Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

All of us know (some since early childhood) the story with Hitler going to sleep in early morning, and waking up around 10AM, and with his servile flunkeys, who did not dare to awake him for the decision of a counterattack.
Also it is well known that Rommel was in Germany, to attend the birthday party of his wife.
My mentioning was about something different. I forgot the name of that general, who was an active member of the military plot against Hitler, but if you do not want to believe me, I am not going to beg you for this.

About the rest of your message... Your ideas are far away from anything I wrote in my last post under this topic. If it wouldn't be the matter of the German response in the morning of 6th of June, 1944, I would ask why did you quoted my message to write everything you wrote. As you can read above, I answered to what you quoted from my message.

This expression: maniacal islamo-nazi terrorists. You created it yourself, or you discovered it somewhere? If it is not yours, where did you find it? This just if you consider that I deserve an answer. For the record: the Bush administration, who called terrorists everybody fighting in Middle East against the American troops, now uses the words insurgents and nationalists.

Also for the record: I do not remember anybody in this Forum writing that the campaign of 1991 against Iraq was not justified. The international support was by far stronger. France and few Arab states had their own soldiers fighting alongside America in 1991. There were street protests, as you wrote, but by far weaker than the reaction of the public opinion at the beginning of 2003.

You have to remember that America got a lot of sympathy and reaction of solidarity in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. The international support was also strong for the action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Same Taliban who few years earlier got American money and logistic support from C.I.A. to obtain politic power and control of Afghanistan. If you want to link the justified campaign against Al-Quaeda with the unjustified military occupation occurring right now in Iraq, it is your right. You are not alone. But if many other people consider all the recent Iraqi saga as a cluster of politic mistakes, I am surprised you are so angry about it. These people happen to be in much bigger numbers than the people with your opinions.

In the days when I was in school, sometimes I refused to do a homework if the subject was meaningless to me. So if I am the nasty student, and you the almighty teacher, please explain the homework you intended to incur to us: question A, question B... Whatever.

Meanwhile, let consider that even the chief of security - Iraqi official in power right now, with American support, reminded in an interview with BBC International that the Coalition has the deadline to withdraw by December 31st, 2005. Only if the elected Iraqi government will submit to the United Nations a request for extended foreign military presence in Iraq, and only if the appeal will be accepted by the United Nations, the presence of the Coalition in Iraq will be legal after December 31st of this year.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 28, 2005 02:24 am

Man, what did you smoke lately....

The attached comics was issued in the British newspaper The Guardian, printed Friday, January 21st, 2005.

Attached Image

I find it sad when people are thrown into the awkward situation of having to defend torture as a result of being trapped into Bush contradictory rethorics. Loyalty to the Great Leader first

The Iraqi Health Minister made public the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq between January 2004 and June 2004.
The number is divided according to who killed them:

-1200 civilians killed by terrorists / insurgents

-2000 civilians killed by the Coalition forces and by the Iraqi soldiers employed by the official government

Here's the difference you choose to ignore:

-1200 innocent civilians killed by terrorists/insurgents
-2000 anarchists/insurgents/terrorists/armed civilians killed by coalition forces and iraki soldiers


BTW, the fact that you even compare the amount of torture employed by just about any country in WWII to the isolated incidents which can barely be characterized as torture in Irak shows your lack of objectivity.

On a general note, why is it so hard for some people to understand that not everything in Irak is death and destruction; not all Irakis are insurgents, and not all want the coalition force to leave just yet.
The media reports only the negative incidents. But the majority of the country, in my opinion, are not angry at the US. They are angry at the insurgents and terrorists who keep putting bombs in police stations, schools, and apartment buildings. The majority of Irakis want to live in peace in a democracy which will help avoid the advent of another Saddam-type dictatorship.

This post has been edited by mabadesc on January 29, 2005 03:57 pm

I call them as I see them, not as the media and the Thought Police agents would like me to call them! They're terrorists, because it's terrorism to bomb polling stations and school buses and crowds of unsuspecting civilians. They're islamo-nazis because their ideology is national-socialism with a muslim lining (further below I will quote some excerpts from your estimed insurgent-in-chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who although is a Jordanian ambles around in Iraq, telling Iraqis what they are to do, or else! And about "maniacal": for instance Margaret Hassan, the CARE social worker kidnapped and held hostage for a few days by your "nationalists" was shot, beheaded, disemboweled and dismembered!

"Strong". Yeah right. Re the Talebans, may I remind you that they were logistically supported by Pakistan's ISI Secret Service and funded by Wahhabi Saudi-Arabia. Or so the common knowledge goes, around the world. Per a contrario, what did the USA benefit from the ascension of the Talebans in Afghanistan? [silence, crickets chirping....]

"We are more numerous than you therefore we are right and you are wrong" = logical fallacy also known as "argumentum ad populum. Usually dismissed by Romanian peasants with the argument "ajunge o bâtă la un car de oale" (translation: "one club is enough for a truckload of pots").
As for the "political mistakes", which ones might they be? (Finally) enforcing a dozen UN resolutions? Removing a genocidal maniac and making sure that his regime is replaced by a pluralist, tolerant democracy? Upsetting the French?

And remember: tomorrow is the make-or-break day for the newborn Iraqi democracy, and I'm willing to bet that either way, a few years from today you and your ideology peers will never admit that you rooted for its opponents and opressors.

Enter Zarqawi: www.siteinstitute.org

Or, to paraphrase the words of a rightfully scorned and despised man: you can either be with Zarqawi, or against him.

Peace be upon you!

