"Gotcha"

Hobbes

civdef wrote:

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

thats generally what you do with a car bomb.

Wolff

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.


what news outlets ?

those links contain a lot of crap - where are the photos of the wired to explode car.

even if the car was wired to explode surely that would be different from the modus operandi of the insurgants who like the oul suicide bomber approach

surely the sas are not that dedicated

its still only one incident though - one - and there are multiple car bombs every day - most carried out by suicide bombers

Wolff

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788054,00.html


heres a link - a reuters photographer was there on the scene when they were arrested

strange how the bomb in the car was never photographed ?

yet both men were and their equipment

bit of spoofing going on if you ask me

civdef

thats generally what you do with a car bomb.

I think you misunderstand, but fear not, I'm in a patient humour at the moment.

What makes you think the car carrying the SAS folks around was in fact rigged as a car-bomb?

I never heard anything like that at the time, or since, the first I heard of that was from this thread. When I go and have a little look at google, the site making those allegations also seems to reckon the SAS chaps were in fact Mossad agents. I hope I can be foregiven for remaining skeptical till more convincing evidence is produced?

solas

bonkey wrote:

Washington Post ran an article last April (or thereabouts) claiming the US Administration had knowingly "pimped" his significance.

there a link on page one, washington post declares the basis of the psyop project called "leverage Xenophobia".

Two slides from a briefing prepared for Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describe a U.S. military propaganda campaign that was intended to highlight the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, in the Iraqi insurgency. By emphasizing his foreign origin, the "psychological operations" effort sought to play on a perceived Iraqi dislike of foreigners and so split the insurgency.

The psychology behind the operations was to build up Zaraqawi as a the major millitant in Iraq whereby the Iraqi's would perceive the occupation as apositive force and lead towards stabilizing the situation on the ground.

I've been following some Iraqi blogs the last few weeks and they all suggest the project was working very well..in a matter of speaking.

On the ground in Iraq zarqawi was alledgedly claiming Iraq as the new "Islamic emierate".

In his first face-and-voice video tape aired a couple of weeks ago, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi vowed to announce an Islamic Emirate, or state, in Iraq within three months. People weren’t surprised by what he said, but also didn’t take it seriously. No one should!

I didn’t know what he meant by “Islamic Emirate.” What are we now? The country is full of believers. The majority of Iraqis believe in one God and his prophets. I didn’t get what the term “Islamic” refers to here. But not anymore, I got it.

A few days ago, neighbors of mine told me that pamphlets were distributed in the neighborhood pointing out several orders that the residents should follow if they wanted to live. The neighborhood woke up one day to see these papers thrown in the streets, no one handed them and they weren’t signed by any organization. They were just orders written in papers and asking people to follow. I didn’t see the papers yet, but I asked some people to find me some of them.

- Women should not walk in the street without a head scarf.
- Women shouldn’t drive cars or use a cell phones in the street.
- Men shouldn’t wear shorts or grow a goatee.

These were some of the orders in the papers. People weren’t shocked. A neighbor told me that “I wasn’t surprised. Zarqawi said he would announce an Islamic state in the country, and there he is preparing to do so.”

from here
here
and here

My friend added that these neighborhoods are declared as Emirate for the resistance there and to be exclusive for Sunnis, ethnic cleansing is very active there to kick out Shiite of these places.

If the kid who wears the short pant is lucky, he will be punished with cables and warned of doing such thing again, one of these kids said that the gunmen told him when they captured him “ Hey you, you are A’ni “ From A’na city in Ramadi” how do you claim you are a real man while you are wearing such shameful pants?!!”

The inspector told me that he thinks that all these crimes are committed under the auspice of the US forces who were patrolling these districts but these gunmen did not attack them, yet, they attacked the innocent kids and women.

On Sunday the whole street was filled with threat notices posted by the “Honorable Resistance” AKA “Zarqawi’s” its main subjects are:

Men are not allowed to grow goatees
Men are not allowed to wear Jeans
Men are not allowed to remove their facial hair
Woman are required to wear a “Juba” some kind of black gown that looks like a sack
Woman are not allowed to drive
Women are not allowed to leave their homes without a chaperon

Any one not obeying these rules will be shot.

