a tanker with $160,000,000 of iraqi crude headed to the US. that is 1 tanker in a single day. how many havent been hijacked.

a logical person has to question and ask these things. to ignore the possibilities is assinine.

i would be ashamed of my country if we werent getting something out of the deal. it is absurd to think we went to war to secure lucrative contracts for the freaking pansy assed french (who build nuke reactors for our enemies) and russians and chinese. :banging:

the thought of that makes my blood boil.

tony hipchest
04-11-2010, 04:51 PM
I have kids, Vincent. I teach them to respect others, to speak frankly when someone is not respecting them, and to come to me if needed. What else did you want to know? Mind you, I'm not a "lib", but still...

its too late.

if you dont "go with the flow" here and agree with the majority you are branded a lib.

infact, you may not know this, but you voted for obama (twice) and worship at his altar. :noidea:

hell, some tools like jeremy are even convinced we hang out at airports and hock loogies onto his wife and children after he deploys.

(i simply asked him for an autograph, but he said to come back when i grow tits).

Preacher
04-11-2010, 11:40 PM
There's also Matthew 5:18, which says of the Old Testament:

Which means that Deut 20:10-18 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deut+20%3A10-18) is still fully in force as far as He is concerned. This means that enslavement or genocide are our two options when approaching an enemy of the state, at least so far as Jesus and His followers should be concerned. And that's just one chapter. There are many other rather uncomfortable moments in the Old Testament regarding genocide and enslavement which Jesus supports fully.

Wow. That is so twisted a statement that I don't even know where to start. And, by the way, that is not part of Mosaic law. Not even close.

ricardisimo
04-12-2010, 03:15 AM
Wow. That is so twisted a statement that I don't even know where to start. And, by the way, that is not part of Mosaic law. Not even close.

If you want to discuss any of the more, umm... awkward sections of the Old and New Testaments, we should do it elsewhere else. It's not pertinent to this thread. Vinny and others made what I took to be bad jokes (even for them) about committing genocide to resolve our global security problems, and I countered with a rather bad joke of my own. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the bible at all, which is just how I like it.

ricardisimo
04-12-2010, 04:01 AM
And the beat goes on: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/12/afghan-official-civilians-killed-nato-troops/

I'm wondering if the press generally might be more than a little pissed about the two Reuters journalists. It certainly seems like either the incidents are increasing (possible) or the reporting is getting more aggressive. Hell, if even Fox is reporting this one...

Preacher
04-12-2010, 06:04 AM
If you want to discuss any of the more, umm... awkward sections of the Old and New Testaments, we should do it elsewhere else. It's not pertinent to this thread. Vinny and others made what I took to be bad jokes (even for them) about committing genocide to resolve our global security problems, and I countered with a rather bad joke of my own. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the bible at all, which is just how I like it.

As long as you weren't being series about your logic... that's fine. Trust me, There is nothing awkward in the Old or New testament I haven't read or probably taught on... and probably know more of it then you could ever imagine (Not a statement of pride, but simply one of training. My area of expertise is OT, though specifically, the Inter-testimental period).

Anytime you want to have a respectful discussion concerning the scriptures, faith, etc. ... I would love to engage in one with you. However, if it is not respectful, we won't be talking about it.. and that is just how I like it.

TroysBadDawg
04-12-2010, 07:36 AM
They missed that part entirely... not that it matters, of course, since Britain is just another US state, really. It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians.

ROTFLMAO Less Italians to funny, Actually I think they have more.

Vincent
04-12-2010, 08:34 AM
I have kids, Vincent. I teach them to respect others, to speak frankly when someone is not respecting them, and to come to me if needed. What else did you want to know? Mind you, I'm not a "lib", but still...

Keep up the good work Ric.

My query to Lefty about his child rearing experience wasn't directed to you or anyone else. He had dispensed some parenting advice, so I asked him how many children he had reared, knowing full well the answer was none. True to form, he finally answered none.

smokin3000gt
04-12-2010, 09:59 AM
So, you think i'm crazy? And you're offended. Why? Because I think an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind? OK. Well, that's true and has been proven time and time again. If you think I'm offensive you haven't really been offended yet.


Aww.. isn't that fortune cookie crap cute?

xfl2001fan
04-12-2010, 10:15 AM
And so our forces - far and away the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the history of the world - is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... why? Make no mistake, we are losing them. fs76 was much nearer the mark when he suggested that wars of extermination are the only winnable wars. Unless and until we are willing and able to kill every single Iraqi and Afghani who opposes our presence there (at last count well into the 90th percentile), we're not going to win. Period.
This statement is wrong on so many levels. The two most obvious being:

1 - We are NOT losing in Iraq or Afghanistan.

