"Gotcha"

lostexpectation

Wolff wrote:

thanks lostexpectation for that....
Im not pro american - I certainly didnt support the war - but the idea of muslims insurgents flocking to Iraq to fight the americans is nonsense - they are flocking there to kill shias....

ok you have point there, btu the idea the the americans want to leave, that the dind't know exactly what was going to happen and planned for that to happen

and you're telling me the americans didn't and don't stoke that holywar?

meanwhile in Afghanistan

The NATO military alliance has pledged to nearly double its peace-keeping force in Afghanistan, from 9,000 troops to 17,000.

The decision, which was taken at a meeting in Brussels, comes after a sharp increase in violence in the south of the country.

Suicide bombers and other attacks by Taliban supporters have led to hundreds of deaths in the region in the past month.

ah democracy FTW

sovtek

Wolff wrote:

thanks lostexpectation for that....

with razor wit like that....Oscar Wilde can rest in peace

Now do you care to point out which part of my post you have a problem with ?

and can you back up any counter claim you may have ?

Im not pro american - I certainly didnt support the war - but the idea of muslims insurgents flocking to Iraq to fight the americans is nonsense - they are flocking there to kill shias....

How many of the 31 killed yesterday were americans ? how many american soldiers are killed every week ? how many muslims are killed by other muslims every week ?

well ?

How many of these "foreign fighters" have they caught or killed. All evidence points to an Iraqi led resistance to occupation.
This is a PR stunt and a joke. It's very much like Saddam's statue, Saddam's capture, Lynch's "rescue", Pat Tillman's heroic death...etc etc.
The Americans have cornered the market on killing in Iraq

civdef

All evidence points to an Iraqi led resistance to occupation.

If that was the case, why are the various insurgents so busy killing fellow Iraqis?

sovtek

civdef wrote:

If that was the case, why are the various insurgents so busy killing fellow Iraqis?

Many of the Iraqis that are killed are Iraqi police or men waiting to get jobs as Iraqi police. That would easily be considered cooperating with the occupation.
Then there are possibly rival groups killing each other...or they could be trying to foment civil war in Iraq to reduce the resistance's effectiveness...it's an old tactic when you are loosing.

Wolff

many are iraqi police....many, many more are ordinary iraqi men women and children...a lot are targeted coming from mosques and on shia holy days - indeed the bloodiest massacres where most people have died have been exactly like this.

the trouble with the foreign fighters is they tend to blow themselves up a lot so arent easy to identify

except one poor saudi who lost both legs when the truck bomb exploded before he reached his target

but not to worry a nice saudi prince flew him home and paid for his medical expenses. now thats what i call a PR stunt....

if you want evidence of foreign fighters just look at Musab al-Zarqawi...Jordanian

Im not making a point of saying they are all foreign - indeed most of the insurgents are former Baathists and sadam cronies - but thats worse imo as the are killing fellow iraqis

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

How many of these "foreign fighters" have they caught or killed. All evidence points to an Iraqi led resistance to occupation.

In fairness to Wolff, (s)he did point out that this has turned into a nice holy war between Sunni and Shia another fact thats seems to be ignored.

I'd argue that this is even more accurate than your description in some respects. The majority of the problems in Iraq are arguably no longer resistance to occupation, but rather jockeying for position in nature.

This is a PR stunt and a joke.

How, exactly, does that work? Billing him as a greater threat than he was...that may have been a PR stunt....but how is killing him a PR stunt? Already, everyone from Bush to his critics has said this won't change much in the overall insurgency picture, so exactly what PR is served here? What stunt is being pulled?

The Americans have cornered the market on killing in Iraq

I thought a moment ago you said that all eviudence points to an Iraqi-led resistance. Are you now saying this resistance doesn't actually kill anyone?

Or is it ok to engage in such hyperbole as long as its used to attack the US?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

civdef wrote:

If that was the case, why are the various insurgents so busy killing fellow Iraqis?

listen the yanks were caught already carrying out covert operations pretending to be insurgents, planting bombs and killing Iraqis to justify foreign troops policing the country

are you saying they are not capable of doing more of this...

how do we over here know who is really doing the killing... through western press who are inside US compounds protected by the yanks...

from the couple of reports from people on the ground... all this insurgents is not to be believed... in fact in a recent report the common Iraqi says they were better off with Saddam...

now may get banned for this, but it had to be said.

civdef

listen the yanks were caught already carrying out covert operations pretending to be insurgents, planting bombs and killing Iraqis to justify foreign troops policing the country

I'm sure the evidence for this is only a mouse-click away...

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Let’s see. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the phantom terrorist with super-human powers, was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, and then he was killed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, followed by a death during Operation Matador near the town of Qaim on the Syrian border, and finally he was killed, along with his mentor, Osama bin Laden, in the besieged city of Fallujah. Now we are told he was “killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad [in the town of Hibhib near Baquba],” according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Reuters reports.

bonkey

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

from the couple of reports from people on the ground...

