Source: Page 46 of White Noise Keywords: "deranged," "system," "money," "all"

From: "Matt" <pissoff@spammers.suck.com> Subject: "Re: whatever we are talking about now was ReThe Evil Doctrine of Collective Responsibility was Re: Downer backs foreign pre-emptive strikes" Date: 3 Oct 2004 Newsgroups: aus.services.defence

"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:415DFE92.6020403@yahoo.com.au... > Matt wrote: > > "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:415BF525.8000200@yahoo.com.au... > > > >>>Criminal thugs, well yes I would have to agree with that > >>>comment of the beheading - as you correctly pointed out, > >>>a number of the kidnappings and maybe some of the beheadings > >>>in Iraq are purely criminal and use the mantle of jihad, > > It makes sense doesn't it. If the general population > is deeply resentful of the Americn occupiers, then every > man and his dog will claim that whatever they are doing is > to oppose them, even if it's just extortion and nothing > to do with 'jihad'. It was reported that the two Italian > women were released after $1m paid by the Berlusconi government > and when it was thought Australians had been taken hostage, > Howard sent a negotiating team to deal with the 'terrorists' > he said he would never negotiate with. B^p I believe that the primary reason as to why they use the jihad cover for their criminal activity is to minimise the chance of the locals informing on them to the authorities rather than from a sense of patriotism. Italians - well they have regularly dealt with terrorists and paid ransoms before - what is new? As to the Australians - are you sure that it was a negotiation team and not military personnel who were sent over to assist in a recovery operation (i.e. with the use of force)? Have been outside of the loop for a while now so I have not kept up to date with everything - may have been a DFAT team, or it may have been military (or a combo of both?) - just because they were sent there it does not mean that they were sent with the intent to negotiate the freedom of aussies allegedly held hostage. > >>>but most of the beheadings are believed to have been > >>>conducted by religious extremist groups. > >> > >>Are we discussing your beliefs or have you interviewed those > >>who did the beheadings? My point was to question why > >>Bash, (and Pits), introduced a criminal act in order to compare it > >>to what he identified as a "massacre" by coalition forces? > > > > > > Not my personal interviews, but received from a variety of sources. > > Hearsay. You didn't cite any of these sources, which is pretty > hypocritical given the standards of proof you demand of others; Mainly from reports received through the system over there, media reports, and also knowledge of which groups are terrorist groups versus some little criminal group that has only just named themselves. i.e. when I see a report that say Ansar al Islam is claiming responsibility (specifically when they can prove possession of the hostage of their murder). > "I don't mean some crackpot peacenik group, but a legitimate group i.e. > the UN or another government which is not doing it because of politics" > > That WAS pretty funny.. 'a government not doing it for politics' B^D True - they are all similar, however, I look at some governments comments (i.e. French and Russian) about Iraq with severe reservations due to their financial dealings with Iraq, or comments from governments such as Malaysia about Australia (more so when Dr M was in power) with reservations. If a government with similar leanings (i.e. the Brits) did lay charges against the US or ourslelves, then that would be less politically motivated. Happy now? > But the question now is, how political are your sources, did you > check them? Now that comment is pretty rich coming from you. You have used some sources with (in my eyes at least) very low credibility levels yet no comment from you that you have checked the source material or an assessment on the reliability. > At least post the sources so we can all judge for ourselves if they > are any more reliable than you. (Your last post had a number of > significat errors which damaged your credibility) Only in your eyes - have had no expressions of concern from others. > If you are not sure how to cite sources, have a look at my post. > > The standard form is > > "quoted material" - Source > > It enables people to verify what you are saying, in case > past errors lead them to have doubts. An amount of my comments and sources are based on personal experience - as have others (i.e. pits) which are often difficult if not impossible to provide references to. You can take them as is, with a grain of salt or not at all - up to you. > > The groups that were claiming responsibility (on the videos of the beheadings) > > are mainly extremist groups who are not seeking ransom payments. > > You take their word for what they are? David Koresh claimed to be > Holy Christian, that didn't make it so. Unlike you, I am deeply > sceptical of what terrorists say, after all, they claim to be Muslim, > but clearly aren't as they break it's laws. I am very sceptical of what they say, but can understand why they commit their actions. To a mainline muslim, the actions of the extremists are disgusting and deeply offensive and clearly go against the Muslim beliefs. However, as with any religion (be it christian, mulsim, judaism etc), the extremists work to their own interpretations of their religion and justify that what they are doing is right due to that interpretation. I do not