2 - Our continued presence has a very well specified goal in mind...and in the case of Iraq, we are very near the prescribed goal.

Our mission (as it stands right now) is to provide peace, training and to rebuild the infrastructure of those countries. In the case of Iraq (where we have spent a large portion of our focus) that mission is nearly complete. By teaching them to police themselves, by training them to take care of themselves, our presnce is required less and less. By giving them schools, churches, better medical attention, etc...we provide them with a psychological benefit that makes them even more willing to fight for their existence...against their "fellow" countrymen, who would blow themselves (and others up) in the name of twisting a religion.

Having been there...and worked to send 1000's of troops there over the last 13 years, my personal experience (and the experience with most of the Soldier's who have returned) is that we are winning. Forget what the media outlets find. It's not perfect...and it never will be so long as there are humans living in those areas, but it's already better.

The extremists were a cancer...and we went in to help cut it out. Then we tended to the "body" of the country to ensure that it could develop the strength to fight off future "infections." It's cost a LOT...but it IS WORTH IT.

Many of you lament that fact, and some of us rejoice in it. Losing wars we never should have started in the first place is far preferable to winning them at the cost of millions of lives as well as our souls (or what passes for souls nowadays).
Many of you lament....some of us rejoice? How the hell am I (as a Soldier) supposed to take that bullshit statement? If you rejoice at seeing my brothers and sisters falling, you are a sick ****ing bastard. There is NO WAY AROUND THAT. If you didn't mean that, then state what you actually mean...spell it out so that it can be understood...because I am not the only one on here offended by this.

Losing wars you don't agree with is NOT preferable to winning them. Losing them means losing lives...and gaining NOTHING out of it. It's all for naught. Millions of lives? Really? Where the hell does that overgeneralized number come from? **** you dude. Your perspective is bent as hell. You don't like it, go to France. They love pansies like you.

I know everything I'm ever going to need to know about the Judeo-Christian bible. Going through just how ridiculously cherry-picked it is, or how self-contradictory it , that what it says either doesn't matter at all (best possible case) or how adhering to it actually makes one a far worse person (my personal view) is probably a waste of time, but we can have at it in another thread if you'd like.The first statement here is as self-serving (and immature) statement as you've manged to spew. Have you actually studied further than the cherry picking to get the real meaning behind it...or is this one of those

NAH NAH NAH...I CANT HEAR YOU

type of things?


I'm not really sure what to say about this. There was extensive coverage of the motivations behind the war(s), just not in the mainstream U.S. media. I'm not a liberal, so I'm not going to get suckered into defending "the liberal media". That's Tony's or LOH's battle, not mine. In this country, there's Indymedia, one, maybe two programs on Pacifica Radio, and numerous internet newsletters and blogs. The extreme Left on television is - appropriately enough - The Colbert Report, which is just a Wally George spoof, and on cable. Even that is probably just centrist. But that's the extent of it.
There was extensive blog coverage...and media coverage...and Tin-Foil Hate coverage. 99.99% of it is complete and utter BS/Trash.


You're absolutely right: every newspaper in the country beat the drums of war steadily and without the slightest deviation from the Bush administration's official version of events: that Iraq was linked to 9/11. Later it was modified to assert that they had extensive weapons of mass destruction, and the media reported it thus. When his pretense for war changed to regime change, so did theirs. When it changed again to "democracy building", they followed lockstep again.
So you (apparently) cherry pick your media like you cherry pick your religious "studies". As a Soldier, I remember hearing/reading/watching a LOT of backlash concerning the war. Most of it from maintsream, but enough of it from many in your little tin-foil hat crowd as well.

All of this is an indictment of the press in this country, not a critique of what half of the country, and pretty much the entirety of the rest of the world took for granted: that the U.S. was seizing upon a moment of anger within its own population to invade a country which had never done squat to us, and thereby take over control of its substantial and largely untapped oil reserves.
How'd that work out? Let's see, we don't have their Oil...and we've (basically) freed an oppressed people (when the rest of the world was too big a pansy to attempt it)

Yeah, I wish I had that oil...but even without it, it's worth it to me. But what would I know, I'm just the Soldier who has to lay it on the line for pantywaists like you to spread your filthy attitude.

xfl2001fan
04-12-2010, 10:22 AM
So, you think i'm crazy? And you're offended. Why? Because I think an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind? OK. Well, that's true and has been proven time and time again. If you think I'm offensive you haven't really been offended yet.
I think some (possibly most) of your viewpoints is bordering on it...and I'm offended because I think you are out there misleading a lot of people...or you're hanging out with groups of mislead people...and that cna't be a good thing for us.

