mudcat.org: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Why no new Iraq thread?

Arne 18 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM
Teribus 19 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Mar 06 - 07:19 AM
Teribus 19 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
Arne 20 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM
Teribus 20 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
Peace 20 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 03:05 PM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM
Peace 20 Mar 06 - 07:00 PM
Ron Davies 20 Mar 06 - 10:29 PM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 01:32 AM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 01:36 AM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 01:46 AM
Teribus 21 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Mar 06 - 07:25 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM
number 6 21 Mar 06 - 10:37 PM
Ron Davies 21 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM
Teribus 22 Mar 06 - 03:59 PM
The Fooles Troupe 23 Mar 06 - 06:58 AM
Alba 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM
Ron Davies 23 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM
DougR 23 Mar 06 - 11:58 AM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 06 - 11:08 AM
Teribus 24 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM
Teribus 24 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 06 - 04:00 PM
Alba 24 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM
Teribus 25 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM
GUEST 25 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM
Teribus 25 Mar 06 - 07:55 PM
GUEST 25 Mar 06 - 08:55 PM
GUEST 25 Mar 06 - 08:57 PM
Teribus 26 Mar 06 - 05:09 AM
The Fooles Troupe 26 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM
The Fooles Troupe 26 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM
GUEST 26 Mar 06 - 01:59 PM
GUEST,dianavan 26 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
michaelr 26 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM
Teribus 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM
The Fooles Troupe 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM
Alba 26 Mar 06 - 11:56 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

Teribus:

48 people had been arrrested, of which 17 have been released, the remaining 31 have been detained....

Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?

At these farms caches of weapons, detonators, timing devices, explosives and high powered cordless telephones have been seized....

Say it ain't so, Teribus. They're found "high powered cordless telephones" on a farm???

... He also very clearly stated that these swoop and search operations had met NO resistance and that as of a few minutes ago there had been NO casualties.

"No resistance and no casualties"? Guess the pictures of those 11 dead, women and children included, were PhotoShopped by Osama himself, eh?

Right now that as a report of what is happening is all well and good....

Oh, yes, we can trust an account of one embedded eyewitness to represent the entire story nationwide.

... I have no reason to believe that Nic Robertson is lying, he is after all CNN's senior man on the spot and his job is to report what he sees.

Strangely enough, you, Teribus, also see no reason to believe that Dubya is lying ... so isn't this damning with faint praise?

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM

Arne - 18 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

"No resistance and no casualties"? Guess the pictures of those 11 dead, women and children included, were PhotoShopped by Osama himself, eh?"

Eh Arne, did you read MGOH's link?? Don't think you did otherwise like any reasonably intelligent person with even the most challenged powers of deduction you would have noted that the incident that was being referred to:

- Occured two days BEFORE the start of the operation under discussion in this thread

- Was in a different part of Iraq.

Please do try and keep up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:19 AM

Attacking someone new before you even answered your last lot of critics, eh?

And so thus I consider that I won our last exchange then Mr T! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM

"And so thus I consider that I won our last exchange then Mr T! :-)"

Wasn't aware that we'd had any sort of "exchange" Foolstroupe, but whatever, if it makes you happy, dig out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM

Arne,

"Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?"

Sorry, that is what the people YOU are supporting are doing...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

BeardedBruce:

[Arne]: "Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?"

Sorry, that is what the people YOU are supporting are doing...

Care to support your slanderous accustation here, Bruce? I have done no such thing. Or will you take it back....

In the meanwhile, IC that Teribus thinks that everything over there in Iraq is just wine and roses. Apparently he hasn't been listening to his Fuhr... -- umm, sorry, "master" -- lately.

See here and here and here anonanonanonanon.....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM

Arne,

I have read most, if not all of your posts. I have never seen ANY criticsm of the actions of ANY of those opposing coalition forces, regardless of what they have done, but I have noticed a number of comments about the actions of the US- Mostly without any reference to the facts.


I will, of course, eagerly await your documentation of when you have EVER applied the same standard to judgement of the actions of the terrorists as you have to the coalition forces.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM

At these farms caches of weapons, detonators, timing devices, explosives and high powered cordless telephones have been seized....



High powered cordless telephones have been found as the detonating control source for those IEDs.

Even YOU, Arne, should have some concern over the other items listed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

BB,

According to the comments made by some on this thread it would have been far more preferable for those weapons and explosives to have remained in the hands of the insurgents, it would have been far better if the 60 odd now in custody were still at liberty to use those weapons and those explosives on their fellow countrymen.

The fact that all this has been accomplished without any casualties is a held up as a case for derision and denigration. The fact that the farms were identified and reported to the Iraqi Security Forces by locals who did not want these terrorists living amongst them is of absolutely no significance.