believe much of what they say, however, I use bits and pieces of what they say (possible truths or bits that cannot be proven incorrect), their environment, and related areas to build up a picture of the overall. > I repeat, two Italians were released, and the third man has not been > beheaded, apparently because his captors still hope to achieve the > release of female prisoners from American rape and torture. > (Now THAT is well documented, according to the USSA congress, > but most of it is supressed, it seems you have to watch al Jazeera > these days to see what the Americans are not told.) US rape and torture - isolated occurrences which are certainly not representational of the US forces or any other CF in Iraq. To say that rape and torture is endemic within US forces is like saying that because some muslims have been seen to behead westerners therefore all muslims do. Although I cannot prove it one way or the other, I doubt very much that the instances that we have seen at abu ghurayb will be repeated. No yank military personnel that I spoke with over there felt that the actions of the guards at Abu Ghurayb were correct, rather that those who committed these actions were wrong and deserved everything that they would get. Nobody - even the MI contacts I had, felt that the system had ordered them or in anyway coerced them to carry out the actions that they had. As to suppressing information, maybe, but I suspect that it is mainly because most viewers are sick of watching the same clips being rebroadcasted over and over again. Al Jazeera - well it could be argued that the reason why they continue to broadcast these clips and information over and over again is that their viewers want to keep on seing it, or possibly that those who run the network want to keep their viewers inflamed about what occurred. > > A lot of > > the kidnappings ARE being conducted for money - witness the victims being > > released on payment of a ransom. Two separate groups, although there are > > believed to be linkages - i.e. some of the extremist/terrorist groups have > > purchased hostages from groups who took them, and then executed them. > > > > > >>I agree that many of these executions have been carried out since the > >>invasion may be by the religious extremists formerly supressed by > >>Saddams brutal secular dictatorship. > >>Which makes your suggestion below that these religous groups are now > >>acting in concert with Baathist elements in the growing insurgency even > >>more ominous for the occupation. > > > > Not excessively alarming as it has been a known factor since even pre war. > > Beheadings of Westerners in Iraq before the invasion and the chaos > it unleashed? Do you have evidence of these claims. With citations? Where have I said that there were beheadings of weserners in Iraq pre war? Simply put, I haven't, what I said was that religious extremist / terrorist groups were in contact with Saddam elements pre war. Prewar, the Iraqis had involvement with terrorists (i.e. extremist groups) - for example one of Saddams sons was said to have travelled extensively throughout the region prior to the conflict period trying to get terrorist groups to strike at CF from directions not expected. > > The two groups have very different end states (one wants a return to the > > Saddam era and the other a secular religious state) which are mutually > > incompatible; however, they have been noted to act together for short > > periods of time. > > The populace must really hate the occupying forces if they will overcome > such fundamental divisions to fight the common enemy. Your enemy is my friend. If you look back to the 60's, 70's and 80's, the arabs (muslims) and the USSR (godless devils) were dealing with each other becasue they had a common cause, yet they have a very fundaentalist divisions. To say that the populace is behind the actions of the AIF groups is wrong - many that I spoke with were deeply upset and wished that the AIF would cease their actions and help to stabilise the country. There is a sizable minority i.e. top dog baathist party members who lost a large amount with the toppling of the regime, they are the ones who are behind much of the activity going on now. > A similar united front emerged at the siege of Fallugah, where Sunni > and Shiite forces acted together, and USSA forces were forced to > withdraw. Tragic that the only unity the USSA can create in texIraq, > is against it's occupation. That have no moral authority whatsoever. > And that lack of legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqi's is why they > lack support and receive so little intel from the populace, and that > is why they made the mistake of lifting the Geneva convention rights > of prisoners in a desperate attempt to squeeze what the Iraqi's would > not willingly give. The Spiral of failure is obvious. The so called unification of shia and sunni forces in Fallujah. Sorry to shatter your preconceptions, but the only Shia who were supportive of the sunni in Fallujah was Maqtada al sadr and his group - the others were vocally calling for the destruction of the city and its inhabitants. The support from Sadr was verbal in nature and there was no real indication that there were shia from sadrs group (or others) fighting in fallujah alongside the former baath party and terrorist groups. Not sure where you are getting your info re the lack of intel flowing in from the populace - that is an utter crock of shit. The biggest problem was the compilation of the huge amounts flowing in and checking the reliability of