What people? What reports?
I ask because such "trivial" information would be key in establishing how credible such claims are....as would the actual claims themselves.

in fact in a recent report the common Iraqi says they were better off with Saddam...

So the common Iraqi doesn't think much of living under US occupation / interim government. Sounds like anm arguemnt in favour of insurgency, not one refuting its existence.

Incidentally, its a fairly common trend for people to look back on previous eras and conclude they were better off regardless of whether or not they were. People keep complaining how the country (Ireland) has gone to the dogs in teh past 2 decades, ignoring the massive unemployment, emigration, high tax rates, even poorer health care etc. etc. that we suffered from. Many Russians, even up to today, claim they were better off under the Soviet empire, even though conditions as a whole are actually slightly better.

People who don't get what they were promised tend to feel they were better off even if things have improved. Its a well-established trait. So Iraqis saying "we weer better off under Saddam" means relatively little. It certainly doesn't suggest there's no insurgency

Hobbes

civdef wrote:

I'm sure the evidence for this is only a mouse-click away...

To get you started on that topic.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313656

or if you prefer google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=british+special+forces+arrested+in+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

bonkey

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

Let’s see. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the phantom terrorist with super-human powers, was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, and then he was killed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, followed by a death during Operation Matador near the town of Qaim on the Syrian border, and finally he was killed, along with his mentor, Osama bin Laden, in the besieged city of Fallujah. Now we are told he was “killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad [in the town of Hibhib near Baquba],” according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Reuters reports.

So you're saying you have no evidence of US pretending to be insurgents then? Because if that request for evidence is what you're answering, none of these points have anythnig to do with it.

Also, it should be noted that in previous cases tey said they may have got him but had no body. This time, they've confirmed it body and all. I would assume you can see the distinction that would make.

jc

Hobbes

tbh I think they are blowing the capture way out of proportion in the US media. They practically making out he was a one man army and super evil mastermind (despite administration downplaying it).

Btw, kind of funny in her earlier videos he is wearing US runners and holding a US weapon (the wrong way). At that time the Pentagon labelled him as "incompetent".

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Hobbes wrote:

To get you started on that topic.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313656

or if you prefer google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=british+special+forces+arrested+in+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

can you just imagine what goes unreported.
unbelievable

bugler

He was a particularly nasty piece of work. Politics aside, he's no loss to humanity.

I think a lot of people are grabbing the wrong end of the stick with regard to this issue. The Hydra theory only really holds water if we assume that the leader killed is popular and there are plenty of willing leaders ready to take his place. Al-Zarqawi was not popular. He had alienated even other insurgent groups who refused to co-operate with him. He murdered more Shia Iraqis than coalition troops.

His death is good news for Iraqis opposed to sectarianism. There are plenty of insurgents in Iraq. But there are few people like Al-Zarqawi in Iraq, or indeed, the world.

davelerave

they don't know if he was bombed or shot to death yet .or so they're sayin.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

davelerave wrote:

they don't know if he was bombed or shot to death yet .or so they're sayin.

here we go...

civdef

Hobbes wrote:

To get you started on that topic.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313656

or if you prefer google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=british+special+forces+arrested+in+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I'd prefer something credible tbh.

Wolff

Hobbes

those two links you posted are quite simply nonsense - i take it there are other more balanced and respected sources for the claims that the us and britain plan and carry out subvervise bombing in Iraq.

one quote


"Some such claims can be briskly dismissed. In mid-May 2005, for example, a group calling itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" accused U.S. troops "of detonating car bombs and falsely accusing militants" (http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications45605&Category=publications&Subcategory=0). For even the most credulous, this could at best be a case of the pot calling the kettle soot-stained. But it’s not clear why anyone would want to believe this claim, coming as it does from a group or groupuscule purportedly led by the wholly mythical al-Zarqawi—and one whose very name affiliates it with terror bombers. These people, if they exist, might themselves have good reason to blame their own crimes on others. "

so who exactly died yesterday if they dont even think he existed in the first place ?

it also mentions one incident - one where two soldiers opened fire on police when their car was stopped - this is hardly proof that the insurgancy is backed by the usa and britain - i remember a similar situation at a funeral in Northern Ireland.

the reason i think this is such a big deal is the fact we were told he is unreachable and on the run will never be caught...just like Bin Laden and yet from the looks of it he was betrayed, just like Bin Laden will be one day and I think the americans are drawing a lot of comfort from that.

A lot of people dont like the fact that muslims like killing other muslims

Iran/Iraq war proved that

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Btw, kind of funny in her earlier videos he is wearing US runners and holding a US weapon (the wrong way). At that time the Pentagon labelled him as "incompetent".