It leaves me wondering if the propaganda about following these laws or being shot was part of the psyops.

Wolff

oh i found the evidence for the bomb in the car

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972

some interview with a nutjob on al jazera oh and a report on syrian televison

must be true then

funny how the official reuters news report leaves that out..

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

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?

No I did not claim that Iraqis aren't killing each other. This was answering an earlier claim that the insurgents are killing more than the Americans.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

No I did not claim that Iraqis aren't killing each other. This was answering an earlier claim that the insurgents are killing more than the Americans.

My bad. Misunderstood.

Manic Moran

Wolff wrote:

even if the car was wired to explode surely that would be different from the modus operandi of the insurgants who like the oul suicide bomber approach

and there are multiple car bombs every day - most carried out by suicide bombers

Actually, I don't think that's the case. I think the suicide bombers get more press, and they probably have greater kill scores since they can be driven into a target instead of waiting for a target to come to them, but in terms of raw numbers, I'm fairly sure the standard car-bomb-on-a-timer/remote control is more common. Certainly of the two cars I saw blow up without any American assistance, neither was a suicide bomb.

NTM

bottlerocket

sovtek wrote:

.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.

Please explain how it could possibly be in America's interest to do this? What value is a destabilised Iraq to them?

Sand

Please explain how it could possibly be in America's interest to do this? What value is a destabilised Iraq to them?

Clearly Bush's popularity and authority with the Republican party is tied to the polls - the more violence, the more deaths, the more chaos in Iraq the higher his approval ratings. Do we really have to explain why Bush wants a fully fledged civil war?

tallus

Sand wrote:

Clearly Bush's popularity and authority with the Republican party is tied to the polls - the more violence, the more deaths, the more chaos in Iraq the higher his approval ratings. Do we really have to explain why Bush wants a fully fledged civil war?

I'd like to know why he would want a civil war in Iraq.
Surely the smoother the flow of oil the better for everyone concerned, and a civil war sould surely be counter productive in that respect.

Sand

I'd like to know why he would want a civil war in Iraq.
Surely the smoother the flow of oil the better for everyone concerned, and a civil war sould surely be counter productive in that respect.

Tallus, you need to understand - it doesnt have to make sense. It simply has to portray Bush as evil *and* stupid.

solas

tallus wrote:

I'd like to know why he would want a civil war in Iraq.
Surely the smoother the flow of oil the better for everyone concerned, and a civil war sould surely be counter productive in that respect.

I'm not sure but I think that he's referring to a situation whereby, in order for the american occupation to gain support in Iraq, they had to deflect the insurgency against them into fighting a civil conflict between sunni and shi ite, and so when the oppresing force would be defeated by the Americans..it would encourage their popularity. as is what is kind of happening. make sense?

Manic Moran

tallus wrote:

I'd like to know why he would want a civil war in Iraq.

I believe Sand was being satirical.

NTM

tallus

Or sarcastic maybe ? I dunno I give up

solas

to quote an "Iraqi" blogger:

Death of a salesman

Don't expect much to change with the slaying of Zarqawi. He amounted to a PR tool - for both sides.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/zeyad_a/2006/06/zeyad_on_zarqawi.html

bottlerocket

Sand wrote:

Clearly Bush's popularity and authority with the Republican party is tied to the polls - the more violence, the more deaths, the more chaos in Iraq the higher his approval ratings. Do we really have to explain why Bush wants a fully fledged civil war?

Hehehe, like it. Great sig by the way, sums up an awful lot of the people writing here.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

My bad. Misunderstood.

No problemo

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Tallus, you need to understand - it doesnt have to make sense. It simply has to portray Bush as evil *and* stupid.

Yea all us anti-war types are just going on because we hate Bush so much.

sovtek

bottlerocket wrote:

Please explain how it could possibly be in America's interest to do this? What value is a destabilised Iraq to them?

