|
|
|
|
Handyman wrote:
> & why is it that folks are so quick to believe a bad report about our own president, government, & men & women in combat? & then excuse terrorists & saddam hussein? it is negativity & self destruction of the highest order.. caused of course by the god of this world influencing men's minds.. the author of lies..the one who longs to see mankind destroyed. the one who is raging, knowing that his end is near! we fight not against flesh & blood, but wicked spirits in high places..
>
I'm afraid that this is an accusation too far. I'm very happy to disagree - sometimes strongly - over all kinds of issues, and generally content to "agree to disagree". But I think it's important that we *all* realise that everyone here holds their views honestly and genuinely (often after considerable thought), and is entitled to hold them, however misguided we may think they may be and however robustly we may challenge them.
I'm not happy to have it said that my views are due to influence from "the god of this world" - by implication, "wicked spirits" ... I really think that is inappropriate for this space, and I feel quite upset by it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Deeej
I'm working on locating the info I've seen & heard.. here's a start..
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
I'm simply trying to supply the info I read, saw & heard to make my judgement & discision to trust the present administration.
As part of my beliefs & religeon as a representative & ambassador for the Kingdom of God I do not involve myself in governmental politics of this world's governments & voting for office holders.
But it is interesting to watch, listen & try to judge the motivations & factors involved in this world's politics.
Teddy 
I'll continue to try to locate & link to the various info I've heard..
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teddy,
I'm sorry, but I don't count those documents as "hard evidence". They consist largely of rhetoric, of contemporary justifications that are now no longer relevant, and where later information has rendered them factually incorrect or redundant.
I don't deny that at the time, there may have been a case for war if put in those terms -- that the weapons of mass destruction might have existed. At the time, I was ambivalent, but I assumed that there was stronger evidence than that that of which we, the general public, were not aware. In the event, none has emerged. It seems the governments knew as little as we did. So, in retrospect, it seems very peculiar that they launched into war like that.
The sole remaining "good consequence" of the war is that at least is it got rid of Saddam Hussain. If that's the sole good reason, then I guess we (the US and the UK) have set ourselves up as global policemen, regardless of whether that's a good thing or not (isn't that the role of the UN?). In that case, shouldn't we be knocking on Robert Mugabe's door, or any of the world's other corrupt dictators? And is the new situation in Iraq actually better for the people who live there, or are we really playing the role of the corrupt policeman who'll only help when it suits him?
If weapons of mass destruction really existed, there should be no need for you to say, "That was the basis for war, and since we went to war based on that evidence, it must have been right." That's what you sound like you're saying, anyway. If they did exist, there would be no need for us to justify the war in other terms, like that we have got rid of Saddam Hussein.
If you think there is hard evidence that still stands, please take a few lines from one of those articles and explain how they are still valid today. Don't just throw links at me or tell me to use Google -- I know perfectly well how to use a search engine. If you expect me to come to my own conclusions then it is highly likely they will be entirely different from yours, unless you guide me through your own reasoning.
Regards,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard many audio quotes of high level people in every party at times past stating what a threat Saddam was & how he should be taken out. These were multiple quotes from President Clinton & many major leaders in the Democratic party stating their position before the war began who now oppose themselves, their earlier statements & the war..some of which even voted for the war.
I've heard a military intelligence employee hint & reveal several bits of info assuring us there are definite instances of Iraq supporting terrorists that he was aware of, one of which was giving medical aid to Osama bin Laden in Iraq by Saddam's people. This info couldn't be clearly disclosed because it would reveal where our spies & intelligence gathering was active. But he assured all listening that there were and are definite connections between Iraq & terrorism.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/10/21_reasons_for_.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Iraq
When considering the gvmt source of the following, remember no one else is so privy to this secret information as the government themselves. It can hardly be corroborated by other sources as we might prefer:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
The following may be interesting but has little real evidence for the war there:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
I still haven't found the before/after satellite pictures of the hasty removal of certain suspected weapons stores by heavy transfer truck convoys that I'd seen before. I'll send them & other info as I find it.
But sufficient evidence exists of their longstanding habits of obscuring information & hiding things from the UN inspectors. I remember all that happening. The UN was too wimpy & allowed Iraq to lead & limit them before finally barring them from the country.
Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear David,
You wrote >"If that's the sole good reason, then I guess we (the US and the UK) have set ourselves up as global policemen, regardless of whether that's a good thing or not (isn't that the role of the UN?)."