Jesus taught a better way. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. The second part of that was basically saying give respect because you want to be respected. Only an asshat would think that it would mean anything else. I think you are offensive and I think I have been offended.

Prove it. You can't.
Lets see, Iraq, a country chock full of Muslims (a religion of peace) became a dictatorship because those with arms took control. Then, despite the repeated genocide, it took another country (ours) with bigger arms to oust the bastard who would kill thousands of his own people.

Now, in order to maintain the peace (to prevent anarchy from spreading again) we are training them to take care of their own, by using force on those who don't believe that a peaceful solution is the best way to go. You secure peace with the threat on violence. If violence occurs, if peace is broken, then you use force to make it right.

Kumbaya is a pipe dream. Prove that peace can work without force of arms. You can't.

The main reason why you can't, because there are people out there that don't care for your freedom, don't care about your personal stance. There are asshats out there who will kill you for believing differently.


I'm not a sheep. You assume much.
You're not a sheperd...and your viewpoints mean you're not a sheep dog. Maybe you're a pig who wants to be a sheep dog. I don't know...but whatever it is, you're not a wolfhound...and therefor don't understand what it truly means to be a wolfhound.

Vincent
04-12-2010, 10:55 AM
Prove that peace can work without force of arms.

6,000 years of recorded human history reveals the violent nature of mankind. Man is ever cruel to his fellow man. That is not going to change in this dispensation. If anything we grow more violent as time passes.

"Peace" is defined according to ideology. To a free man, peace is the absence of a threat. We keep threats at bay by being the stronger force. As long as humans are humans, superior force will be the only deterrent to threats, and the only means to peace.

To a socialist, peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. That ideology produced the most bloody century in human history with the greatest threats to peace coming from those whose minions proclaim "peace". Not interested in your "peace" in any form.

Perhaps if we rid the Earth of socialism and socialists we might be in a position to experiment with "peace". Wouldn't that be some retribution - turn the violence on the violent.

WH
04-12-2010, 11:55 AM
Maybe you're a pig who wants to be a sheep dog.

http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/f100babe.jpg

Worked for me!

Vincent
04-12-2010, 12:03 PM
There are asshats out there who...

We're so far off topic now that how could it hurt to ask the difference between an asshat and an assclown. :noidea:

xfl2001fan
04-12-2010, 12:30 PM
We're so far off topic now that how could it hurt to ask the difference between an asshat and an assclown. :noidea:

My 1SGT loves to use assclown. I'd never heard it til I joined my current unit. Too funny.

As to the difference...

:noidea:

6,000 years of recorded human history reveals the violent nature of mankind. Man is ever cruel to his fellow man. That is not going to change in this dispensation. If anything we grow more violent as time passes.

"Peace" is defined according to ideology. To a free man, peace is the absence of a threat. We keep threats at bay by being the stronger force. As long as humans are humans, superior force will be the only deterrent to threats, and the only means to peace.

To a socialist, peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. That ideology produced the most bloody century in human history with the greatest threats to peace coming from those whose minions proclaim "peace". Not interested in your "peace" in any form.

Perhaps if we rid the Earth of socialism and socialists we might be in a position to experiment with "peace". Wouldn't that be some retribution - turn the violence on the violent.

Socialism is a good ideal...it just can't be carried out successfully...because there are too many corrupt humans who don't know what to do with the excessive power (properly.) Maybe that's why I'm a terrorist (according to the definition put out by our own Dept of Homeland Security.)

There's a reason why Thomas Jefferson said:

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

fansince'76
04-12-2010, 12:46 PM
We're so far off topic now that how could it hurt to ask the difference between an asshat and an assclown. :noidea:

Asshat = someone who has their head up their ass. The ass is equivalent to a hat in these cases.

Assclown = One who is both an ass and a clown, but neither calling them an ass or a clown are descriptive enough individually for their particular brand of buffoonery.

In other words, the difference between the two is negligible.

The more you know. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

xfl2001fan
04-12-2010, 01:03 PM
Asshat = someone who has their head up their ass. The ass is equivalent to a hat in these cases.

Assclown = One who is both an ass and a clown, but neither calling them an ass or a clown are descriptive enough individually for their particular brand of buffoonery.