It "justifies" a presence.
It "justifies" permanent military bases.
It "justifies" getting rid of anybody that threatens their control there.
It weakens resistance to all mentioned (theoritically of course).

sovtek

tallus wrote:

I'd like to know why he would want a civil war in Iraq.
Surely the smoother the flow of oil the better for everyone concerned, and a civil war sould surely be counter productive in that respect.

Not if the resistance starts fighting amongst themselves. They won't have time to blow up pipelines then...they'll have to watch their backs.

Hobbes

sovtek wrote:

Yea all us anti-war types are just going on because we hate Bush so much.

and here was me thinking it was because you hated thier freedoms. Thanks for clearing that up.

Sand

Yea all us anti-war types are just going on because we hate Bush so much.

It "justifies" a presence.
It "justifies" permanent military bases.
It "justifies" getting rid of anybody that threatens their control there.
It weakens resistance to all mentioned (theoritically of course).

And above all, it means Bush is hammered at the polls, his authority with the Republican party is gutted and his Presidency implodes as the Republicans disown him in their effort to protect their own campaigns. Why would Bush want this? Sovtek, extend basic human intelligence to this man. Hes smart enough to win 2 presidential elections, I think he might be smart enough to recognise that as the domestic perception of violence in Iraq increases, his authority at home diminishes along with his chances of enacting policy.

Hehehe, like it. Great sig by the way, sums up an awful lot of the people writing here.

Orwell is very quotable, especially because history does tend to repeat itself. The "not much freedom of speech in England, therefore no more than exists in Germany" argument I found to be very familiar.

Essey

Sand wrote:

Clearly Bush's popularity and authority with the Republican party is tied to the polls - the more violence, the more deaths, the more chaos in Iraq the higher his approval ratings. Do we really have to explain why Bush wants a fully fledged civil war?

Please re-read this - This makes no logic, is not true and is completely silly.

Manic Moran

Sand wrote:

And above all, it means Bush is hammered at the polls, his authority with the Republican party is gutted and his Presidency implodes as the Republicans disown him in their effort to protect their own campaigns.

A lot of Republicans are unhappy with him for several reasons, varying from the alleged excesses of domestic espionage through the rather limp response on illegal immigration. Iraq is about the one area where Bush still has relatively strong Republican support.

NTM

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Sovtek, extend basic human intelligence to this man.

Give me one good reason.

Hes smart enough to win 2 presidential elections

Actually he's won 1 and even that's questionable. Remember Karl Rove...and what happened to him recently?
Have you ever heard of the term "non-functioning CEO"?

, I think he might be smart enough to recognise that as the domestic perception of violence in Iraq increases, his authority at home diminishes along with his chances of enacting policy.

I didn't say it would work. That's besides over estimating your military prowess (especially when you have no experience), your ability to PR things away and plain hubris.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Iraq is about the one area where Bush still has relatively strong Republican support.

NTM

...and unfortunetly Democrat as well...which just speaks volumes about the undemocratic nature of the American political establishment.

tunaman

sovtek wrote:

...and unfortunetly Democrat as well...which just speaks volumes about the undemocratic nature of the American political establishment.

So true, but ultimately no different to any other country in the western world.

solas

why?...

http://www.pnacinfo.us/doc/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4

"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)" is a policy document that outlines an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming century. Published by a neoconservative Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), it is a blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.

Surprisingly, it was published a year before the events of 9/11 put the United States on a military footing, in the peaceful closing months of the Clinton administration. Unfortunately the media has given scant coverage to this manifesto for global power and relatively few Americans are expressing alarm, despite the fact that many of its directives are now becoming a fact of US international policy.

But PNAC is not an ordinary think tank and "RAD" is not an ordinary policy paper. Many PNAC members now hold key positions in the White House, Defense and State Departments, among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton, along with others in lesser positions. William Kristol, writer for the conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, is chairman of the group.

you can read the document in it's entirety here http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Rebuilding America's Defenses

...but I'm sure that's all a conspiracy.