the information. Where is your source for this information? So far you have been quick to attack my so called lack of supportive information, yet when called on to do the same, you quote dubious sources which have I would place a very low credability rating on. Unfortunately most of my informatin is annecdotal in nature and dfficult to prove to someone who wasn't there. > >>Do you have any evidence to support the assertion it was Hot? > > > > > > I cannot provide evidence one way or the other. > > So you simply ignored Bash's speculation and nailed me for > responding to it. Shabby, but sometimes effective. > Unless people notice. B^p No, what I asked you was for proof that it was civilians being killed. Whether it was hot or cold is not the issue here. > > Where I disagree was that in people calling it a massacre - > > Bash's terminology, he suggested it was not an isolated occurance. > > Perhaps you shoulf have taken him up on it, > but then, you probably shose not to try because he's > such a timid, slippery, wink wink insinuator, that no one > knows what he's saying when he says it! > I can see why you asked ME to explain it for you. I am > forthright and helpful, no need to rely on rhetoric, or > make myself a small target. ;-) Brash says! - how about your call on it then. You are keen on pushing that one away - is that because you agree that there is no evidence that it was a massacare of civilians? > I agree that Bash's hot/cold distinction was rubbish. I believe > what he tries to do is the 'collective guilt' I discussed in replies > to Pits. Blame all Iraqi's for the acts of a few, which justifies > the increasingly harsh repression, and rocketing civilian casualties > as the forces of conquest move from pretending to Liberate into > divide et empera. They have already installed a CIA operative as > dictator, and are now attempting to excise the political opposition. Hot/cold - that is not what I have been asking you. Do you have any evidence that it was a massacare of civilians? > > It would have been pretty gruesome > > yes, but I steer clear of the term of massacre unless it can be conclusively > > proven that it was non combatants that were hit. > > ALL iraqi's were non combatants at the time of the illegal and > pre-emptive invasion. Their status since then has been defined > variously, by the occupying forces, to suit themselves. > As their assessments are, in your own terms, political, they > are not reliable. Post something from independent observers, > not from right wing religious fundamentalists wielding indiscriminate > military force. I am sorry, but I do not share your opinion that it was an illegal invaison. There were damn near more lawyers than combattants involved in the planning of the conflic, and I never heard them voice the opinion that it would be illegal. What may be reliable to you is not necessarily to me, and of course vice versa - suspect that this is yet another topic that we shall have to agree to disagree on. As to all Iraqis being non combattants - what a crock - as soon as anyone picks up a weapon, they become a combattant. Are you suggesting that no Iraqis had picked up weapons at the start of the combat phase?????? > It is clear to most people by now, that the USSA government is the most > political, least trustworthy source, with the possible exception of > a handful of brutal murdering thugs, but certainly less reliable than > the many peace groups who more accurately predicted what we are now > witnessing. I trust the US government a little. I trust the UN and similar groups even less. So to me, the US has a lot more credibility than most out there. Yet again, I fear that that is yet another topic that we shall have to agree to disagree on. > > I have seen the original > > and incidentally much higher quality footage of the strike, and one thing > > that I cannot remember was the Aw dude comment. > > I don't want to further stress your failing memory, but, any evidence > of actual combat? Weapons? WMD's? Or just guilty of being Iraqi's > in Iraq, like the tens of thousands of others killed in the invasion? > > It really is a bit rich, after pre-emptively invading a country, to > then claim to determine who is a combatant, a non-combatant, or an > illegal-combatant (unless the latter category is applied to those > who participated in the illegal invasion) All the rest comes under > the heading of self defence. Pre-empatively invasion - OK, so when a country is to be invaded, they should warned that "we are coming at this time, this date, and at this location" so that they can prepare to fight them as they cross the border. Sorry, but this is war whereby you preferably make the enemy die for their country rather than dying for your own. Determination of combattant or non combattant is very simple. If they pick up a weapon and point at you, then they are a combattant and are a legal target. If they don't have a weapon, then they are non combattant. As to the footage on the Fallujah bombing I saw, it was a bit longer, clearer, but didn't offer much more than what we saw in your link. The time at which it was taken was during the main "siege of Fallujah" in I think April where there were large AAA and SAMs being used against CF aircraft - combat against CF, yep shitloads. > > Additionally I am pretty > > confident that the strike would have had a forward controller instructing > > the pilot where to place the bomb and the forward controller would have been > > unlikely to target civilians - they do have to account for their > > expenditures of munitions