Why, you might ask. Because it doesn't suit their arguement, they couldn't give two figs for Iraq or it's people, they never have. All they wish for is a chance to yell, "I told you so" at the current US Administration, irrespective of consequence their dearest wish would seem to be to see failure in Iraq - Well don't worry folks its not going to happen, the Iraqi people will see to that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM

Just popped by to see how everyone's doing. Have a nice day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM

T,

I have to disagree with you. I think that there ARE those here who care about human life- I just do not think that they have looked at the facts of the situation, but react "against" any action that they do not approve of ( ie, any of those by the coalition forces).

I doubt if many of them really support the blowing up of the Samarra dome, nor the execution style killings now happening in Bagdad- they just think that if the US were not there, they could ignore it a lot easier, like they ignore the situation in Sudan and elsewhere, where far more are dying, but the US press does not make them think about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:05 PM

"TIKRIT, Iraq – A total of 11 caches have been discovered and more than 60 suspected insurgents detained as Operation Swarmer continued for a third day March 18.

Coalition Forces did encounter an IED along one of the roads in the area today and one vehicle was damaged. No troops were injured in the attack.

As of 6 p.m., Iraqi time, March 18, there had been no Iraqi or Coalition casualties directly associated with Operation Swarmer.

As Iraqi Army troops and their Coalition partners continue to clear the objective area northeast of Samarra, enemy caches captured thus far have yielded significant amounts of weapons and IED-making materials.

Included in the finds were the following munitions:

- More than 350 mortar rounds of varying sizes
- 88 rocket propelled grenade rounds
- Nearly 2,000 rounds of armor-piercing rifle ammunition
- More than 15 rockets of varying sizes
- Over 60 hand grenades
- SA-7 surface-to-air missile components, including launcher tubes and batteries
- 30 machine guns and assault rifles

The following items were among the IED-making materials discovered since the operation began:

- More than 500 feet of explosive detonating cord;
- 50 explosive blasting caps;
- 25 130 mm artillery rounds packed with plastic explosive;
- Various remote initiation devices, including cordless phone base stations and washing machine timers.

In addition to the weapons and munitions, terrorist training publications, Iraqi Army uniforms and videos have been recovered. The video footage portrayed U.S. troop locations in Iraq, the rigging and detonation of a car bomb, a suicide bomber and equipment taken from Iraqi Police.

Operation Swarmer is expected to continue for the next 24-48 hours at a minimum as Iraqi and Coalition Forces exploit cache sites and search all structures in the area."





So, Arne, I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM

When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble and go for the easy targets - Baghdad and statues etc. Now what is happening is a 'mop up' operation that they have taken 3 years to get around to, and should have been on from the very beginning. If there would have been more troops, they might have been able to do so.

"I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world... "

You don't use hand grenaged for fishing in Texas?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:00 PM

That's overkill, Foolestroupe. Half stick of dynamite works jus' fine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 10:29 PM

Teribus (AKA Mr. Pollyanna)---


"Because it doesn't suit their arguement (sic), they couldn't give two figs for Iraq or it's (sic) people".

"Their dearest wish would seem to be failure in Iraq"--good evasion, there, with your "would seem"--to avoid outright slander.

Because, as usual, you're dead wrong. Mudcatters opposing Bush's war in Iraq are just a little more observant and realistic than you.

"Failure" in Iraq. Fascinating that you somehow haven't found time to define "success" in Iraq.

"The Iraqi people will see to that" (success in Iraq). Which ones? The Sunnis killing Shiites, the Shiites killing Sunnis, or the Kurds who want nothing to do with "Iraq"?

Face it--you have no more idea of the future of Iraq than anybody else--and probably less than some. As I've said several times, it all hinges on whether the Sunnis feel part of the government or not--specifically if their proposed amendments to the constitution
are accepted. If they are not, look for the civil war to expand dramatically--with the "Coalition" forces in the middle, with no role to play except as occupation troops (not really wanted by any side)--therefore as targets.

But US pressure on this point will do nothing but raise the hackles of the Shiites--who agree with you that it's payback time. Do I need to cite you chapter and verse from your own holy writings? (on another thread).

Or perhaps you prefer this: Some Sunni leaders would like Sunni prisoners turned over to US Marines. The Shiite leaders of the present government are not big fans of this idea. So, if we do it, we then alienate the Shiites--the majority. A brilliant move.

As I said earlier, wake up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 01:32 AM

BeardedBruce:
[Arne]: "Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?"

Sorry, that is what the people YOU are supporting are doing...

Care to support your slanderous accustation here, Bruce? I have done no such thing. Or will you take it back....

I have read most, if not all of your posts. I have never seen ANY criticsm of the actions of ANY of those opposing coalition forces, regardless of what they have done, but I have noticed a number of comments about the actions of the US- Mostly without any reference to the facts.