In other words, the difference between the two is negligible.

The more you know. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

:thumbsup::toofunny::bowdown:

smokin3000gt
04-12-2010, 01:22 PM
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind! - Hard Leftover

Words to live by.


:chuckle:

revefsreleets
04-12-2010, 01:43 PM
Even if we "lose" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still win.

Why?

Because American foreign policy is not predicated upon "winning" in the classical sense. Even if we "win" we aren't going to conquer the territory anyway. What we are doing is destabilizing the Muslim World so as to keep them from forming a large and powerful coalition or bloc which could REALLY threaten long-term US interests, a bloc which could spill MILLIONS of Americans blood instead of that of thousands. If we are able to secure a foothold in the form of a Democratic ally in a couple places where we did not have them before along the way, that's even better....

I don't understand why that is so difficult for people to understand. It's out military foreign policy and has been for half a century....

Vincent
04-12-2010, 02:42 PM
Asshat = someone who has their head up their ass. The ass is equivalent to a hat in these cases.

Assclown = One who is both an ass and a clown, but neither calling them an ass or a clown are descriptive enough individually for their particular brand of buffoonery.

In other words, the difference between the two is negligible.

The more you know. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

Is it even possible to have better mods? No, I think not.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Vincent
04-12-2010, 02:50 PM
I don't understand why that is so difficult for people to understand.

Well, cuz when we grew up and played with army men, the Americans won and the bad guys lost.

The kids today aren't conditioned for a "winner" or "loser". The important thing is that nobody's self esteem was blemished.

Preacher
04-12-2010, 03:09 PM
Asshat = someone who has their head up their ass. The ass is equivalent to a hat in these cases.

Assclown = One who is both an ass and a clown, but neither calling them an ass or a clown are descriptive enough individually for their particular brand of buffoonery.

In other words, the difference between the two is negligible.

The more you know. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

:rofl:

Leftoverhard
04-12-2010, 03:54 PM
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

Aww.. isn't that fortune cookie crap cute?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind - Hard leftover

Words to live by.

:chuckle:

Asshat - Hat worn by an Assclown :wave:

smokin3000gt
04-12-2010, 04:45 PM
Asshat - Hat worn by an Assclown :wave:

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x313/smokin3000gt/9f6912dc13eae5389b645f9de8c66b75c54.gif

xfl2001fan
04-12-2010, 08:12 PM
Asshat - Hat worn by an Assclown :wave:

Got to admit, that made me chuckle!

WH
04-13-2010, 03:03 AM
The kids today aren't conditioned for a "winner" or "loser". The important thing is that nobody's self esteem was blemished.
There would be winners and losers if they would let the US Military get in there full force and finish the job.

Preacher
04-13-2010, 04:01 AM
There would be winners and losers if they would let the US Military get in there full force and finish the job.


Won't happen. We are trying to fight a war with video cameras, lawyers, and sensibilities.

WH
04-13-2010, 06:12 AM
Won't happen. We are trying to fight a war with video cameras, lawyers, and sensibilities.

If they had any balls, and really wanted to get rid of America, they would try and invade. They can't, so they just act like a bunched of **ssies, hide in caves, and bomb a few places every day.

They should try to be men for once in their lives and take their gloves off and try to win.

Love to see that their 40 virgins turned them down for being wimps.

Vincent
04-13-2010, 07:54 AM
If they had any balls, and really wanted to get rid of America, they would try and invade. They can't, so they just act like a bunched of **ssies, hide in caves, and bomb a few places every day.

They don't need to nor intend to invade. They occupy the White House. They are in the process of making any commentary on islam verboten. We aren't fighting the War on Terror, we are engaged in an "overseas contingency operation. We can't allow anything written or said about Ft Hood to involve islam or muslims. They have bases in the US - New York state and South Carolina are two that come to mind. They themselves have stated that it would only take a US population of 8 million to take us down. The left's hatred of this country is only eclipsed by that of islam, and they're partners in the outcome. That is their plan.

I have, in the past, said "you'll see it in your lifetime. You'll see it in a 2nd bho term. Witness "how far we've come" in a mere 15 months.

xfl2001fan
04-13-2010, 08:21 AM
If they had any balls, and really wanted to get rid of America, they would try and invade. They can't, so they just act like a bunched of **ssies, hide in caves, and bomb a few places every day.

They should try to be men for once in their lives and take their gloves off and try to win.

Love to see that their 40 virgins turned them down for being wimps.

Their tactics are designed to cause as much chaos outside of their ranks as possible. What makes it effective is not knowing who is going to be the next to get bombed...or when. People often look to the government to protect them...and it's a nearly impossible task when you use such small numbers. Instead of people taking up their own responsibility (through vigilince) they turn on a government that struggles to protect them. This causes more and more chaos, which is what these nutjobs thrive on.

The simplest and surest way to beat an enemy is by causing them a high level of fear and protecting your own supply lines.

They used fear (in Iraq) to prevent the people from retaliating...but now that their people are better trained to take care of themselves, the people in Iraq are winning. They'll never fully win...because the number of extremists is too high...and because they let their religion rule their government. The differences in the various sects are (apparently) too great.

However, there is much more public control now than there has been in at least the last 4 decades (probably goes back centuries.) That's the key to success. Public control. Public interest. Not a small handful of the elite having total control.

Iraq is nearly there...and Afghanistan will get there. It just takes time and (unfortunately) sacrifice on the part of a lot of brave souls.

WH
04-13-2010, 08:26 AM
Iraq is nearly there...and Afghanistan will get there. It just takes time and (unfortunately) sacrifice on the part of a lot of brave souls.

What sucks is the support has to come from everywhere else. You're a soldier, so I feel comfortable asking you more than anyone. Is it appreciated? How fragile is it? How likely is it that as soon as Allied forces leaves, that another extremist regime stops in and negates all the efforts and sacrifices? Also, do you think 20 years from now that Iraq will use that training against the U.S. (like the Taliban has)

xfl2001fan
04-13-2010, 10:37 AM
What sucks is the support has to come from everywhere else. You're a soldier, so I feel comfortable asking you more than anyone. Is it appreciated? How fragile is it? How likely is it that as soon as Allied forces leaves, that another extremist regime stops in and negates all the efforts and sacrifices? Also, do you think 20 years from now that Iraq will use that training against the U.S. (like the Taliban has)

Is it worth it...short term (and to the families of those who lost a loved one serving) the answer would likely be no.

Long term, (and this is one opinion...but one shared by the majority of those I deal with) yes.

It is working...and though it's fixing to be about as fragile as it can be (as we close on our drawdown in Iraq)...but I think that the training and knowledge is there...and the freedoms they now have are as sweet as nectar to a majority of the people there.

Another extremist group...it could be 10 years or a 100. I don't know. I look at America as being on a very dangerous precipice now... as both the Left and the Right are both moving further and further from center. I don't think you'll see a dictator (here or there) anytime soon though...especially not one in the mold of OBL or Hussein.

I think that our enemies are smarter than the American Media likes to give them credit for. It matters not what we do (initially) because our enemies will always find a way to counter it. We use a tactic, they counter it...we counter theres and so on and so forth. That's the ugly side of war.

The best way to free a nation is to arm it's people. Arm it with knowledge and with training. The extremists are already highly trained. Can't do anything about that. The best way to counter that is to train and arm the non-extremists so that they can better prepare/defend themselves. If you keep the public under-educated and under-trained, they pose no threat to your control. That's how all these extremists operate.

Will Iraq turn it against us? No...not unless another dictator takes over...and that (I believe) will take a lot of time. I think it will take several generations to happen. Any attempt to do so will be countered by the Iraqi patriots who are enjoying freedoms they've never known before.

Some say it's happened here in America...and that it's getting worse at a faster rate. That being said...that's been said for generations. If it's something you believe, then you can trace it back to the 50's 60's and 70's (easily)...not just BHO. If it's not something you believe, then it's nothing to worry about anyways. :P

ricardisimo
04-14-2010, 01:43 PM
More commentary (http://www.counterpunch.org/porter04132010.html), specifically on the Afghan case:
----------

Ignorance of Afghan Culture Leads to Botched Raids and Civilian Deaths
Shooting in the Dark

By GARETH PORTER

A Special Operations Forces raid on Feb. 12 on what was supposed to be the compound of a Taliban leader but that killed three women and two Afghan government officials demonstrated a fatal weakness of the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan: after eight years of operating there, the U.S. military still has no understanding of the personal, tribal and other local socio-political conflicts.

In targeting the suspected Taliban in such raids, therefore, the U.S. military command has been forced to rely on informants of unknown reliability - and motives.

As a provincial council member from Gardez, near the scene of the botched raid, declared bitterly last week, U.S. Special Forces "don't know who is the enemy and who isn't".

When the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, Adm. William McRaven, went to the site of the raid to apologise, the head of the extended family which lost five people to the SOF unit, Hajji Sharibuddin, demanded that the U.S. military turn over "the spy who gave the false information to the Americans".

