Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Demonstration in Iraq vs. Liberation of Iraq...
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 38 (203407)
04-28-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tal
04-28-2005 2:42 PM


quote:
Zhimbo's op appears to me to suggest that when the US "controls" rallys/protests/marches that the event is "Pro USA," and when the US doesn't "control" the event it is "Anti US."
That's interesting. The implication I got from his post was that that one, specific demonstration was orchestrated by the US, and that when US officials or their proxies are not involved in organizing, the demonstrations call for an end to the US occupation.
I guess Zhimbo is the only one who can tell us for certain what his point was.
--
quote:
Doesn't clarify what the "Anti US" rally was about and implies that it is a "hate america" rally.
Actually, I thought the implication was that it was an anti-US occupation rally. That there were additional issues in addition to opposition to the US occupation is an important clarification. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tal, posted 04-28-2005 2:42 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 38 (203409)
04-28-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tal
04-28-2005 3:00 PM


quote:
Here's what really happened.
How do you know what really happened?
The Znet article mentioned the official US response:
According to an initial American investigation, Shaik was responsible for the incident as he pulled his car out of the queue, drove over a median strip and approached the checkpoint from the wrong lane. He then allegedly got out of car and engaged in a verbal and physical altercation with an Iraqi translator. US troops only intervened and rendered assistance to diffuse the situation by holding Mr Shaik momentarily.
What is your source, and why do you consider them less biased than Znet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 04-28-2005 3:00 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:39 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 38 (203435)
04-28-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tal
04-28-2005 3:00 PM


What I find interesting is that when Iraqis complained, or still complain, about Saddam and his forces it is considered the absolute truth and indicative of rampant and accepted practice. If complaints are found lacking evidence it is said to have been covered up.
Now that WE are ruling Iraq, when Iraqis complain about the US it is considered fabrication, and if claims are validated then said to be isolated examples which cannot be used to describe the nature of our occupation.
Somehow I think the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes... don't you think?
It's pretty well known that US soldiers have abused and killed innocent Iraqis (intentionally and unintentionally) and our consistent attempts to cover it up or handwave it away is sort of cheap. I find US obfuscation in the Italian Secret Service agent's killing to be particularly odious.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 04-28-2005 3:00 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 19 of 38 (203737)
04-29-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
04-28-2005 3:02 PM


I explained it in message 12.
But I'll give you another source.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Several thousand protesters gathered Saturday in Baghdad to urge the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as well as to call for national unity and denounce terrorism.
source
It was to protest both the presence of coalition troops and to express anger about the insurgency.
Of course they don't want a foreign force in their country. Who would? They want to be defended by their own. But that was not the sole reason for thier politically motivated march.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2005 3:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 20 of 38 (203739)
04-29-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
04-28-2005 3:09 PM


My report came off the Fort Knox Intranet from the SIGACTS (not sure what that stands for, but it's a daily summary of every incident in Iraq). It's closed to the internet.
I guess you'll just have to trust me, but we can do another litmus test.
If the Znet story were accurate, then it would have been reported on by news agencies (CNN, Fox, BBC, Hell..Al Jazera). Yet no news agency covered it. That is because its not a news story. Those incidents happen all the time.
Znet simply saw the story somewhere and rewrote it as they saw fit.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2005 3:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 04-29-2005 5:58 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 23 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 6:01 PM Tal has replied
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 04-29-2005 8:50 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 21 of 38 (203741)
04-29-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
04-28-2005 6:22 PM


Holmes
"WE" don't rule Iraq. The Iraqi Govt does. General Casey has to get permission from the IIG (Interim Iraqi Government...although I'm sure that name has changed since the elections) before, say, assaulting fallujah.
The biggest example that I can think of would be Muqtada al-Sadr.
We would have gone in to Najaf and finished the job last year. That means capturing/killing Muqtada. Instead, the IIG wanted to negotiate with him. So that's what we did. They cut a deal. Muqtada has his militia lay down their arms. In exchange he doesn't get harmed and is still allowed political voice.
Furthermore, nobody is saying that Iraqis don't want us to leave. Most do. We know that and don't deny it. Nobody wants a foriegn military force in their country (with exception of peacekeeping missions). So I'm not sure how you think the US somehow shrugging this off.
However, we won't leave the country until thier National Guard and Police force is operationally capable to handle whatever the IIG needs them to do.
I find US obfuscation in the Italian Secret Service agent's killing to be particularly odious.
I assume you mean when they got the journalist out?
Please, post more detail about why you think it is so odious.
This message has been edited by Tal, 04-29-2005 04:49 PM