Oh, really??? Better titrate the Haldol up a notch, Bruce. My criticisms have been of the maladministration, you know, the folks on top that have ordered and/or excused and whitewashed the renditions, the tortures, the wiretapping, and the other sundry violations of both national and international law and of human decency. I have never made a criticism of the U.S. soldiers themselves for their job (although there are certainly individuals that have gone "above and beyond the call of duty", not mentioning names like "England", "Granger", et.al., who may have been singled out by me for their poor conduct). I defy you to find a single comment where I did such a thing.

But, dear Brucie, I'd note that this is non-responsive to my point. You were seemingly claiming that I've "support[ed]" murderers, so let's not change the subject with your usual distractions and "red herrings" here, OK? While you may claim that it is my duty, honour-bound, to denounce every murderer if I should ever mention even one (a point which you are certainly not taking to heart yourself, so your faux outrage here is rather hypocritical), that is absurd ... not to mention impractical. Some go without saying, being simply so outrageous, and so undisputedly outragerous, such as the murder of Tom Fox, so as to make a repetition superfluous. But I'd note that failure to mention terrorist murders does not in itself become actual "support[]" for the murderers. That's even more absurd.

Also, we have the fact that while we are free to denounce the behaviour of anyone we feel like, it is only our own behaviour that we can in fact control. Thus, commenting on the viciousness of the Iraqi extremists may make us feel holy, but ain't gonna change anything. But if we're silent while our gummint engages in similar behaviour (or condones or winks at it when done by the Iraqi "security forces" we've helped construct and "train"), then we in fact have committed a bit of the sin of "aiding and abetting", and we ought to hold ourselves accountable for it. We're (supposedly) "better" than the terraists, you know....

So, once again, where have I supported murder, or even murderers, of any kind for such type of behaviour? If you can't find an example, you really should apologise, you know.... That would be the Christian thing to do, now.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 01:36 AM

The fact that the farms were identified and reported to the Iraqi Security Forces by locals who did not want these terrorists living amongst them is of absolutely no significance.

Hmmmm. Wonder who gets the farms now.....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 01:46 AM

Teribus:

So, Arne, I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world...

Oh, my. I'm sorry. Saw Dick "GFY" Cheney over the weekend, and he assured us that things were just hunky-dory. So if they say they're finding all these arms and stuff, and rounding up terraists left and right, all without a shot(!?!?!), why, who am I to doubt Fearless Leader (Who Had Other Priorities Than Vietnam)? And no problem that they only have a couple thousand tons of explosives and arms of all kinds left to find after they left the dumps unguarded in the wonderful Three Week War to "Mission Accomplished"....

Yep, days of wine and roses, and I'll buy you a ticket to go see the wondrous Hanging Gardens ASAP, Teribus. Hear tell the U.S. occupation has restored them to pristine state, and they're just waiting for the tourist influx....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

Foolestroupe - 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM

Hells teeth Foolestroupe, just where are you getting your information.

First of all you're reading about casualties that still don't exist as far as this operation is concerned:
"Foolestroupe - 18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM

Well, you can be happier now, Teribus, on tonight's news I heard that one US army personnel was killed"
So come on Foolestoupe go and check and tell us how many people have been killed in relation to Operation Swarmer.

And now this load of complete and utter rubbish:

"When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble and go for the easy targets - Baghdad and statues etc. Now what is happening is a 'mop up' operation that they have taken 3 years to get around to, and should have been on from the very beginning. If there would have been more troops, they might have been able to do so."

Eh? Foolestroupe go and take a look at a Map of Iraq. Might prove rather edifying for you. But just to give you some pointers:
- US Forces attacked from where? Kuwait right? South-East of Baghdad.
- The area this operation is taking place in is where in relation to Baghdad Foolestroupe? I believe that you will find that it lies to the NORTH of Baghdad. So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad to get to Baghdad and all those "easy targets"? I know that you must have an answer, you wouldn't have come out with that crap if you hadn't - I just don't think that it will be credible.

Oddly enough it was not more troops that were needed back in March 2003, to settle much of what has become known as the Sunni triangle and to cut off the Syrian border, what was needed was Turkey's co-operation with regard to placement of US Troops prior to the invasion.

Arne - 21 Mar 06 - 01:46 AM

"Teribus:

So, Arne, I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world..."

As I told you before my little viking, do try and keep up that quote you attribute to me - go and check who actually did say it.

Oh and while you are about it Arne, just tell everyone when and where I ever stated that the Coalition Forces had bombed anywhere indiscriminately.

Mark you if the following is an example of your logic, it only backs up what I have always contended with regard to your powers of comprehension of the english language:

Arne - 18 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM

Teribus:

"His report stated that unlike previous cordon and search operations this one was targeting specific sites,..." (Hear I was talking about Nic Robertson's report on CNN)

OIC. Up to now we'd been bombing indiscriminately (according to you)."