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and his chief of intelligence, Gen. Michael Flynn, have admitted the profound ignorance of the U.S. military about Afghan society, while avoiding the implications of that ignorance for the issue of false intelligence on the Taliban.

McChrystal acknowledged in his "initial assessment" last August that his command had to "acquire a far better understanding of Afghanistan and its people".

In an interview with National Public Radio Aug. 13, Flynn admitted, "What we really have not done to the degree that we need to is really truly understand the population: the tribal dynamics, the tribal networks, the ethnicity…."

Such dynamics are different "from valley to valley", Flynn observed.

And in an unusual paper published by the Centre for a New American Security last October, Flynn was even more frank, saying, "I don't want to say we're clueless, but we are. We're no more than fingernail deep in our understanding the environment."

Flynn avoided any suggestion that this profound ignorance of the society in which U.S. troops are operating could affect targeting of suspected Taliban. He asserted that the intelligence problem is not about the Taliban but about the lack of knowledge about governance and development issues.

But a foreign military force that is so fundamentally ignorant of the socio-political forces at play inevitably allows local sources which have access to it to act in their own self-interest.

More often than not, the U.S. and NATO have depended heavily on ties with Afghan tribal leaders and warlords. That has proven disastrous over and over again.

Col. David Lamm, who was chief of staff for Gen. David Barno, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, has said that it became clear to top officials in the command that it should not make alliances with tribes to obtain information on the Taliban.

It often turned out that a group which a tribal leader said was the Taliban was actually a competing tribe, Lamm recalled in a September 2008 interview with IPS.

Barno also ordered his commanders to shun local police as intelligence sources on the Taliban. "Local police were too close to the local elite," said Lamm.

Despite such warnings, however, CIA and military intelligence operatives have continued to rely on tribal patriarchs and local warlords as intelligence sources on the Taliban. As recently as December 2008, U.S. intelligence officials were telling Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick that their operatives had been using gifts of Viagra, among other inducements, to get warlords and tribal leaders to provide such intelligence.

The U.S. military, including SOF units, have also relied on local warlords to provide security for their bases and logistics, as documented by a study by the Centre on International Cooperation at New York University last September. Those ties translate into channels for intelligence as well.

The most egregious example is the CIA's use of intelligence from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, the chairman of the Kandahar province council and the most powerful figure in the province.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran reported in the Washington Post last September that U.S. and Canadian diplomats had not pressed President Karzai to dismiss his brother from his position, because he had provided "valuable intelligence" to the U.S. military.

The inability of the U.S. military to organise its own networks of reliable agents has also led to a willingness to act with lethal force on the basis of tips from dubious sources.

In the most widely known instance of mass civilian casualties from a U.S. attack, an airstrike on the village of Azizabad in Heart province in August 2008, Afghan officials expressed certainty that U.S. commanders had been misled by a rival of clan leader Timor Shah, who had died some months before.

An investigation of the incident by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) revealed that a former business partner of Timor's who still had personal enmity toward the family - and who had been involved in various criminal activities - had passed false information to Coalition Forces that there would be a big gathering of Taliban fighters in Azizabad.

The U.S. command carried out a devastating bombing of what turned out to have been a memorial ceremony for Timor Shah.

As many as 90 civilians, including 60 children, were killed by the bombing.

U.N. Rapporteur Philip Alston wrote in a May 2009 report that "numerous government officials" had told him that "false tips" had "often" caused night raids to result in the killing of innocent civilians. He reported that one provincial governor had "stated that there were people in his province who made a business acting as intermediaries who would give false tips to the international forces in return for payment from individuals holding grudges."

Alston was told by a village elder in Nuristan that a district government had fed false information to "international forces" that led to a raid targeting his local opponents. He also said a similar incident in Nangarhar's Ghani Khel district was reported to him.

Alston reported that a "senior official" who responded to his critical report did not deny that "feuds" drive much of the identification of local Taliban officials. Instead the official suggested that such "feuds" were simply "part and parcel of the conflict between the Taliban and the Government".

Instead of admitting that U.S. intelligence was fatally flawed, the U.S. military command had simply adopted a justification that did not require any real understanding of the society.