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 04-28-2005 6:22 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 04-29-2005 6:37 PM Tal has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 38 (203771)
04-29-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tal
04-29-2005 4:39 PM


quote:
If the Znet story were accurate, then it would have been reported on by news agencies (CNN, Fox, BBC, Hell..Al Jazera).
I doubt this; I don't recall these agencies pointing out that the "evidence" the administration was using to promote the accusation of WMD in Iraq was unreliable and probably false.
Going back further in time, during the 1980's I don't recall these news agencies pointing out that the elections held by the Sandanistas in Nicaragua were free and fair and well within accepted standards for democratic elections; nor do I remember them pointing out that the US backed Contras were basically a terrorist organization.
Not so far back in time, I recall, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, a lot of talk about consensual sex; I don't recall much, if any, reports in the media about the charges that Clinton committed perjury during an investigation of a sexual harrassment case that had merit.
Not that I want this thread to go off-topic -- just that I don't think what the media chooses to report and what it does not is a reliable indicator of what is actually happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:39 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 6:26 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 23 of 38 (203774)
04-29-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tal
04-29-2005 4:39 PM


Tal,
When I use a public source of information like znet, I treat it with caution. You are correct to say that znet have their own political agenda.
But when your riposte cites a non-public military source of information that is
Tal writes:
closed to the internet... [so] you'll just have to trust me
I'm meant to take it seriously?
Tal writes:
If the Znet story were accurate, then it would have been reported on by news agencies (CNN, Fox, BBC, Hell..Al Jazera). Yet no news agency covered it.
If you had bothered to check you would have found that the story was reported by the highly reputed Associated Press agency, and was syndicated widely in print and in respectable newspapers. You are quite wrong to say that "no news agency covered it". It was syndicated widely in print by news organizations including the Guardian, ABC news, The Scotsman, Seattle Times, The Washington Post, News International, and many others. It was also reported by some of the (less respectable) agencies you claim didn't report it, such as URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153865,00.htmlFox news[/url].
You were clearly wrong to say that "no news agency covered it"
Tal writes:
its not a news story. Those incidents happen all the time
That's right, the abuse of iraqi civilians has been going on a long time, and continues.
Tal writes:
Bottom line Mick, get a more reliable source of information before you attempt to SLANDER a US Soldier.
I will criticise whoever I see fit, whether they are a US soldier or not, thankyou very much. But before you make unsubstantiated claims about news coverage, you might want to search news.google.com next time.
added in edit:
Your attitude is actually proof of my point. You completely disregard that the Iraqi assembly expressed concern over the treatment of one of their members by the US military, because you place more faith in the unattributable claims of the soldiers. The Iraqi assembly is elected, no matter how weak its democratic mandate may seem to be. But the US soldiers were not elected, nor are they welcome. A person who would rather trust the unattributable statements of occupying US soldiers than democratically elected representatives is making a clear statement about their own contempt of democracy.
This message has been edited by mick to correct links and add an extra comment, 04-29-2005 06:13 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 04-29-2005 06:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:39 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tal, posted 05-02-2005 12:30 PM mick has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 24 of 38 (203781)
04-29-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
04-29-2005 5:58 PM


I agree.
There is actually an interesting interview with Danny Schechter, who is filming a documentary about US media coverage of the war, and who seems to agree with your points.
Danny Schechter writes:
I have been a journalist since the 1960s...I worked in radio; I worked in local television; I worked in cable news; I worked in ABC; I worked in mainstream and I worked in independent [media] so I think I had a wide range of experience...Many American media people feel vulnerable and as if they are being bullied, they feel totally insecure. In the culture of the newsroom, if you put your head up, it will get chopped off. Everybody is getting along by going along and that's a dangerous kind of conformity.
As this is being reported by a reputable news source (Al Jazeera, which is somewhat superior to Fox in my experience) it will also keep Tal happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 04-29-2005 5:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 04-29-2005 7:43 PM mick has not replied
 Message 33 by Tal, posted 05-02-2005 12:31 PM mick has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 38 (203787)
04-29-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tal
04-29-2005 4:47 PM