Washington Post ran an article last April (or thereabouts) claiming the US Administration had knowingly "pimped" his significance. Given that a ton of commentators have referenced this in the past few days (and the stuff about how they didn't take the 3 previous chances at the guy, allegedly cause it would have weakened their case for war with Iraq) a quick google should find it.

pete

CNN wrote:

-- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was alive when U.S. troops reached him after the U.S. bombing raid, but died "almost immediately" after, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said.

funny. probably not intentionally so.

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

Hobbes

those two links you posted are quite simply nonsense

erm, one is a google link to the all the stories in question. Take your pick. The other was just the spin off of the initial discussion. (which is linked)

However the facts are:
1. 2 SAS were arrested after shooting and injuring a police officer (refused to stop the car at a checkpoint).
2. Both SAS were in disguise when caught.
3. The car had weapons in it and was also wired to explode.
4. The British Army actually attacked an Iraq prison to get them out, destroying the prison in the process and allowing a large number of prisoners to escape.
5. The excuse for the prison break was that they feared for the mens lives (as protesters were outside the prison after they heard what was found), however the Iraq authorities were holding them under suspision for car bombings and injuring a police officer.
6. A number of similar car bombs were found in Iraq around the same time that were believed to be linked to these guys.

This is very very old news and already debated to death.

civdef

I'm not at all surprised the SAS and other special forces are out and about doing their secret squirrel stuff - (the sort of stuff that got Mr. Zarqawi into his current poor state of health).

How's that translate into proof the Allies are setting off the bombs and beheading Iraqis?

Hobbes

civdef wrote:

I'm not at all surprised the SAS and other special forces are out and about doing their secret squirrel stuff - (the sort of stuff that got Mr. Zarqawi into his current poor state of health).

How's that translate into proof the Allies are setting off the bombs and beheading Iraqis?

You asked about the SAS forces planting bombs in Iraq (in the city in populated areas, nothing what-so-ever to do with Zarqawi I might add). I gave you the story in question.

I have never heard of any such thing of Allies beheading Iraqis. So I'll leave it up to whatshisname to provide that.

I'd prefer something credible tbh.

Like I said one of them is a google link with the search in question. Please feel free to pick whatever news outlet you want from it.

SpAcEd OuT

Hagar wrote:

I'm not convinced. If the US didn't claim that he had personally done the beheadings it would be an admission the the real culprit was still at large. That wouldn't go down too well would it?

I've watched the Nick Berg beheading on the internet, al-Zarqawi personally beheaded him. The videos opening heading was ''Abu Musa'b al-Zarqawi slaughters an American''

Glad to see him gone, though he died too good a death for what he did

civdef

You asked about the SAS forces planting bombs in Iraq (in the city in populated areas, nothing what-so-ever to do with Zarqawi I might add). I gave you the story in question.

Yep, and the story you linked to was one I'm familiar with, but it still doesn't prove the SAS or their type are going around blowing up Iraq, does it?

Maybe I'm missing something.

Hobbes

civdef wrote:

Yep, and the story you linked to was one I'm familiar with, but it still doesn't prove the SAS or their type are going around blowing up Iraq, does it?

Maybe your right.

What reason would SAS be in disguise in car wired to explode driving around Iraq around the time other car bombs were found and shooting at police be doing then?

Now that you mention it does sound very innocent. :rolleyes:

civdef

The "wired to explode" bit, where's that from?

Manic Moran

To address an earlier point, those of us in the Army would like nothing better than to not be there any more. Repeated year-long-tours away from home where you spend more time being a target than anything else don't hold much appeal, and it's wearing down the Army. Sustainable, but definitely not pleasant. We don't want to cut and run, but honestly don't see why if the primary focus is just to get all those Americans out, they don't just stop shooting for six months, we'll declare victory, leave, and then they can get back to blowing each other up for as long as they want.

NTM

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

To address an earlier point, those of us in the Army would like nothing better than to not be there any more. Repeated year-long-tours away from home where you spend more time being a target than anything else don't hold much appeal, and it's wearing down the Army. Sustainable, but definitely not pleasant. We don't want to cut and run, but honestly don't see why if the primary focus is just to get all those Americans out, they don't just stop shooting for six months, we'll declare victory, leave, and then they can get back to blowing each other up for as long as they want.

NTM

I think lumping everyone into the same boat isnt really refelective of whats happening there. (or at least how it appears to be from watching the news etc.) It would appear that there are Iraq people who do indeed want to blow each other up, but there also appears to be people who want to blow Americans up and ensure that America pay as big a price as possible for their 'victory'.

I would also hassard a guess that there are people who want America to be bogged down in Iraq for as long as possible, in hope that it delays them from attacking their next tarrget. (thinking OBL, Syria and Iran here) and indeed Iraq people who want to make America pay as high a price for their victory over them.

I also bet that OBL knows that the longer that the US are there - the more people he will get in his organization.

plus, as you say, the troops want to come home as they are being tarrgeted all the time. Maybe they think that America are less likely to leave if there where no attacks on them?