McChrystal, on the other hand, has lamented that ignorance but continues to authorise raids that are based on the faulty intelligence it generates.
******
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

NJarhead
04-14-2010, 01:55 PM
"Counterpunch.org." Now there's a reputable news site. :rolleyes:

Again, you are one boring SOB. I've also realized what a gutless little turd you are. Hence, no affiliation with religion or political party. This way, you're free to attack anyone while also being free from defending anyone else. All while practicing your passion; your "need" to be different just for the sake of being different.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong you freeloading waste of skin.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-14-2010, 02:00 PM
"Counterpunch.org." Now there's a reputable news site. :rolleyes:

Again, you are one boring SOB. I've also realized what a gutless little turd you are. Hence, no affiliation with religion or political party. This way, you're free to attack anyone while also being free from defending anyone else. All while practicing your passion; your "need" to be different just for the sake of being different.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong you freeloading waste of skin.

We have a winner!!!

His posts are nothing more a desperate attempt for attention and an immature desire to be relevant.

Facts be damned....He make up his own!!! Then divert attention away from himself with a rabbit trail.

ShutDown24
04-14-2010, 02:03 PM
I don't understand what the problem is. There is nothing in that video that made me question the soldiers or their motives for a second.

ricardisimo
04-14-2010, 02:40 PM
"Counterpunch.org." Now there's a reputable news site. :rolleyes:

Again, you are one boring SOB. I've also realized what a gutless little turd you are. Hence, no affiliation with religion or political party. This way, you're free to attack anyone while also being free from defending anyone else. All while practicing your passion; your "need" to be different just for the sake of being different.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong you freeloading waste of skin.

I don't swing your way warden. Move along and find someone else to play with.

NJarhead
04-14-2010, 02:44 PM
I don't swing your way warden. Move along and find someone else to play with.

Yea, I figured you wouldn't have any argument for me. But you can consider this playground mine (and I'm basing this on the level of knowledge and experience I have in most things discussed here, over you). So, it'll be you moving on. I have no intentions of backing off of your dumb ass though, so know that.

xfl2001fan
04-14-2010, 03:01 PM
More commentary (http://www.counterpunch.org/porter04132010.html), specifically on the Afghan case:
----------

Ignorance of Afghan Culture Leads to Botched Raids and Civilian Deaths
Shooting in the Dark

By GARETH PORTER

So, someone posts an article this guy wrote...and the most recent data (that I can see) it covers is May 09? Not sure when the article was actually written, or when the "data" was collected, but it's old hat so far as I can tell.

I mean there is mention of Feb 12....but not Feb 12 2010, Feb 12 2009, Feb 12 2008. At best, you can say it's implied...but an implication is not admissable in court as real evidence.

Feb 12
Aug 13
Sept 2008
December 2008
August 2008
May 2009

If you attach 2008 to those first two dates, then you have one item out of order. If you leave off the dates, then this reporter is jumping around a LOT...because there's no way that Aug 13th could be 2010. Unless he's got a crystal ball..in which case I'd have to wonder why he hasn't won the lottery.

That kind of randomness looks (IMO) like throwing spaghetti against a wall, hoping something will stick.

Not only that, one of his sources says

"numerous government officials" had told him that "false tips" had "often" caused night raids to result in the killing of innocent civilians

Philip Austin is a Human Rights activist for the UN. It's his job. \

Well, "numerous government officials" could be 10, 100 or...2. There's an implied sense that it's more than 2...but if I'm trying to make a story...then I'm not concerned with what exactly "numerous" implies. All it needs to mean is more than 1... Multiple could be another word used that just "sounds big" even if it's only 2.

Why are "numerous government officials", "false tips" and "often" put in "quotations"?

Maybe "government officials" are just guards at the UN (possibly French Guards? :noidea: ) Maybe they are the cleaning crew who are just gossiping away over something they overheard while going about their cleaning duties.

What about "false tips". What does that actually mean? Did these "government officials" actualy hold up their fingers making the "quotations" mark while they said it? Seems fishy to me.

Same with "often." For some people, 1 time is 1 time too many...and so therefor it happens way too "often." If you're going to report, don't speculate. Report. Give us facts...not "facts."

Then again, "maybe" it's "just" me.

NJarhead
04-14-2010, 03:08 PM
So, someone posts an article this guy wrote...and the most recent data (that I can see) it covers is May 09? Not sure when the article was actually written, or when the "data" was collected, but it's old hat so far as I can tell.

I mean there is mention of Feb 12....but not Feb 12 2010, Feb 12 2009, Feb 12 2008. At best, you can say it's implied...but an implication is not admissable in court as real evidence.