To my knowledge the UN doesn't have any army. Not much of a cop w/o a gun. No offense intended to the British Bobbies.
I think the member nations have to take the effective actions to enforce the UN mandates, as we did in coalition. This is what I understand..
Kind regards, Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Handyman wrote:
>
> To my knowledge the UN doesn't have any army. Not much of a cop w/o a gun. No offense intended to the British Bobbies.
>
> I think the member nations have to take the effective actions to enforce the UN mandates, as we did in coalition. This is what I understand..
>
"On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Is this clear enough?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teddy,
>I've heard many audio quotes of high level people in every party at times past stating what a threat Saddam was & how he should be taken out.
As have we all. I don't deny that there was a perceived risk from Saddam, and that is (one of the reasons) why we went to war. I do deny that this reason was afterwards proven to be justified in any pertinent way.
What I object to is your spurious retrospective justification -- that the war proved that Saddam was harbouring terrorists, there was some link with al Quaeda, that the weapons of mass destruction did exist. The fact is that both the UK and the US gambled, and so far it looks like they lost. Why are you so determined to tell me that they did not?
>I've heard a military intelligence employee hint & reveal several bits of info assuring us there are definite instances of Iraq supporting terrorists that he was aware of, one of which was giving medical aid to Osama bin Laden in Iraq by Saddam's people. This info couldn't be clearly disclosed because it would reveal where our spies & intelligence gathering was active. But he assured all listening that there were and are definite connections between Iraq & terrorism.
People hint all the time, especially if they're seen to hold privileged information. It makes them popular. However, if that person gave one piece of independently verifiable evidence, I would be highly surprised. Quite apart from anything else, he would likely be prosecuted for breaching a confidentiality agreement of some sort. In the meantime, I would not be inclined to believe it. It may even be information deliberately put out to appease the masses -- propaganda, basically. If it was true, surely it would be in the US government's best interests to release it? It would provide a cast-iron justification for the war.
I don't know why you keep posting random links, but none of them seem to help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Iraq are exactly the same page, an encylopaedia article. Which part do you want me to look at? I'm looking at the part that says:
>After the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were found and the Bush administration has since admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.[7][8] There is disagreement over the extent to which this inaccuracy was a matter of deceit or of intelligence failure.
Doesn't that completely destroy your argument?
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/10/21_reasons_for_.html is a funny little diagram showing the reasons for war. Interesting, vaguely. Novel? No. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
is pre-war. It does not provide any proper contemporary evidence, and it's very outdated.
If you do have sources, why can you not specifically point me at those lines that support your point? Perhaps because there aren't any?
>When considering the gvmt source of the following, remember no one else is so privy to this secret information as the government themselves. It can hardly be corroborated by other sources as we might prefer:
Why not? What is the secret information? Why should we assume, firstly, that only the government knows it, and secondly, that it's so radically important that they cannot tell anyone? There are certain things, of course, that they cannot reveal for security reasons, but I do not believe there is any reason, or that they would, hush up anything that would help to increase their popularity.
>I still haven't found the before/after satellite pictures of the hasty removal of certain suspected weapons stores by heavy transfer truck convoys that I'd seen before. I'll send them & other info as I find it.
You do that. I'm highly dubious that these are good evidence, however -- otherwise it would be public knowledge, verified, a matter of fact, not conjecture.
I am not asking for reasons WHY we went to war. I know those perfectly well. I am looking for evidence uncovered during the war or after the war that establishes either of the following:
i. that Saddam had links to al Quaeda or related terrorist groups,
ii. that he had weapons of mass destruction aimed at the west
I do not deny the possibility of either of these. I deny that they have been in any way proven. I don't know why you seem to think they have been. That is why I wondered if you yourself were subject to propaganda.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, NW. 
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, sorry, no doubt that's me being being influenced by " the god of this word" ... "the author of lies..the one who longs to see mankind destroyed. the one who is raging, knowing that his end is near! we fight not against flesh & blood, but wicked spirits in high places.."
I guess I just am not equipped for a debate with a "representative & ambassador for the Kingdom of God "
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Deeej
I'm just showing some of what lead me to agree more with the gvmt than naysaying media. I could be wrong of course. If you've not seen anything so far that indicates a reason to go to war then nothing more I send will persuade you. I'm not here to persuade you anyway!