You see Arne, even after it had been explained to world and his dog that the media had completely jumped the gun on this story with regard to "Air Assault" versus "Air Strike" and it had become very clear that no shots had been fired. You persist with what your preconceived ideas would like to believe was happening:
Now here's a "Heads Up" on Operation Swarmer
- No bombs, no shooting, indiscriminate or otherwise.
- Nobody killed or wounded.
- "targeting" something does not necessarily mean you are shooting at it, or bombing it, it can even have a completely peaceful connotation, PR, Advertising and Recruitment Agencies, Radio and Television companies do it all the time.
- "cordon and search operations" Arne go and look up what the term means. Because you patently don't have a clue.

Oh and Ron, the Sunni Arabs in Iraq have only to realise one thing - they don't run it any more, and demographically it is hardly likely that they ever will again. They either embrace the process which gives them a damn sight more of a chance than they ever gave the majority of their fellow citizens previously - or they are going to marginalise themselves and die.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 07:25 PM

Earned your pay today Mr T?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM

"So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad"

I seem to remember from the non-stop 24 hour TV coverage that troops were landed north and west of Baghdad too matie! Maybe one of us is holding the map upside down... And don't forget that our SAS guys were sent in too - we Aussies haven't... and they DEFINITELY bypassed any serious resistance - no bloody choice for a handful of 2 man teams...

Damn, Mr T! It seems that The News Hour were robbed when they had that 'World Class Military Expert' on the other day who said "When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble "! :-) You should tell them, perhaps... :-)

You have thoroughly discredited yourself Mr T. And you are definitely more ignorant that even you believe other are. I won't say stupid - that would be insulting!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM

Teribus:

Oh and while you are about it Arne, just tell everyone when and where I ever stated that the Coalition Forces had bombed anywhere indiscriminately.

And:

Now here's a "Heads Up" on Operation Swarmer
- No bombs, no shooting, indiscriminate or otherwise.


Yep, "Operation Photo-Op" was a great success. Kind of like the turkee that Dubya handed out a couple years ago. All for show while the troops were simply shoveled the same ol' Halliburton crap (but hopefully they didn't use the tainted food for the Thanksgiving repast).

But there's been plenty of indiscriminate bombing and shooting; looks like even the USMC will have to look into the latest civilian killings....

You're right, though, Teribus. You limited your comments WRT "Operation Propaganda" to a curious situation (for Iraq, particularly), where there was no shooting (at least reportedly), and pointed out that -- voila! -- there was no "indiscriminate shooting". Alors! That's simply amazing, Teribus, and certainly worthy of note. Can you say the same about the contemporary cases where there was shooting (such as the USMC incident)? Or were those deaths quite intentional?

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:37 PM

Why no new Iraqi thread .... cause it's the same old shit.

Post a new one when it's over.

sIx


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM

Tut tut, Teribus, your ignorance (not to say poor reading skills) is showing.

In fact, you are not even aware of what your heroes, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are saying about the issue of the Sunnis. In fact, the US ambassador is pushing for inclusion of Sunnis in the police force and the army--with marginal success to say the least-- and the government in general.

They are aware, even if you are not, that the insurgency draws most of its strength from disaffected Sunnis--not from the "foreign extremists" you are so fond of citing. Foreign elements are only too willing to exploit discontent, especially among Sunnis. But they need raw material--and with attitudes like yours, they get plenty of recruits. Just brilliant on your part. Good thing your impact on the situation is minimal, to say the least.

Once more--maybe eventually you'll understand--if the Sunnis don't think they are getting a fair shake from whatever Iraq government emerges--particularly on the issue of distribution of oil income-- support for the insurgency goes way up.

If this does not bother you, your tunnel vision has blinded you beyond reason--you'll have to turn in your badge as a foreign policy analyst--even though you sent in the right number of boxtops to get it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 03:59 PM

Foolestroupe - 21 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM

"So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad"

Now why not complete it Foolestroupe -

So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad, to get to Baghdad.

Your memory is faulty the main advances were the US Forces moving North-West out of Kuwait and the British moving West from the Al Faw peninsula. Special Units (note: Units not Forces) were deployed to the West of Iraq to prevent the blowing of a dam and to monitor and interrupt traffic along the highway to Jordan. The only force to move in North of Baghdad was well to the North-West. This group went in initially to clear an airstrip so that forces could be moved in to bolster up and supply the Kurdish forces there, they spent most of their time maintaining their positions and didn't move off their start lines until after Baghdad had fallen. This was mainly due to their lack of heavy weapons support. They relied heavily on air power to deter the Iraqi forces in front of them and it was during one of their air-strikes that BBC's John Simpson was injured and his cameraman and interpreter were killed.

If any SAS unit has to fight, they have screwed up mightily, or have been extremely unlucky - it is just not their job to do that - they are also normally in 4-man teams, although they could possibly split into two 2's if their task is target identification and illumination.

Wouldn't matter which way you're holding the map Foolestroupe if Baghdad is in the middle and the other two places are near as damn it diametrically opposite, you still can't start out from one of those points and by-pass the other to get to Baghdad.