Feb 12
Aug 13
Sept 2008
December 2008
August 2008
May 2009

If you attach 2008 to those first two dates, then you have one item out of order. If you leave off the dates, then this reporter is jumping around a LOT...because there's no way that Aug 13th could be 2010. Unless he's got a crystal ball..in which case I'd have to wonder why he hasn't won the lottery.

That kind of randomness looks (IMO) like throwing spaghetti against a wall, hoping something will stick.

Not only that, one of his sources says



Philip Austin is a Human Rights activist for the UN. It's his job. \

Well, "numerous government officials" could be 10, 100 or...2. There's an implied sense that it's more than 2...but if I'm trying to make a story...then I'm not concerned with what exactly "numerous" implies. All it needs to mean is more than 1... Multiple could be another word used that just "sounds big" even if it's only 2.

Why are "numerous government officials", "false tips" and "often" put in "quotations"?

Maybe "government officials" are just guards at the UN (possibly French Guards? :noidea: ) Maybe they are the cleaning crew who are just gossiping away over something they overheard while going about their cleaning duties.

What about "false tips". What does that actually mean? Did these "government officials" actualy hold up their fingers making the "quotations" mark while they said it? Seems fishy to me.

Same with "often." For some people, 1 time is 1 time too many...and so therefor it happens way too "often." If you're going to report, don't speculate. Report. Give us facts...not "facts."

Then again, "maybe" it's "just" me.

You shouldn't even validate his idiotic posts by quoting them. Anyone in the "know" is aware that it is the insurgents who indiscriminently mortar civilian areas. They then blame the U.S. Troops for the deaths because they know there are suckers like retardismo around who will raise a stink and condemn our actions, while at the same time pretending to love our troops and our country. It's a win-win for the bad guys all around in that regard.

urgle burgle
04-14-2010, 04:47 PM
So howbout those Buccos?!

why must you always make me cry?

ricardisimo
04-14-2010, 05:09 PM
So, someone posts an article this guy wrote...and the most recent data (that I can see) it covers is May 09? Not sure when the article was actually written, or when the "data" was collected, but it's old hat so far as I can tell.

I mean there is mention of Feb 12....but not Feb 12 2010, Feb 12 2009, Feb 12 2008. At best, you can say it's implied...but an implication is not admissable in court as real evidence.

Feb 12
Aug 13
Sept 2008
December 2008
August 2008
May 2009

If you attach 2008 to those first two dates, then you have one item out of order. If you leave off the dates, then this reporter is jumping around a LOT...because there's no way that Aug 13th could be 2010. Unless he's got a crystal ball..in which case I'd have to wonder why he hasn't won the lottery.

That kind of randomness looks (IMO) like throwing spaghetti against a wall, hoping something will stick.

Not only that, one of his sources says



Philip Austin is a Human Rights activist for the UN. It's his job. \

Well, "numerous government officials" could be 10, 100 or...2. There's an implied sense that it's more than 2...but if I'm trying to make a story...then I'm not concerned with what exactly "numerous" implies. All it needs to mean is more than 1... Multiple could be another word used that just "sounds big" even if it's only 2.

Why are "numerous government officials", "false tips" and "often" put in "quotations"?

Maybe "government officials" are just guards at the UN (possibly French Guards? :noidea: ) Maybe they are the cleaning crew who are just gossiping away over something they overheard while going about their cleaning duties.

What about "false tips". What does that actually mean? Did these "government officials" actualy hold up their fingers making the "quotations" mark while they said it? Seems fishy to me.

Same with "often." For some people, 1 time is 1 time too many...and so therefor it happens way too "often." If you're going to report, don't speculate. Report. Give us facts...not "facts."

Then again, "maybe" it's "just" me.

Make no mistake... this is commentary, not a breaking news story. Everything on Counterpunch is commentary and analysis. And his point is, I think, exactly what you're kind of, sort of suggesting in a roundabout way: There is a pattern, a history in Afghanistan since the invasion.

I don't think his point is that this is a scoop he's obtained on recent events. If this were a news article, it would be piss-poor, to be sure.

xfl2001fan
04-14-2010, 08:46 PM
Make no mistake... this is commentary, not a breaking news story. Everything on Counterpunch is commentary and analysis. And his point is, I think, exactly what you're kind of, sort of suggesting in a roundabout way: There is a pattern, a history in Afghanistan since the invasion.

I don't think his point is that this is a scoop he's obtained on recent events. If this were a news article, it would be piss-poor, to be sure.

But analysis of what? He uses entirely too many vagueries. Analysis of what the Porta-Potty Cleaning crew is discussing? The entire posting was a waste of space...on "numerous" websites.