>"What I object to is your spurious retrospective justification -- that the war proved that Saddam was harbouring terrorists,"
Where, pray tell, did I ever indicate that?? Sorry bout that..if I did! wow! That is the end justifying the means! I 've never considered that backward logic. Maybe what they've found helps support their cause, yes maybe..
I had agreed with the gvmt's case before we went in although not wholeheartedly. I have listened to much reporting & conclude I still side with the gvmt, trusting them to exercise their duty for all those under them. Of course I didn't say I trust them to do everything right. That is impossible, especially in a war.
I'm a C.O. because of my beliefs. But Like a person watching a football game, you're likely to side with one or the other teams.
Like I said above, if the preponderance of the evidence I sent doesn't give some insight as to why I took my view, which is all I'm trying to prove, then nothing I send or say will. case closed! ( :
I don't know what else to say. I'm just tired of the whole thing. Especially tired of he negativity from so many. I'll be gone this weekend, so have a great one!
Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
We do not know what went on behind the scenes in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq; any expressions of opinion on this topic are of necessity speculation.
We were told that the compelling reasons for invasion were the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda. It may be that our leaders genuinely believed that to be true, though if that is so it casts alarming doubt upon the competence of Western intelligence agencies.
We invaded unilaterally, without formal authority from the United Nations.
Since the invasion, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to support either of the reasons given to justify the invasion. Logic dictates that if any such evidence had been found, it would have been produced with a fanfare of trumpets.
I trust that no-one can disagree with the bald facts as stated above. It must necessarily follow that, with hindsight, the invasion was not justified.
Turning from facts to opinions, I think that the so-called 'insurgency', though predictable, has little to do with resistance to the original purpose of the invasion. There are two elements in the struggle. First is the de facto division of the country into three groups - ethnic Kurds, ethnic Iraqi Sunnis and ethnic Iraqui Shi'ites. Each group is strongly motivated to ensure that it is not overwhelmed by a coalition of the other two groups.
Second, and much more sinister, is the Al Quaeda - led faction which has infiltrated the country since the invasion. Its ultimate objective is presumably to secure the creation of an Islamic Republic on the Iranian model, instead of the secular government desired by the Allies. Its strategy is to cause the maximum possible disruption, regardless of civilian casualties, in the hope of turning public opinion so strongly against the occupying forces that they will be obliged to withdraw.
I was not in favour of the original invasion, but I am firmly of the view that we must not withdraw prematurely. We caused the mess, and it is our clear moral duty to attempt, to the very best of our ability, to bring it to a peaceful conclusion.
I do object in the strongest possible terms to the following comment by Handyman:
- "The nature & religion of the Arabs lends itself to continuing conflicts such as this."
In terms of nature, throughout the Christian era, the record of tolerance of Christians by Muslims is vastly superior to the record of tolerance of Muslims by Christians. Even during the Crusades, though the Christians were bent on ousting the Muslims from lands they had occupied for several centuries, the medieval chroniclers and balladeers were hugely impressed by the chivalrous behaviour of their Muslim opponents.
And in terms of religion, history makes it abundantly clear that their god and the Judaeo-Christian god share a common origin; they are, in fact, the same being interpreted in different ways. It isn't the religion, but the fundamentalists within it, which lie at the root of the problem. Christianity has the same problem, and it is every bit as severe.
We can't re-write history - to quote a Muslim poet: "The moving finger writes, and, having writ, moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit can call it back to cancel half a line." (Omar Khayyam: The Rubaiyat). But when we make a wrong decision, the honourable course is to repair the damage, not to find excuses for the mistake.
I have deliberately written in general terms, but as regards the specific issue which began the thread, I agree with NW. We can all reach breaking point; what needs to be investigated is not simply the atrocity itself but the military culture in which it occurred. If the facts are proved and only the Marines at the sharp end are convicted, justice will have been subjugated to political expedience.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I second the "Enough" cry.
I have read and agree with what you say.
I also agree that this is enough.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Timmy and Cossie: enough.
Just to clear up a couple of points. Teddy said,
>If you've not seen anything so far that indicates a reason to go to war then nothing more I send will persuade you. I'm not here to persuade you anyway!
If not, what was the point in this conversation? I don't think matters of fact are things on which we can agree to differ. Matters of opinion, yes, if you wish. However, you have made a lot of statements that sound to me like they contravene known facts, or have no evidence to support them. Those are the ones I object to.