up the chain after all. > > > > yes the yanks do have a bit of a histoty of > > dropping munitions on friendlies, but no one is perfect. > > Now that is flippant. I described their cruelty in War, you > seem to condone it. No I do not condone cruelty. If an action can be taken that is not illegal that reduces the chances of your own forces being killed or wounded, then I say it should be taken. Simple really. > > I am suggesting that the group of people were not civilians, > > but rather they were probably > > enemy combattants moving to another fighting position. > > Like the Sioux. I see. And like them, they were moving to > 'another fighting position' because the first one had been invaded? > As were the cicilians. Legitimate use of force - if they are enemy combattants, then you take them out when you can. > > At the time that > > this footage was made there were large numbers of enemy combattants in > > Fallujah - in the thousands - and air strikes were used to very successfully > > thin their ranks. > > And that explains why the Americans were forced to withdraw, and > a Baathist took control? B^p The reason for the Fallujah brigade being implemented was that it wasn't deemed feasible to wipe out the enemy combattants without casuing unjustifiable amounts of non combattant casualties. I was quite surprised and impressed that the yanks did take this action and believe that it was a good idea that in the long run has unfortunately worked out exactly how it was desired. As to Bathists winning the day, well maybe,maybe not. Those picked for higher level command of the Fallujah brigade were screened for anything in their backgrounds that would have been detrimental. In the Saddam era Iraq, if you wanted to progress upwards in Iraqi society, you had to be a member of the Baath party - while I do not have the figures, there was a very large proportion that were. It is the reason now that the country is having to accept former baath party members in positions of authority - of those who weren't baath party members, very few have the qualifications or abilities to manage. > > I have read on the net some of the (very) amateurish > > interpretations of the event that have been made almost purely on a little > > bit of very degraded video footage and have been rather unimpressed at the > > conclusions that people have leaped to with little to base their conclusions > > on. > > > > I feel the same way about your notion of 'very successful air strikes' > given the mass graves and the ultimate failure to regain control. Unlike the vast majority of those who have given us the dubious pleasure of their views, I actually have experience in that area, in addition to time over there with which to form opinions on the subjects discussed above. You still have not provided proof that these "mass graves" being civilians - otherwise, if they are combattants, what is the problem, CF have merely been successful in taking out a mass number of the enemy. > > Countries yes - do the foreign fighters/terrorists/extremists who come in > > from other countries count as defending their own country when they are in > > Iraq? > > You suffer from post-hoc revisionism, the invasion was pre-emptive > and illegal, the Iraqi's are entitles to defend themselves. You suffer from the inability to see outside of your narrow viewpoint. The war was not illegal, and so what if it was pre-emptive - if doing that saves lives, then all the better. Why should we have telegraphed the time and dates of when we were going to attack? > Few fought for the regime of Saddam, but many now fight for Iraq. > As you say, the local and foreign elements work together against > the common enemy, I'm sure they will accept help from anywhere. > As we did fighting with the Soviet Union in WWII. Iraq was never ever going to be able to defeat CF in a conventional campaign - now it has been taken to a guerilla style campaign which is always going tobe more successful than the conventional campaign if you are fighting and enemy that totally out guns you. > > A large number of the fighters in Fallujah were from outside of Iraq > > and fighting because of their religious affiliations. > > You mean the Americans? Indeed 100% of them are foreign interlopers, > killing pillaging, installing political puppets, even raping and > torturing... If only the UN wasn't under the thumb of their Veto, > they might DO SOMETHING about the slaughter, anarchy and chaos unleashed > by the White House religious fundies. > Lots of other crap and generic left wing drivel snipped. No I don't mean the yanks, surely you are not that stupid to believe that and are only writing that garbage because you cannot prove my comments wrong. > > After the Fallujah brigade had been formed, the Iraqis in Fallujah were > > generally anti foreign fighters, but the sheer numbers of foreign fighters > > in Fallujah meant that they couldn't be easily be kicked out by the Iraqis. > > The air strikes in Fallujah that targeted foreign fighters were actually > > welcomed by many of the inhabitants as they were surgical in nature and > > targeted only the foreign fighters/terrorists/extremists. The claims of > > women and children being killed stemmed mainly from the foreign > > fighters/terrorists/extremists or from arab media groups with vested > > interests in slamming CF. > > > > Believe that and you will believe anything. > > Mass graves were dug, and filled with Men Women and Children > in Fallujah. Proof please? - oh that is right, ther eis none, and you are just shovelling out the usual left wing