News Hour's, 'World Class Military Expert' said what exactly, from the little you provide, he said, ""When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble." Now you have obviously assumed that when the US military first moved into this area was at the begining of the invasion, but that is not what News Hour's hired military expert was saying at all, was it. He doesn't say when the US military first moved into the area, neither does he state the make up of the formation that did move into the area first, neither does he state what that formation's mission was. Now if you were armed with all of those factors you just might possibly come up with the reason why that force decided to 'by-pass' the trouble they encountered.

Discredited myself Mr F, don't think so - Others like yourself, Arne and Alba definitely have. My original comment on joining this thread and the question that went with it centred round the marked variance of the verbal report and the televised images that accompanied that report. The 'usual suspects' originally were jumping up and down yelling about innocent Iraqi's being butchered by the evil forces of occupation, and when it was clearly pointed out and reported that there had been no casualties, the same 'usual suspects' start pouring scorn on what was, judging by the results, a very successful operation.

Ron, I am perfectly aware of what the British and American Governments and their leaders are saying about the inclusion of the Arab Sunni population of Iraq in the affairs of that country. I am perfectly aware of what the newly elected Iraqi members of Parliament are saying. All the Iraqi Arab Sunni's have to do is have faith enough to engage in that political process.

I am also not aware of my fondness for citing "foreign extremists" with regard to the current insurgency in Iraq. And at least the Iraqi Sunni Arabs living in the area encompassed by Operation Swarmer were disaffected enough with the Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists in their midst that they informed on them and pointed out their locations to the Iraqi Security Forces.

By the way Ron, have you got the names of those Air National Guard F-102A pilots yet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:58 AM

"normally in 4-man teams, although they could possibly split into two 2's"
Obviously then Aussie politicians don't know what they are talking about then when they are bragging about the Aussie SAS to the Aussie electorate...

"Now you have obviously assumed that when the US military first moved into this area was at the beginning of the invasion, but that is not what News Hour's hired military expert was saying at all, was it"

Which cleverly misdirects one away from the real question 'If the US Military KNEW (and public statements were made to that effect - of bypassing areas of fanatical resistance - while I was watching the multi-channel broadcast of the 'invasion' here) that they were bypassing areas of serious resistance, and also since many public statements have been made for the last 3 years that there were known areas of "seed grounds for terrorists", why was no attempt made to go there before right now, which coincides with released evidence of worsening public opinion'?
Because the White House was so incompetent that they honestly believed that it would all be a brief walkover, and that the public would not care, as long as the war could be portrayed as a great victory of US might, and that the '710' would be safe.

Picking at minor alleged faults of the opposing view is an old debating tactic which I was aware of while on the school debating team, even before I was an independent rep for mature & external students on the University Student Union.


"Discredited myself Mr F, don't think so - Others like yourself, Arne and Alba definitely have."

Glad to see you admit it - we certainly have discredited you... but you definitely outshine any of us at attempted misdirection and obfuscation. Doubtless you were one of those claiming that the leaping onto hovering helicopters from the US Embassy building in Vietnam was a 'tremendous victory for the free world'!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM

Teribus, you are without a doubt in my mind "One that believes the "Hype" I see." Not only the Bush and Co's hype but your own.

J


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

Teribus--

Still holding on to your tunnel vision for dear life, eh? The Sunnis just have to be "realistic" and everything will be peaches and cream, right?

Correction-- for the n th time (You'd best send in your badge).

The Sunnis have to engage in the political process--AND the other parties have to be willing to guarantee them a larger share of the oil income than would accrue to them from just their oil-poor part of Iraq. (For some reason, you left out the last part). That is, Iraq under the constitution must be changed from an extremely loose federation to a tighter one.

Promise of such amendments was what enticed Sunni leaders to support the December elections, the results of which Cheney and other despicable propagandists (oops, I mean great statesmen) have been trumpeting to the skies ever since. As indeed have such brilliant commentators as yourself. Fascinating that neither Bush, Cheney nor any of his other toadies (nor even your good self) have mentioned this little condition.

Other factions are now balking at substantive changes to the constitution. If the promise, implicit or explicit, is not carried out, all bets are off. Nobody likes bait and switch.

One more thing--you admit the insurgency is mostly home-grown? Yes or no?--a one word answer will suffice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 11:58 AM

Wow, Teribus, I admire your fortitude (to say nothing of your patience).

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:08 AM

Doug--

Don't forget to compliment Teribus on his powers of logic and mastery of English also. As in "Fuck all absolutely nothing" (one of his classic responses)--which I had to admit was an unanswerable argument--though for a different reason than that of Sir Joseph Porter K.C.B.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM

Foolstoupe,

A little litmus test for you with regard to this thread. What I have stated on it as fact is borne out by events and as such can be verified. What you have stated as fact has not even happened.

Same goes for some others:
Bee-dubya-ell - 17 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM
"The 'copters themselves haven't fired a shot and the guys on the ground haven't been doing much either."