I said,
>"What I object to is your spurious retrospective justification -- that the war proved that Saddam was harbouring terrorists,"
You said,
>Where, pray tell, did I ever indicate that??
Well, you said,
>The connections Iraq had to terrorism were real & eminated from the government & Saddam Hussein.
Which sounds awfully like you were saying that Saddam had links with groups such as al Quaeda. This was not known before the war, so I can only assume that something during the war has "proved" it as far as you are concerned. I, on the other hand, have seen absolutely no evidence along those lines.
Also,
>I've heard a military intelligence employee hint & reveal several bits of info assuring us there are definite instances of Iraq supporting terrorists that he was aware of, one of which was giving medical aid to Osama bin Laden in Iraq by Saddam's people.
That sounds like a pretty hard and fast allegation to me -- except there's no evidence, either in the media, from the American military, or any of the links you have given me, for anything like that. Yet why are you telling me if you don't think it is "evidence" that has emerged to support your point?
You cannot say things like that without being challenged, because I am very pedantic and won't accept anything on word alone. It's not like religion, where you can choose what you want to believe (provided it doesn't go against verifiable fact).
>Like I said above, if the preponderance of the evidence I sent doesn't give some insight as to why I took my view, which is all I'm trying to prove, then nothing I send or say will. case closed! ( :
Took your view, before or after the war? Before the war, it is perfectly acceptable for you to have gone on what was reported to you. But now, you should be in a position to make a much more critical judgement as more information has come to light. You don't seem to have done that. Or if you have, you have not explained how your position now differs from that one before. The governments' positions have certainly changed -- at least you could acknowledge that.
As far as evidence goes, allegations are not evidence. You seem to have a different approach to believing something to be true than me. I base my opinions on verifiable facts, and where I don't have any good evidence I file them under "not proven". On the other hand, you seem to view any evidence (or even statements without any evidence at all) as good evidence. I seriously object to that.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda
By Melanie Phillips
Filed: 20/06/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/20/do2001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/06/20/ixopinion.html
To the anti-war lobby, it was cause for jubilation. "No Qa'eda-Iraq tie" crowed The New York Times. "White House misled the world over Saddam" exulted our own Independent. And presidential candidate Senator John Kerry claimed that the Bush administration had "misled America over the need for war".
The excitement was over a preliminary assessment of evidence about al-Qa'eda by the US commission investigating September 11. The only problem was that the press coverage was untrue. The report does not rule out links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'eda. On the contrary, as the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'eda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
As so often in the coverage of Iraq, those who make the (illogical) claim that there was no such contact and therefore no cause for war saw in this report only what they wanted to see.
They read the words: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qa'eda co-operated", and claimed official confirmation that no links had existed. But the report actually says: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qa'eda co-operated on attacks upon the United States" - not that they never dealt with each other. On the contrary, it says they did deal with each other, particularly in Sudan.
In any event, the report is hardly authoritative. For it also quotes two bin Laden associates denying any ties between al-Qa'eda and Iraq. It thus contradicts itself. It also dismisses the suspicion that the September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, simply because his mobile phone was then being used Florida. But clearly, someone else might have been using it.
The main question, though, is why it devoted only one paragraph to the Saddam/al-Qa'eda link and ignored most the evidence amassed by Stephen Hayes in his recent book, The Connection. For while none of this is conclusive, it makes a powerful case.
Take, for example, the original indictment of bin Laden by the US Justice Department in spring 1998, which stated: ". . . al-Qa'eda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qa'eda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qa'eda would work co-operatively with the Government of Iraq."
Pretty authoritative, you might think? Yet it is not even mentioned. Or take this evidence from the former CIA director George Tenet: "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qa'eda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qa'eda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have credible reporting that Al Qa'eda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. Iraq has provided training to Al Qa'eda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
Clearly, the credibility of intelligence reports is a minefield. Given the cloud over the CIA, there are obviously suspicions that Iraqi sources may have told it what it wanted to hear. But these reports go back to the Clinton administration, well before Iraq became such a political inferno. And their volume and detail are impressive. Hayes quotes an intelligence summary about one informant which said "the information and level of detail is so specific that this source's reports read almost like a diary".
The book quotes a "well-placed" intelligence source saying: "Bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service's] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sep-Oct 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the director of Iraqi Intelligence Mani-abd-al-Rashid-al-Tikriti [to discuss] bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance" in making bombs.