"WE" don't rule Iraq. The Iraqi Govt does
Perhaps I mistated something in my post. I did not mean to indicate that we rule it at this point in time. Currently we simply occupy it. I can only assume you have no problem with that definition as it is exactly what we claimed Syria's relationship with Lebanon was.
The problem is that we are talking about the entirety of our stay in Iraq over which such incidents have taken place. After we toppled Saddam, we were ruling Iraq. We ruled Iraq plain and simple, until the interim gov't was set up.
Thus the events took place during our invasion, rule, and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, nobody is saying that Iraqis don't want us to leave. Most do. We know that and don't deny it. Nobody wants a foriegn military force in their country (with exception of peacekeeping missions). So I'm not sure how you think the US somehow shrugging this off.
You have shifted the topic. I was discussing the treatment of accusations against the prevailing military forces by Iraqis. When it was Saddam all Iraqi complaints were gospel and indicative of the nature of his military, now that it is us all Iraqi complaints are dismissed as fabrications until overly documented at which point we say they are isolated and cannot be said to represent the nature of our military.
There is a rather obvious double standard running.
However, we won't leave the country until thier National Guard and Police force is operationally capable to handle whatever the IIG needs them to do.
I think I have said this before, but I will repeat it for you just in case. Despite being thoroughly against the invasion of Iraq, since it did happen I am thoroughly for keeping the military in place until a stable gov't can take over. I have not said anything to the contrary.
Supporting our presence until a stable gov't can rule under its own power is not synonymous with pretending there are problems with our occupation which need to be addressed.
Please, post more detail about why you think it is so odious.
A seasoned intelligence agent completes his mission, saving a kidnapped journalist. Returning with said journalist the car is shot up, killing the agent who put himself in the way of the bullets to save the journalist.
Now, according to the US, we are to believe the story from the soldiers that fired the shots, over the testimony of everyone in the car who survived, that this seasoned agent... having just secured the release of the hostage... ordered his driver to race at top speed and not slow down, even as warning shots were fired into the air?
Does this make any sense to you?
The fact that the US is not interested in sharing info and is protecting those soldiers from nonbiased investigation (third party), pretty well shows something isn't completely Kosher. Its like us saying our mice didn't eat the cheese because as we know all US mice would never do such a thing, and anyway we asked them and they said they didn't.
You were one to use the "common sense test". I would like to hear your explanation of events such that the US soldiers were not to blame and yet it can pass any sort of common sense test.
Essentially, if the US position is true, all the victims suddenly decided to become "enemies" of the US and are lying simply to stain us. Does that make more sense than the soldiers are lying to save their asses?
I find lying odious. I find insults to my intelligence odious. I find gov't support of a pretty obvious lie, most odious of all. You understand our actions only deepen world cynicism over anything we say?
I like the US, this does not help the US.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:47 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-30-2005 4:28 AM Silent H has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 38 (203809)
04-29-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
04-29-2005 6:26 PM


Thanks, mick.
I am still interested in hearing Tal tell how, in view of conficting reports of the facts, how one determines which one is reliable and which one is not.
As far as I can determine, all the eye witness reports indicate that the Iraqi parliamentarian was abused. The only report that the Iraqi was at fault was from the organization that allegedly did the abusing. When did it become reasonable to simply accept the word of someone who has a vested interest in your belief in what they are saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 6:26 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tal, posted 05-02-2005 12:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 38 (203837)
04-29-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tal
04-29-2005 4:39 PM


quote:
I guess you'll just have to trust me....
May I ask what would motivate this trust? Let me bring back the point of my initial post to you.
The original post was:
Zhimbo writes:
Bottom picture, the decidedly less-U.S. friendly (and less U.S. controlled) 2nd anniversary.
When I asked how your response to this was relevant, you replied to me:
Tal writes:
Doesn't clarify what the "Anti US" rally was about and implies that it is a "hate america" rally.
Now, I personally do not see these implications at all in Zhimbo's initial post. The conclusion I come to (and you may reply to these charges) is that you find criticisms of US policy to be "Anti-US", and that critics of the US "hate america". I feel that this is sufficient reason to suspect that you allow your personal feelings and beliefs to cloud your judgement, and that you might have difficulty distinguishing objective reporting from propaganda.
But perhaps your choice of "anti-US" and "hate america" were merely hyperbole on your part, and I am rashly basing my opinion on speech that is not necessarily indicative of your beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tal, posted 04-29-2005 4:39 PM Tal has not replied