Apart for arrest and detain over 60 suspected insurgents and capture weapons, explosives, timing devices, detonators, training material, none of which can now be used to kill innocent civilians. Bee-dubya, I can only comment that you must take some pleasing, and that thank goodness I don't have to do it.

Alba - 17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM
"Although if I think about it, I suppose 50 Copters in the air may possibly look like a swarm of insects..! So at least there was a teeny tiny bit of imagination used in the naming of this..'sting'"

So I take it Alba that you would rather see the people detained released and their weapons restored to them so that they could go out and kill some more Iraqi civilians. All in order that you could then blame the US for creating the circumstance and allowing it to happen. Your bigotry and bias are nothing short of pathetic, ask the hostages rescued and released yesterday about an operation that was carried out on information received, this time extracted from a detainee. The information obtained led the MNF directly to the house where the men had been kept for four months. Not a shot fired Alba, was that all "hype"? was that a failure?

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM
"Foreign armies just cannot win this kind of conflict - you'd think they'd know by now."

They did in Greece, they did in Malaya, they did in Borneo.

Alba - 17 Mar 06 - 11:10 PM - On Operation Swarmer - The punchline
"I give it a Thumbs down."

Now let's take a look at what Alba gave the thumbs down to (Couresy of beardedbruce):
More than 60 suspected insurgents detained.
A total of 11 caches discovered. These have included:
- More than 350 mortar rounds of varying sizes
- 88 rocket propelled grenade rounds
- Nearly 2,000 rounds of armor-piercing rifle ammunition
- More than 15 rockets of varying sizes
- Over 60 hand grenades
- SA-7 surface-to-air missile components, including launcher tubes and batteries
- 30 machine guns and assault rifles

The following items were among the IED-making materials discovered since the operation began:

- More than 500 feet of explosive detonating cord;
- 50 explosive blasting caps;
- 25 130 mm artillery rounds packed with plastic explosive;
- Various remote initiation devices, including cordless phone base stations and washing machine timers.
- Terrorist training publications.
- Iraqi Army uniforms and videos have been recovered.
- Video footage portrayed U.S. troop locations in Iraq.
- Instructions relating to the rigging and detonation of a car bomb.
- Equipment taken from Iraqi Police.

OK Alba, tell us just what you think was going to be done with the above, tell us that you would rather have just let it stay in the hands of those who had it.

Foolestroupe - 18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
"Well, you can be happier now, Teribus, on tonight's news I heard that one US army personnel was killed"

Please note Foolestoupe still hasn't had either the honesty, or decency, to admit that he/she was mistaken. Fact is to date no-one has been killed in the execution of Operation Swarmer, in maintaining that there have been casualties Foolstroupe, you only succeed in discrediting yourself.

Foolestroupe - 23 Mar 06 - 06:58 AM

"normally in 4-man teams, although they could possibly split into two 2's"
Obviously then Aussie politicians don't know what they are talking about then when they are bragging about the Aussie SAS to the Aussie electorate"

I wouldn't know about the Australian politicians that you are referring to Foolstroupe. Maybe they do know what they are talking about, maybe they don't. All I know is that as far as the SAS goes, I have been trained by them, trained with them and worked with them. Now I know, from personal experience, that they normally operate in 4-man teams, if you say that you and the Aussie Politicians in which you place so much faith know better, then all well and good, I, however, will rely on what I know to be fact.

Alba - 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM
"Teribus, you are without a doubt in my mind "One that believes the "Hype" I see." Not only the Bush and Co's hype but your own."

Alba, if you are in any way capable of independent thought go back and read my initial post to this thread. If there was any "hype" it was generated by the media, not by "Bush and Co.", but on this occasion the media got caught out, but oh dear me, YOUR prejudices will just not let you recognise, or believe that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

It's no cause for anybody to be happy--but "Operation Swarmer" is over, and Iraq continues to turn into Lebanon of the 1980's--or worse--"ethnic cleansing" and beyond. That's how much impact "Operation Swarmer" had. And the deterioration won't stop until the problems I have cited are addressed--if indeed "Iraq" can be salvaged at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

Glass half empty again Ron.

Oh Doom, Oh Gloom, Oh ye of little faith, the Iraqi people will surprise you Ron.

By the way about those F-102A Air National Guard Pilots? Just slipped your mind again did it Ron, or are you honest enough to admit that you just made it up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:00 PM

Teribus--

As I said earlier, which "Iraqi people"?-the Sunnis who are killing the Shiites, the Shiites who are killing the Sunnis, or the Kurds who want nothing to do with "Iraq"?

Or the intellectuals and professional classes who have fled or are fleeing the country?

If the constitution is not changed to take the Sunnis' interests into account, the civil war stands to do nothing but get worse.


And by the way--you still haven't bothered to tell us what "victory" is this time--the last one somehow wasn't impressive.