Hayes quotes another "regular and reliable" intelligence source who said that bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al Zawahiri "visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi vice-president on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for co-ordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in al-Falluja, an-Nasiriya and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz." Hayes says that visit coincided with a $300,000 payment from Iraqi intelligence to Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic jihad, which merged with al-Qa'eda.
Recently, yet more evidence has emerged. The Wall Street Journal reported that captured documents listed one Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a senior officer in the elite paramilitary Saddam Fedayeen. By an amazing coincidence, an Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was present at the January 2000 al-Qa'eda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur at which the September 11 attacks were planned.
It is of course possible that this was a different Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. However, Hayes reveals subsequent events showed this man was very important indeed to Iraq. Four days after September 11, he was arrested in Qatar and found to possess phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombers' safe houses and contacts, as well as information about an al-Qa'eda plot to blow up airliners. But he was released, re-arrested in Jordan and released again (with CIA collusion) - following pressure from Iraq at the highest level. What is the point of an inquiry into al-Qa'eda that doesn't even consider such evidence?
Bill Clinton's administration was absolutely certain that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qa'eda. It was a given. That is surely why, after September 11, Pentagon officials were obsessed with Iraq. Whether Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 was irrelevant; if he was aiding al-Qa'eda's terror, he had to be stopped. But this has been obliterated from the collective memory in order to place the most malign interpretation possible on the motives of the Bush administration.
Of course, one should be wary of intelligence. But the volume and specificity of these claims surely mean they should be addressed. Yet journalists for whom such nuggets would normally trigger a feeding frenzy astonishingly fail to report them and mislead the public instead. That is because the only story in town is that George W Bush and Tony Blair lied - a blinding certainty that cannot be disturbed by anything so inconvenient as the facts.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraq rejects US probe clearing troops of killings
Sat 3 Jun 2006 6:24 AM ET
By Mariam Karouny and Fredrik Dahl
BAGHDAD, June 3 (Reuters) - Iraq vowed on Saturday to press on with its own probe into the deaths of civilians in a U.S. raid on the town of Ishaqi, rejecting the U.S. military's exoneration of its forces.
Adnan al-Kazimi, an aide to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said the government would also demand an apology from the United States and compensation for the victims in several cases, including the alleged massacre in the town of Haditha last year.
"We have from more than one source that the Ishaqi killings were carried out under questionable circumstances. More than one child was killed. This report was not fair for the Iraqi people and the children who were killed," he told Reuters.
The U.S. military had issued a statement about Ishaqi saying allegations that U.S. troops "executed a family ... and then hid the alleged crimes by directing an air strike, are absolutely false".
It said troops had been fired on as they raided a house to arrest an al Qaeda suspect. They returned fire and called in air support, which destroyed the building, killing one militant and resulting in "up to nine collateral deaths".
The military had previously said one guerrilla, two women and a child were killed in the March 15 raid in Ishaqi, 60 miles (100 km) north of Baghdad.
It has repeatedly pledged to punish any soldier found guilty of atrocities in Iraq, but the decision to clear the troops in Ishaqi fuelled deep mistrust among ordinary Iraqis three years after the U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.
Police in Ishaqi say five children, four women and two men were shot in the head, and that the bodies, with hands bound, were dumped in one room before the house was blown up.
WIDESPREAD SUSPICION
Maliki, who took office two weeks ago at the helm of a U.S- backed national unity government, is battling a widespread public perception that U.S. troops can shoot and kill with impunity and Iraqi leaders are too weak to do anything about it.
"Ishaqi is just another reason why we shouldn't trust the Americans," said Abdullah Hussein, an engineer in Baghdad.
"First they lied about the weapons of mass destruction, then there was the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and now it's clear to the world they were guilty in Haditha," he told Reuters.
A tribal leader in Ishaqi said it was clear that U.S. forces were above the law in Iraq.
"We expect the American soldiers to commit any crime to control this country," added Sarhan Jasim, 55.
Human Rights Minister Wijdan Michael said her ministry would send a fact-finding commission to Ishaqi in the next few days.
The incident was one of a handful involving civilian deaths being investigated by the U.S. military, including the deaths of two dozen civilians in the town of Haditha on Nov. 19.