First of all,the US,and she`s allies,go to Irak to remove the threat of mass destruction weapons of Sadam : (officialy).The weapons dont exist at that time .Than,the motive of atack(dont suported by UN),was to bring democracy. (not the oil ofcourse).But,i think is not normal to force some one to do a thing who dont wanted,or dont wanted in the form you want.If some muslims want to have an islamic religious law,you think is correct to force him to believe in your democracy,and consider terorist,or nazi-terorist,if dont want that? If your country will be invaded by islamists,who force you to live by islamic "sharia"law,just because an islamic regim(into an absurd situation)was the most powerfull on earth,you will accept that,or you will fight against invaders(see the situation of our country in medieval times)?I think the peoples who fight against ocupation force in Irak is insurgents,not terorists.Even US recognize that.Ofcourse,ones of the methods used is criminal,but they not have tanks or fighters plains to fight,so use others ways(even,like i say,one of this ways is too imoral).

Amount of torture ? Jesus, what amount of torture is respectable for you, Mabadesc ? In my book, only 0% is. Your "isolated (but ordered, supported & covered by policy) incidents" are only the tip of the iceberg but let just say : "it's not really torture" and you can brush aside all distinctions. In all objectivity Mabadesc, imagine yourself be taken away by the police because your neighbour said you were a dangerous terrorist (while he's only overcome by lust for your wife). Imagine yourself being sodomized with broomsticks and lightbulbs, wired to the genitals, deprived of sleep, beaten, waterboarded and humiliated in all fashions. I'm sure you would find it characterizable of mundane treatment.

In all objectivity, Mabadesc you can hardly find a more despicable subject to defend. If you prefer to ditch not only your democratic principles but also your basic humanity to defend Great Leader, you have fallen very low.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on January 29, 2005 08:59 pm

The 1200 civilians killed by terrorists, and the 2000 civilians killed by the Coalition, were in both cases innocents who had nothing to do with the fight. In these figures do not enter the casualties of the 2 enemies. That's why I considered necessary to answer now.

We have to accept that these figures, even considering only 5 months of the statistic, are much more conservative than some other more inflated numbers circulated around. Remember, the numbers were released by the Iraqi officials on the side of the Coalition.
Same Iraqi officials who ordered in October 2003 to stop counting the "collateral damage" produced by Coalition, in order to don't fuel certain hatred in the area.

The recent release is the result of the pressure from British mass-media, more precisely BBC.

In comics from "The Guardian", one of the points was that the U.S. did not used torture in WWII, even though the evil nature of the enemy could offer excuses for it.

Yes, the incidents were isolated. However, from "only at Abu-Graib", now there are known at least 4 separate examples. This still means "isolated", anyway.

About my lack of objectivity... We'll see. In general, until now, I predicted right the whole picture. The future is less clear than what happened in the recent past, so from now on I would not dare predictions. I'll wait and I'll see.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 30, 2005 01:41 am

One of the victors emerging from the war with the Russians / Soviets was Gulbuddin Heckmatyar, openly pro-Iranian and energetically anti-American. He controlled the whole south of Afghanistan. The north was controlled by few other guys, Ahmad Shah Massoud being the most important, and the result was that at more than 3 years since the Russian retreat, Afghanistan was engulfed in a very bloody civil war. This civil war was between the victors of the war against U.S.S.R.

Missing the real nature of the Taliban, C.I.A. helped them to take power in order to:
1. Get rid off Gulbuddin Heckmatyar, the pro-Iranian/anti-American leader
2. Bring an epilogue to a civil war which seemed to never end.
The next years proved that the change was from very bad to worse.

About your words: your estimed insurgent-in-chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
By "estimed" you meant "esteemed".
Please be so kind and refrain yourself to write irresponsible affirmations.

Now it's my turn to recommend to you an Internet site which I am sure you'll love and cherish: www.foi.org

... And thank you for the greetings to enjoy peace.
I do, but unfortunately people empowered to take decisions enjoy war.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 30, 2005 02:16 am

Welcome to the Internet Age, where lies are short-lived and liars are caught red-handed: news.bbc.co.uk

Yes, it's 100% objectivity to describe the people led by Al-Zarqawi the Jordanian as "nationalist insurgents". I'll keep that in mind.

If there are lies and liars in this matter, I am not a liar, by the way.

At a certain moment, the BBC's Panorama programme made an afirmation. It happened that I heard it. Then I reproduced it here.
Now the Iraqi health ministry says that its figures were misinterpreted, and now "The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports".
Whatever the reasons of this turn around, I am not emerging as "liar". Better use "misinformed at a certain moment".

As I wrote before, some officials from the White House use "nationalists" and "insurgents" when they describe their enemy. Also these terms are used by high ranks from Pentagon, at the meeting with the mass-media. The same for some Senators and Congressmen members of the U.S. Congress. Even in Iraq, the members of the U.S. Army or of the Marines, when they give interviews to the press, they use "insurgents" much more often than "terrorists".

Please keep that in mind.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 30, 2005 06:08 pm

Of course The liars are at the BBC, and I'm not being ironic here! Just like most of the mass media, for reasons that I'm not willing to speculate upon right now, they seem to be falling hook, line and sinker for every single piece of fake news that tarnishes the Coalition's actions in Iraq.

Contrarily to Fox News which is a media outlet so heavily.. say, "prostituted" to King George that their name has become a transcontinental joke and synonym for Pravda. Those ones can feed all and any lies that their selected audience ask for. No apologies ever needed and the pay is good. Lets' stuff the goose !

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on January 31, 2005 01:10 pm