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 38 (203895)
04-30-2005 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
04-29-2005 6:37 PM


"The fact that the US is not interested in sharing info and is protecting those soldiers from nonbiased investigation (third party), pretty well shows something isn't completely Kosher. Its like us saying our mice didn't eat the cheese because as we know all US mice would never do such a thing, and anyway we asked them and they said they didn't."
What probably happened is some soldier f***ed up, and now hes getting off with a slap on the wrist for his actions, but letting the US war hating world throw the book at a nervous teenager with a rifle thousands of miles away from home wouldn't be right either.
Their job is probably more nerve wrecking than we can even imagine, and while many people would be capable of giving the soldier understanding, given his situation, if the government admited it was an accident, others would ask for blood. The army knew this, and thus had to transfer blame to the Italians, because people in our mass media society can't accept that people in the government are people to, and can make mistakes worthy of forgiveness.
This message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 04-30-2005 04:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 04-29-2005 6:37 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 04-30-2005 4:41 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 04-30-2005 9:51 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 38 (203896)
04-30-2005 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by StormWolfx2x
04-30-2005 4:28 AM


What probably happened is some soldier f***ed up, and now hes getting off with a slap on the wrist for his actions
Yes, this is pretty apparent.
but letting the US war hating world throw the book at a nervous teenager with a rifle thousands of miles away from home wouldn't be right either.
If a Saddam army/ N Korean army/ AQ etc etc soldier shot and killed totally innocent people because he got scared and screwed up, it would then be you opinion they should not have the book thrown at them because most of the world does not like their activities? Is that the position you wish to take?
Yes it is perfectly okay for the world to expect JUSTICE, and that means that we admit what happened and sanction the soldiers involved appropriately.
Their job is probably more nerve wrecking than we can even imagine, and while many people would be capable of giving the soldier understanding if the government admited it was an accident, others would ask for blood.
Wow, and I guess what isn't nerve racking is being a seasoned secret service agent going in to a situation where he could be captured and killed in order to secure the release of a hostage without the aid of an armed unit aroung him.
Is that the position you are taking? That only the americans are risking their lives in harrowing actions and so everyone else is fair game to be smeared, and have their reps tarnished?
The army knew this, and thus had to transfer blame to the Italians, because people in our mass media society can't accept that people in the government are people to, and can make mistakes.
Had to transfer? Uh the only people having problems accepting the truth about people in government screwing up, are mainly conservative republicans, and almost unanimously US citizens.
Why is it right to smear the career of a dedicated and successful agent, who just did a fantastic job in completing a mission, in order to protect the egos of some portion of americans and the career of a soldier who made a mistake?
Does this not leap out as inherent injustice and a double standard to you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-30-2005 4:28 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 38 (203926)
04-30-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by StormWolfx2x
04-30-2005 4:28 AM


quote:
What probably happened is some soldier f***ed up, and now hes getting off with a slap on the wrist for his actions, but letting the US war hating world throw the book at a nervous teenager with a rifle thousands of miles away from home wouldn't be right either.
What in the world are you talking about? Who's talking about coming down hard on people who, against their own wishes, have been put into a miserable situation, are in constant danger for their lives, and are reacting according to this fear?
What we are talking about is that the American people know very little about what is actually going on in Iraq.
What we are talking about is that the entire invasion was unjustified and against international law.
What we are talking about is that the political leaders responsible for giving the orders for an illegal and unjustified war are directly responsible for the war crimes, atrocities, and even honest accidents that have occurred as a result.
I'm not advocating "throwing the book at a scared kid". I'm saying the entire Bush administration should be shipped en masse to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-30-2005 4:28 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 04-30-2005 3:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024