U.S. officials say murder charges may be brought against Marines after the probe into Haditha, which some commentators are comparing to the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
Maliki this week condemned the suspected massacre in Haditha as a "terrible crime" and demanded that the United States hand over the files on the investigation.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, met Maliki in Baghdad on Friday and promised to give him all the evidence and materials from the Haditha probe.
In the statement about Ishaqi, Major General William Caldwell, the U.S. military spokesman, said the investigation showed that the ground commander "operated in accordance with the rules of engagement governing our combat forces in Iraq."
One man in the town, 40-year-old Obeid Kamil, said on Friday that U.S. soldiers had a "licence to kill" Iraqi civilians.
"Their action is always to open fire and kill people, which is proof that they are afraid," he said.
(Additional reporting by Reuters Television and Ahmed Rasheed and Michael Georgy, writing by Fredrik Dahl)
© Reuters 2006.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The Telegraph Group, and the Daily Mail (by whom the writer was employed) are both strong supporters of the right-wing Conservative opposition and opponents of the (slightly!) left-wing Labour Government.
The article is almost two years old; it was published at a time when the debate over the justification for invading Iraq in March 2003 (an action which, incidentally, the Conservative Party did not oppose) was still at its height, particularly in the light of the alleged suicide of former weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly, the subsequent enquiry and inquest, and the failure to obtain any evidence on the ground for the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
On careful reading, the report appears to contain no hard evidence - simply speculation based upon 'leaks' from 'highly placed' or 'reliable' intelligence sources. If we in the UK - or the citizens of the USA - are to have any confidence whatsoever in our respective intelligence services, it must begin with the assumption that intelligence officers do not 'leak' information except under political direction, and that if they 'leaked' in any other circumstances their intelligence careers would be very short indeed.
The story was not followed up and was ignored by the rest of the British press. By all means take it into account, but please recognise its limitations.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No offense meant to anyone here.. I like you all alot & think highly of every one..
It seems the questions I was asked changed thru the line.. and who can answer another who doubts or is firmly convicted in his beliefs?
I am probably way uninformed on many of the details of this unfortunate war.. Please pardon that if it has skewed my whole view of it..
I think you all have wisely decided to end the subject?? I haven't time to read all posts.. but scanned some, cossie & timmy's last 2..
I should have sent on this final info I gathered, but became a little frustrated & quit..
If you'd permit, these two references are about truck convoys I'd heard so much about.. one copied & one linked.
Thank you. I must be going.. will be in services all day.. This is the Day of Pentecost (Annual Holy Day)..
Again I want to apologize if I'm way off on this subject.. I know what it's like to listen to a person who thinks they're right but is truely off in their judgements.. especially due to something as simple as not enough readily available information. If this is the case your fogiveness is begged..
Your truly, Teddy 
ATTACHMENTS :
1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-03-iraq-misjudge-usat_x.htm
2/3 of the way down mentions "descisive convoy photos"
2) With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004 10:37 a.m. EDT
Pre-war Satellite Pics Show Truck Activity at Al-Qaqaa
The Pentagon is examining evidence that could further discredit a report by the New York Times that hundreds of tons of high explosives were looted by terrorists from a major Iraqi weapons facility after the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
"Senior Pentagon officials say they are analyzing some satellite images from the Al-Qaqaa facility south of Baghdad from before the war," the Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reported late Wednesday.
"Apparently, they show some large truck activity at that facility, [indicating] possibly that Saddam Hussein was moving the explosives out," Baier told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren.
Photos showing a pre-war truck convoy at Al-Qaqaa would comport, Baier said, with a January 2003 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency revealing that 158 tons of the high explosive RDX had already gone missing from the site.
Experts say that to remove the 380 tons of high explosives reported missing from Al-Qaqaa by the New York Times, it would take at least 40 trucks, each with a 10-ton capacity.
On Wednesday Iraq war veteran Ken Dixon, who was with the 101st Airborne Division when it reached Al-Qaqaa on April 10, said he noticed tracks from heavy truck tires outside the three bunkers he inspected
__________________________________________________________________________
Oh, I thought to point out how well the Iraqis have been able to evade us & hide stuff in past. We cannot dig up the entire desert. We also have not to my knowledge been searching in adjacent countries where arms stores could easily have been secreted. Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I tend to let things run to see where they go.
The issue with thsi alleged just war is that the evidence is not available.
Journalists are as unreliable os politicians.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
An accusation too far ! 
Evidence for entering a war in Iraq.. 