The "Iraqi people" are a "people" as much as the "Yugoslav people" were. Wake up.

"Iraq" was a totally artificial construction which has never been without a ruler.   One ruler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM

ROFL...Oh I am so capable of independent thought Teribus.
My predudices..:)
Ok. Your right. Literally.

J


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE
Foolstoupe,

A little litmus test for you with regard to this thread. What I have stated on it as fact is borne out by events and as such can be verified. What you have stated as fact has not even happened.
UNQUOTE

You must be getting harried, Mr T, when you can't even cut and paste my handle correctly! Or with your alleged 'military background', can't you really cope with genuine 'independent thought'? Military 'independent though' is really an oxymoron - for morons! :-)

In case you haven't worked it out for yourself yet, your sort of imposition of the "correct way of 'independent thinking'" being imposed by our political puppet masters is just what a few here are objecting to!

Your 'facts' seem to be imparted to you in much the same way as Georgie Boy gets his! (After all he doesn't waste his time watching public media, does he?)

Well, your unimpeachable source lied about a bunch of Iraqi civilians, including babies, slaughtered in revenge (as witnessed by a surviving child) by US forces for an IED - a 'war crime' for as long as they could get away with it, until evidence which they themselves admitted was irrefutable was forced before them and the whole world. Your unimpeachable source told the world that the civilians were killed by the same IED that killed US servicemen! And then they they were killed in the crossfire in the resulting firefight! When the footage clearly shows that the rounds were fired INSIDE the buildings!

And you wonder why some of use are cynical about ANYTHING that source wants us to believe - just as we are cynical about your 'incorruptible truths'? And this is not 'another Vietnam'? Can you spell 'Mai Lai'? Not sure that I can...


And now, Afghanistan, - where Georgie Boy 'successfully imposed democracy', including acceptance of the UN Human Rights Declaration, is going to execute under Sharia Law which the constitution (accepted by Georgie Boy!) states overrides any other civil agreements, a Muslim who converted to Christianity.

Own Goal again for you Mr T!

QUOTE
Foolestroupe - 18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
"Well, you can be happier now, Teribus, on tonight's news I heard that one US army personnel was killed"

Please note Foolestoupe still hasn't had either the honesty, or decency, to admit that he/she was mistaken. Fact is to date no-one has been killed in the execution of Operation Swarmer, in maintaining that there have been casualties Foolstroupe, you only succeed in discrediting yourself.
UNQUOTE

I wasn't mistaken about hearing it on the news, and I have no reason to apologise for OTHER people getting things wrong!

"but on this occasion the media got caught out, but oh dear me, YOUR prejudices will just not let you recognise, or believe that. "

or your prejusices...


"All I know is that as far as the SAS goes, I have been trained by them, trained with them and worked with them. "

You don't like to admit that you are wrong either - I know what our pollies were bragging about - 2 man teams was apparently what they were wanted for MOST of the time!


QUOTE
Alba - 17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM
"Although if I think about it, I suppose 50 Copters in the air may possibly look like a swarm of insects..! So at least there was a teeny tiny bit of imagination used in the naming of this..'sting'"

So I take it Alba that you would rather see the people detained released and their weapons restored to them so that they could go out and kill some more Iraqi civilians.
UNQUOTE

Thereby you demonstrate your narrow mindedness, and inability to cope with satire and cynicism!

"Alba, if you are in any way capable of independent thought go back and read my initial post to this thread."

So 'SAS trained' 'independent thought' consists in all of us just thinking what you what us all to think? Just because you were ordered to train and work with them, doesn't mean you really have the intellectual capacity... :-)


"One more thing--you admit the insurgency is mostly home-grown? Yes or no?--a one word answer will suffice. "

No answer either way yet from Mr T - which substantiates that his (maybe self-appointed?) task here is obfuscation and misdirection, not genuine open minded 'independent thinking' debate. !!!!

The only real difference between you and Mr MG is that you haven't used foul language - yet! Actually that might be insulting Mr MG...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Foolestroupe, judging by most of what you say on this forum, including your moronic, trendy, leftist belief in stereotypes, I would doubt very much if you have ever exercised independent thought in your life. You also seem to be entirely incapable of differentiating one event from another. And while you feel that you don't have to apologise for anything:

"I wasn't mistaken about hearing it on the news, and I have no reason to apologise for OTHER people getting things wrong!"

What you do have to apologise for Foolestroupe is for propagating something you know to be untrue, after it has been proved untrue. Now just exactly how many people were killed in Operation Swarmer Foolestroupe? Was anybody killed during that operation? A simple Yes or No will suffice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM

From uruknet.info: "All told, the operation to kill "insurgents" left six children and four women dead."

So the answer is, yes, people were killed during operation swarmer.

As usual, no insurgents and no troops, just innocent civilians.

Must make you proud, Teribus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:55 PM

Looked at your link GUEST and found nothing.

Did see this though:

The locusts stripping Iraq bare are insulted. General Sir Michael Jackson, a Bloody Sunday criminal, a Kosovo war criminal and now a loyal goon in the mobbing of Baghdad, told ITN that he was "saddened that there does not seem to have been a note of gratitude for the soldiers who risked their lives to save those lives". ITN arranged a phone-in programme about the release of Norman Kember and the Christian peacekeepers who were with him. The question: "Do you believe Norman Kember was right to put his life in danger for the sake of the Iraqi people? Or, do do you believe he's been irresponsible?" Such a question has its own pre-written answers. It calls upon ingrained cultural prejudices, sullen racism, resentment against do-gooders, those who have the temerity, the audacity, to actually consider the lives of Iraqis worth protecting and respecting...

Now the above was written by complete and utter cunts every single one


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:55 PM

teribus -

Here's the link:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21896&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Read it and tell me if you think anyone was killed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:57 PM

tsk, tsk, teribus. You know that name calling is the coward's way of arguing.

If they are cunts, I guess that makes you a little prick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 05:09 AM

Read your link, a number of things mentioned do not add up.

The location, have a look at where it is, have a look at the population, given as being just under 16,000. Doesn't tally with any other report which puts the population of the area covered during Operation Swarmer as slightly less than one tenth of the figure given above.

Timing 01:30hrs three days into the operation, when, by that stage they knew there was no resistence and had reduced their force level by almost 50%

Sorry GUEST, your article is a fairytale.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

"including your moronic, trendy, leftist belief in stereotypes"

Ha!Ha! Coming from someone displaying all the signs of a stereotypical uneducated ignorant narrow minded bullying fascist Yank, that is praise indeed! Every 'Intellectual' HAS to he 'Left of Centre' for stereotypical morons like you! :-) And you have worked HARD to generate that impression, mate!

And you wonder why the rest of the world is a little disturbed at Yanks like you prowling the world armed with nuclear weapons without adult supervision?!!!


Actually, Teribus may be right - on further thought, I may have misheard (since I often listen to the radio in the background) that a US soldier had been killed in Afghanistan that day, instead of Iraq. Unlike Teribus, I am not infallible, I may have confused the two.

Still a US family mourning a death, but now at least you are pedantically happier I suppose, having proved your infallibility.

When you stoop to foul mouthed name calling, you have lost the plot, as well as the argument. I will now never grant you any credibility in future, either. You have demonstrated that you are just a foul mouthed brainwashed fascist mouthpiece.

"The only real difference between you and Mr MG is that you haven't used foul language - yet! Actually that might be insulting Mr MG... "

Come back Martin, all is .... :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Hey, Teribus, if you want to hurl abuse at people for "Shock and Awe" tactics, instead of using stereotypical clichéd simple words which only displays a limited capability for 'independent thinking', why not try to be creative?

May you be mocked by eunuchs, thou dabbler in abominations!

Lost for a smart remark to see off your enemies? Unable to deliver that killer insult?

Put an end to "I was speechless!" misery with the amazing Biblical Curse Generator, which is pre-loaded with blistering put-downs as delivered by Elijah, Jeremiah and other monumentally angry saints.

Simply click the button below, and get ready to smite your foes with a custom-made curse straight out of the Old Testament.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 01:59 PM

Teribus - You must be reading some other article. The article I linked only talks about civilians in Samarra on March 21st. Where are you getting the population figures and the actual geography covered.

Quit throwing out 'red herrings' and answer your own question, "Was anyone killed during operation swarmer?"

The answer is, yes, women and children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

Got this from the Washington Post but there are other sources if you want to verify this info.

"Iraqi authorities also said late Sunday that U.S. forces raided an Interior Ministry building and arrested 40 policemen after discovering 17 non-Iraqi prisoners in the facility.

Police 1st Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said the arrested police were being held for investigation, but the reason was not known. Mahmoud said the U.S. forces remained at the building and were guarding the 17 foreigners."

I don't know how anyone could read this article without realizing that there is definitely civil war in Iraq.

Bush is a monster for unleashing this carnage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

stereotypical uneducated ignorant narrow minded bullying fascist Yank

I protest this unwarranted insult as a lowly personal attack!









Terribus is not a Yank.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM

Guest,

Your link identified the location as Isshaq and the time and date as being 01:30AM on the moring of 21st March.

Then go and look up Isshaq that is where the population statistic came from.

Isshaq lies to the East of the area covered during Operation Swarmer, the population indicated is ten times that of the area in which Operation Swarmer took place. 101st Airbourne has 25 journalists embedded. All reports indicate no fatalities, no casualties, no shots fired.

Was anybody killed during Operation Swarmer? - The answer to that is no.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM

Yer right, he's a W.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:56 PM

...Wizard? Wordsmith? Wonder Worker? Wombat? Windowcleaner?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 18 February 9:06 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.