luny crap because you have are wrong and cannot admit that is the case. > I just don't understand the odious comparisons you are trying to > make, and what your purpose is in doing so. > It is horrible that criminals extort ransom from hostage taking, > just as it is horrble when a military superpower illegally invades > and takes a whole nation hostage. Get your facts right - you have listed a small number of people who have said that THEIR interpretation was that they believed the war was wrong or illegal, there are many others who don't - and I am one of them. It was the right thing to do both morally and legally and I sleep well at night knowing that it occurred. Can you please stop bringing the left wing claptrap into this debate - it is getting really boring having to wade through it to try and find anything worth discussing. > It is horrible when criminals kill mercenaries, but when > regulars kill civilians you think that less so? Killing another person sucks at any time, it is unpleasant and leaves you feeling empty for a long time afterwards - I have been involved in situations where the result has been a death and the feelings evoked after the event, well I wouldn't wish them on anyone. > > you or your mates are being shot at, > > If someone invades your house they should expect to be shot at > even if they take their mates with them. > > I assume you realise that the insurgents are fighting because their > mates, wives AND children are shot at? Oh really you have asked them that? The numbers of reasons as towhy the insurgents are fighting is endless, often they do it because of boredom, because their local imam is whipping them into a frenzy about it, etc. Now going by your logic, it should be legal for me to shoot someone because they break into my hom. If I do shoot someone entering my home, do I have your support when I get dragged through the legal system? Probably not. > > Our society recognises > > this with the delineation in civil life between murder and manslaughter - > > both of which have resulted in the death of an individual, but are seen and > > punished at different levels. > > Our society recognises the difference between pre-meditated killing > and self defence, which is the more appropriate, and widespread > consideration in TexIRaq. So if I am driving down the road and I run someone over, would I be more likely to be charged with murder or manslaughter. It certainly wasn't a premeditated killing, but neither was it self defence if I were to run someone over. > Especially as the USSA has blurred the distinction between > it's military and civilian personnel with the use of mercenaries, > and it's definition of all political opponents, even unarmed > pacifists and children as 'terrorists' if they fail to support New > Rome. If they are armed, then they are combattants be they military of civilians. How confusing is that? > >>I was, and remain, more concerned about the one we, by association, > >>are responsible for. > > That is, in my view the central point. We can hang wring about > criminal acts, but can only do something about those where > there is some order, and even then, in our own country, they > exist. In TexIraq, the conditions of chaos and disorder which > have been created make such crimes increasingly common. > The governing authority must be held accountable when crime > is so widespread. The governing authority is constructed of Iraqis - do you want us to punish them because they cannot control the actions of some of their fellow Iraqis. Nope? Dindn't think so. > But the acts of regulars, the massive war crime which an illegal > invasion represents, when there was no valid casus belli, that > is a crime in which the War Criminals have made *us* complicit. Get your facts staight, it wasn't an illegal war, tand it certainly wasn't a war crime. There are some who think it was, but until I see a conviction in a court of law, then I will not believe it to be the case. There just is no evidence that is proovable. > The ultimate horror is not bloody deeds by a minority of > desperate or deranged men, but the full power of the state > unleashed in the slaughter of innocents, for no good cause. > > Think on it. Two words there - HORSE SHIT. > > There is absolutely no indication that > > these people were non combattants, and as we all lack knowledge on the > > events leading up to the dropping of the bomb, I suggest that assumptions, > > probably incorrect at that, are the only outcome. As to why the beheading > > issue was raised, I think the intent was to show that the Iraqis do not have > > the moral high ground here and to bring a little bit of even-handedness into > > the discussion. > > And so you reveal that, in your view and that of the poster, ALL > Iraqi's are judged by the action of the actions of autonomous, > possibly criminal, and according to you NON-IRAQI, elements, and > punished accordingly... while you are happy to gloss over the acts of > the Coalition of Warmongers, FOR WHICH IT'S GOVERNEMENT AND PEOPLES > ARE ACCOUNTABLE! More utter shit. No I do not believe that all Iraqis are judged on the actions of other Iraqis. I believe that there are some good Iraqis, there are some bad ones and that this is the case with pretty much all of us. Will you please stop trying to put words into my mouth. I will not say things or act in a particular manner just because you think that is how I should act because I do not support your twisted point of view.

Back to 2004 Archive, "The Usenet Project" - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive