| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
U.S. JETS DROP 500 LB BOMBS IN IRAQ OPERATION.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – U.S. F-16 fighter planes dropped a series of 500 lb (220 kg) bombs on insurgent targets in western Iraq overnight as the U.S. military launched a heavy offensive against rebels near the Syrian border.
Nine of the powerful bombs were dropped, the U.S. military said, two of them targeting suspected rebel safe houses near the town of Qaim, an insurgent stronghold on the Euphrates river about 20 km (12 miles) east of Iraq’s border with Syria.
This is the right way to proceed. Iraqi civilians are being killed by car bombs, and this is how you have to deal with those who are killing them.
Lately I’m thinking, there’s no such thing as terrorism. The correct word for it is war. If people are killing your civilians, you’re in a war. That’s all. And the correct response is to deal with it as such. It’s not pretty. But when not responding in such a manner, the entire world recognizes that you have accepted the killing of your civilians, and that people can make war on you without you making war on them in return. The result, as we have recently seen proven in Iraq, is that more of your civilians get killed.
As I posted recently:
I’m beginning to think that this whole approach of, the terrorists kill our civilians, but we don’t kill their civilians, is just a mistake. It sounds good, but it doesn’t work, and in the short run as well as the long run, leads to more deaths on your side.
The whole notion of, “but then you’re no better than the terrorists” sounds good, but again, it doesn’t work, and it gets your people killed. If people are killing your civilians, you have the right and duty to fight back.
The notion that “we’re not at war because no nation declared war on us” is also a mistake. If your civilians are getting killed, you’re at war.
The notion that “we’re not at war with the other side’s civilians, only with their terrorists, so we are wrong to kill their civilians” is a noble attempt, but it gets your own civilians killed. It’s also false. As in Iraq, where the Sunni population is supporting those who are killing Iraqis, it is evident that only with the support of the surrounding civilians can terrorists persist.
The U.N. approach that “it doesn’t matter who started it, if both sides are at war then both sides are equally to blame,” doesn’t work because the terrorists keep killing your civilians regardless of anything the U.N. says.
It’s not pretty. It’s part of a world we’d like to leave far behind, as we move to a world governed planet-wide by law rather than war. But we’re not there yet. And when one side unilaterally rejects war, their civilians get killed by people that do not do so.
Conversely, terrorists fold quickly when they are responded to as nations have historically responded to those who declare war on them.
All this trouble we’re in due to terrorists could be over far more quickly if they are responded to in this manner. They would quickly be forced to sue for peace.
The terrorists have neither the heart nor the military wherewithal to stand up to us treating them the way they treat us.
Say one of our cities were to get nuked. Five hundred years from now, historians would be looking back on this, and asking, “how could the U.S. have let that happen? They were the most powerful country in the world.” That’s the situation we’re in.
There is no such thing as terrorism. There’s just war. And those making war on your civilians must be responded to in kind.
#1
#2...if people are killing your civilians, you're in a war.
Whose civilians? Are we Iraqi's? Did Iraq become the 51 state in some quiet recess appointment? Or are you saying that private contractors sent into Iraq as part of a private army or military support position are not legitimate military targets? Here is another question for you; if this were America, would we be dropping 500 lb bombs on suspected rebel safe houses near the town Boise? Would we accept a city like Denver Colorado to be leveled like Fallujah was? Would we call in airstrikes on buildings inside a residential city block in St louis when we took fire? We are there by choice, ours not theirs. When the reason that we are there becomes so pointless and irrational, that we justify killing civilians to protect civilians, it's time to leave.
By the way, I have given you the benifit of the doubt, assuming that you are not referring to the September 11, 2001 attacks when you refer to people killing our civilians. If I am wrong and this is what you meant, nevermind, I might as well go and attempt to teach my dog the violin.
#3When the reason that we are there becomes so pointless and irrational, that we justify killing civilians to protect civilians, it’s time to leave.
But you can't leave. That's the whole point. The terrorists go on killing you. The most recent examples are Iraq, where people are killing Iraqi civilians, and Israel, where people are killing Israeli civilians.
#4You don't get my point. These are not our civilians. They are Iraqi civilians. They blame us for the insurgency and although our soldiers are attempting to help them, with honest and good intentions, they are helping the insurgency recruit new insurgents. We speak of car bombs targeting civilians, but most often they are targeting police and soldiers and killing civilians in the process. Do you think that our 500 lb bombs are any more "selective" in who they kill and who they don't. We create a lot of innocent casualties as well. Our bombs are often dropped from such heights that the targets don't even here the planes. It's just as big a surprise as a car bomb and much, much more lethal.
I'm not supporting them and I'm not criticizing our troops, I'm just saying that this is not the way to win a war. You can not fight your way out of an insurgency, the more damage you do, the more the insurgents can point to and say, "this is why we are fighting them." Read Baghdad burning. Google search it and see what Iraqi civilians think of us.
#5These are not our civilians. They are Iraqi civilians.
I'm talking about what Iraq can do about attacks on Iraqi civilians; about what Israel can do about attacks on Israeli civilians; and about what the U.S. can do about attacks on U.S. civilians.
Read Baghdad burning.
I've been aware of that blog for quite a while. Please see also Iraq the Model, and The Messopotamian.
#6I’m talking about what Iraq can do about attacks on Iraqi civilians
So if American and British forces were to kill a few thousand Iraqi civilians, it would be entirely reasonable for the Iraqis to bomb New York and London, right?
#7The Iraqis would consider that reasonable, if they wanted us to stop. The point is, the vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated them from lives of terror and oppression under Hussein.
#8The point is, the vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated them from lives of terror and oppression under Hussein.
Who are you to speak for the vast majority of Iraqi's? Have you spoken to the vast majority of Iraqi's? If not, where are you getting your information? It's true, we liberated them from the terror and oppression under Hussein.
Now they live (some of them; the ones have not yet been killed by way of liberation) under the terror and oppression of a new, more lethal, more viseral, more violent oppression. Read Baghdad Burning, read international news, read something that is not being fed to you by a mouthpiece of the war apologists. Listen to how many car bombs there are every day. Listen to stories of our "operations against insurgent strongholds." There are people trying to survive in this hell and I am sure, certain, supremely confident that they are not thanking us for our intervention as they bury family members and suffer through hell.
Just read something that was written by an honest source, please, for gods sake.
#9Who are you to speak for the vast majority of Iraqi’s? Have you spoken to the vast majority of Iraqi’s? If not, where are you getting your information?
From polls such as this one, from April of 2005:
Our special correspondent and translator Haider Ajina wants you to know about a new opinion poll from Iraq. It was published in the April 18 edition of Iraqi Arabic newspaper "Almidhar". 778 Baghdadis were asked:
"Do you support the pull out of foreign troops?
"At once - 12.56%
"According to a future timetable - 81.80%
"Do not know - 5.64%
"Has the security situation improved since the start of the new government?
"Yes - 55%
"No - 35%
"No change - 10%"
Or this one, from October of 2004:
63% of Iraqis say that the withdrawal of American and allied forces will not be in the best interest of Iraq, it will undermine the work towards security and control of the country. 27% say that it would be in the best interest of Iraq. 9% had no opinion.
#10Which of those polls do you believe supports your assertion that "the vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated them from lives of terror and oppression under Hussein"?
#11Both polls show the Iraqis want our troops to stay, showing that they are glad our troops are there.
#12I've never heard the poll that you are talking about and I have not been able to locate that news agency on the net. The fact that both of them go back to partisan blogs that do not source the data makes me question their authenticity. But I am familiar with Al Jazeera and CNN and both of them paint a different picture. If you want to turn this into a court case in which one side brings out the expert to say that "Toxic waste is bad for you" and the other side's expert says "Toxic waste reduces cholesterol" I'm OK with that....
Here are some other numbers:
A joint USA TODAY/CNN/( perhaps you've heard of these agencies) Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found these numbers:
61%-37% of those surveyed say the president doesn't
have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.
For the first time, a plurality of Americans, by 50%-
47%, sees the war in Iraq as a separate action from the
war on terrorism.
By 46%-43%, a plurality says the war in Iraq has made
the U.S. less safe from terrorism.
By 53%-46%, Americans say the United States made a
mistake in sending troops to Iraq.
Al Jazeera had a recent poll which asked respondents if they felt the US troops were liberators or occupiers. The Result: 71% felt that the US were occupiers.
Last week there were 38 car bombs in Baghdad. Just in Baghdad. Given this environment, I find it hard to beleive that the Iraqi population is grateful to the very people whose arrival opened the explosive depots to the terrorists and signified the beginning of the bombing campaign.
If I were supporting the Iraq war, I probably would stay away from the polls
#13Here are a few quotes from a "Grateful Iraqi." Perhaps you've heard of Baghdad Burning.
June 21, 2005
"What people find particularly frustrating is the fact that while Baghdad seems to be falling apart in so many ways with roads broken and pitted, buildings blasted and burnt out and residential areas often swimming in sewage, the Green Zone is flourishing."
"Detentions and assassinations, along with intermittent electricity, have also been contributing to sleepless nights."
"Almost every Iraqi family can give the name of a friend or relative who is in one of the many American prisons for no particular reason. They aren’t allowed to see lawyers or have visitors and stories of torture have become commonplace."
"There were also several explosions and road blocks today."
"The price of building materials has gone up unbelievably, in spite of the fact that major reconstruction has not yet begun."
"The Green Zone is a source of consternation and aggravation for the typical Iraqi. It makes us anxious because it symbolises the heart of the occupation and if fortifications and barricades are any indicator- the occupation is going to be here for a long time."
Sounds like nice place.
#14I just found this little gem from "Baghdad Burning" this girl has her finger on the pulse....
May, 29 2005
"...for many people, this isn't about Sunnis and Shia or Arabs and Kurds. It's about an occupation and about people feeling that they do not have real representation. We have a government that needs to hide behind kilometers of barbed wire and meters and meters of concrete- and it's not because they are Shia or Kurdish or Sunni Arab- it's because they blatantly supported, and continue to support, an occupation that has led to death and chaos."
#15But I am familiar with Al Jazeera and CNN and both of them paint a different picture.
Isn't that interesting. You get your news from Al Jazeera.
From the International Herald Tribune -- "On the streets of Tehran, 'we like America'":
Throughout the Middle East, attitudes toward the United States are often far more nuanced than the images suggested by images often played on evening television news programs of protesters burning American flags or effigies of President George W. Bush.
Many people who want more democratic governments in this region, whether on the left or the right, say, however reluctantly, that they view the United States as an effective vehicle to force change in regimes unwilling to yield power.
In Iran, attitudes toward the United States are even more positive, in part, it seems, because so many Iranians know someone living there.
As interesting as it is that you get your news from Al Jazeera, it is equally noteworthy that you find that CNN says the same things.
#16Isn’t that interesting. You get your news from Al Jazeera.
Again, you miss my point entirely. I don't get my news from Al Jazeera. I went to Al Jazeera to get the opinion of the Iraqi people. That's what this post is about isn't it, the opinion of the Iraqi people? Where else are you going to go for it? Where better than the largest news agency, most trusted by the arab street?
You should probably read the articles you hyperlink. This article deals with Iran not Iraq and the Iranians are stating that they like American people and do not blame them for the politics of the country.
Just as a future warning, if you send me a hyperlink, I will read it.
#17The article says, "Throughout the Middle East," which I helpfully boldfaced in the quote. "Throughout the Middle East" includes Iraq, Iran and other nations.
#18Good point, but who do you think better reflects the "Arab Street" the Arabic owned, Arabic based, Arabic speaking Al Jazeera or The International Herald Times, whose only Mid-East affiliate is Israel's Haaritz Daily.
Just a thought
#19I was at an event tonight at which Frank Gaffney Jr. was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt. Frank stated that "Al Jazeera is all jihadists, all the time," and that it is "propaganda" for the terrorists.
#20Another good place to look for pro-terrorist propaganda is President Bush's recent speech in which he endorsed Osama bin Laden's view of the war on terror:
The novelty in Bush's speech did not come from his militarized stagecraft. His innovation came with his approving quotation of Osama bin Laden. "Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Here are the words of Osama bin Laden: 'This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
By citing bin Laden, Bush raised him to the stature of a foreign leader. But he went further, embracing bin Laden's understanding of the war's dynamics as a crusade. By endorsing bin Laden's notion of a "third world war," the American president lent the prestige of his office to the terrorists' vision. Using bin Laden's statement to justify his own course, Bush legitimated their war.
#21Frank Gaffney Jr, I'm familiar with his work. The man certainly knows propaganda. I'd even venture to call him a
jihadist himself, although he is serving in a different jihad.
The point is, and no one seems to be getting this, Iraqi's and other arab people beleive and trust Al Jazeera. If Al Jazeera says 71% of Iaqi's beleive that the US forces are "occupiers" regardless of whether they thought it before, they will think it after; regardless of what some neocon shill states.
#22"Here is another question for you; if this were America, would we be dropping 500 lb bombs on suspected rebel safe houses near the town Boise? Would we accept a city like Denver Colorado to be leveled like Fallujah was? Would we call in airstrikes on buildings inside a residential city block in St louis when we took fire?"
Not only would we do it, we have done it. We wouldn't fool around if this was occuring in America. But Iraq is not America. And I think the way we doing it in Iraq is the right way of doing it. War is not about killing people, if we could push a button and kill only terrorist and killed every one of them in Iraq, it wouldn't mean we win the war. Of course it would win a very major battle and Iraq would be calm for a while, and there would be large chance that this war would be won. But all of the enemies aren't in Iraq, they are operating from outside the country, e.g. Syria and Iran. Iraq is our chosen battle field- it's much better than Afghanistan. And Iraqis are building an army that will ultimately defeat the terrorists. This isn't really our war. This is a middle east problem, which can only be solved by the people in middle east.
We will defeat terrorism by helping the Iraqis build a strong democratic country. The middle east is a mess largely because of the Cold War. So is Africa. For that matter Europe and America are a mess because of the Cold War. Africa is more serious mess than middle east- it will probably be the bigger problem in second half of this Century.
Anyhow, things in Iraq are going pretty well, the terrorists being defeated, the Iraqi army is improving, and soon Iraq will have it's constitution and election for permanent elected govt.
I hope that before Bush's term ends, we can bring back all US troops, we can have few parades and this war can basically be over. But I'm sure that other people have different ideas and war is pretty unpredictable thing.
Agreed.
This is why using the term enemy attacks rather than terrorist attacks is preferable. In a war we have enemies and they need to be identified. For example when Israel performed targeted assasinations of Hamas leaders, this proved to be an effective strategy--in fact the response among pro-Israel (and even neutral) observers was: what took you so long?