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?

Ron Davies 24 Mar 06 - 11:08 AM
DougR 23 Mar 06 - 11:58 AM
Ron Davies 23 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM
Alba 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM
The Fooles Troupe 23 Mar 06 - 06:58 AM
Teribus 22 Mar 06 - 03:59 PM
Ron Davies 21 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM
number 6 21 Mar 06 - 10:37 PM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Mar 06 - 07:25 PM
Teribus 21 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 01:46 AM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 01:36 AM
Arne 21 Mar 06 - 01:32 AM
Ron Davies 20 Mar 06 - 10:29 PM
Peace 20 Mar 06 - 07:00 PM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 03:05 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM
Peace 20 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM
Teribus 20 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM
Arne 20 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
Teribus 19 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Mar 06 - 07:19 AM
Teribus 19 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM
Arne 18 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM
Arne 18 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM
van lingle 18 Mar 06 - 11:12 AM
Ron Davies 18 Mar 06 - 10:40 AM
Alba 18 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM
Alba 18 Mar 06 - 07:28 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Mar 06 - 07:21 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
Teribus 18 Mar 06 - 06:42 AM
katlaughing 17 Mar 06 - 11:32 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Mar 06 - 11:22 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Mar 06 - 11:20 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Mar 06 - 11:15 PM
Alba 17 Mar 06 - 11:10 PM
CarolC 17 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM
katlaughing 17 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM
GUEST,Martin Gibson 17 Mar 06 - 03:26 PM
Kaleea 17 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
Alba 17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM
Bee-dubya-ell 17 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:32 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 07:03 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: 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: Arne
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM

Teribus:

His report stated that unlike previous cordon and search operations this one was targeting specific sites,...

OIC. Up to now we'd been bombing indiscriminately (according to you). My, that gives me the warm fuzzies. What does it do to you, Teribus? Make your putter flutter?

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: van lingle
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 11:12 AM

Yep, Bush had to do something to stop the bleeding (in the polls) and having a bunch of Iraqi soldiers running around in the sand next to US Army soldiers flashed across the evening news and then bringing on a General who recently declared Iraq as near to a civil war as it had ever been redeem himself by praising the Iraqi military invovlment is a pretty small band aid. I can hear Claude Rains saying "Roundup the usual suspects!" vl


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 10:40 AM

As I said earlier, it's all a-- very expensive--sideshow. The real action (or inaction, now) is in the parliament. Will there--ever--be a stable "unity" government? And even more important, will the constitution be changed to more suit the Sunnis? That's the only way to defuse the insurgency. Promises of such amendments are the main reason Sunni leaders were willing to support the December elections. Now leaders of the other factions are balking at any substantive changes.

The Sunnis are not blind--they know that the constitution as it stands provides for a path to semi-autonomy for any region--including control over oil. If that happens, the Sunnis are the big losers. If Sunnis come to the conclusion that the changes they seek are out of the question, the insurgency will benefit---bigtime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

"Ah hype...it smells as sweet as baking bread when it reaches the *ears* of the desperately seeking justification"
That should have read *Noses* shouldn't it!
Not to worry, no actual Ears or Noses were harmed in the writing of my sentence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 07:28 AM

One that believes the "Hype" I see.

"resounding success more like"

"- No casualties - No resistance - Nobody hurt "...Really, well that's a relief because that is not what I have heard/read and it would seem that these three terms can mean diffrent things depending on where your perspective is coming from.

It would seem that I need to re-read the link and the many other sources I have been reading over the last few days. Some of the number crunching I see above me is frankly amazing!
"The largest Air ASSAULT since 2003.."
mmmm.
So when it suits the purposes of Propaganda it is perfectly acceptable to allude to the events in the air over Iraq in 2003 but it is unacceptable for the press, or anyone else for that matter, to point out that this particular Fiasco was, thankfully, absolutely nothing like the events of 2003, absolutely nothing like them.

Unlike the administration's Fiscal Advisors, it's supporters seem to make better use of a calculator however. I see some great number crunching.

"I sincerely hope the Journalists enjoyed their freshly baked bread, I also hope that they paid for it."

Actually I hope that the Commanders of 'Operation Delusional' paid the Woman for her Bread, after all those were the people who asked Reporters to join them on the 'Daytrip', in fact I hope the reporters got paid for their time and enjoyed what seems to be to all intents and purposes a very bland 'packed Lunch' not even the mention of a soft Drink, Bottle of Spring water or fresh fruit in the Time article.

The Woman baking the bread however I am sure offered little resistance when approached for some of her baking. I know if I was confronted by 1500 armed personnel that emerged from 50 helicopters in my back field I would give them the damn bread I was making for nothing personally, make no mistake about it.

31 Insurgents. No doubt a massive blow has been struck at the heart of the Insurgents core...!

Ah hype...it smells as sweet as baking bread when it reaches the ears of the desperately seeking justification.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 07:21 AM

"one in five were armed"

You sure they didn't take a left turn at Albuquerque and end up in Texas instead?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 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 - now surely an even better resounding success - definitely proved that there was combat of some sort. Definitely a 'live fire exercise' then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 06:42 AM

From Kat's link that the TIME Online had Headlined as "How Operation Swarmer Fizzled" the reader can extract the following:

- The operation was the largest air assault since 2003.

- The article explains that the media, like most on this forum judging from the earlier posts to this thread do not know the difference in terminology between "Air Strike" and "Air Assault"

- The results of the operation "netted 48 suspected insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released" - Now that is one way of putting it, another is to say that the operation netted 48, of which 31 have been detained - that is roughly 65% of those found in the six farms targetted.

- The article implies that as there were no shots fired, no resistance and no casualties that the operation was a flop. Even MGOH seems to be of that opinion. Here are a couple of Kevinesque quotes:

"If there's really "no resistance" that would rather suggest that the US has targetted the wrong farms, ones where there in fact are no enemy fighters"

"If this time they have actually identified the right target, "no resistance" would very likely imply that word of the attack was leaked in advance by friends of the insurgents in the Iraq military."

In both cases Kevin it indicates the complete and utter opposite of that which you contend.

In actual fact the operation seems to have been highly successful exactly for reasons that there were - No casualties - No resistance - Nobody hurt - 31 suspected terrorists detained - The operation was mounted at the instigation of the Iraqi Security Forces acting on information received from the Iraqi civilians living in the area - The "wrong farms" were not targeted, the forces conducting the operation found weapons, explosives timing devices, detonators, none of which can now harm innocent Iraqi citizens - According to the article, the airlift (1500 personnel) doubled the population of the remote area, 300 personal weapons seized means that one in five were armed, of the 1500 people living in the area we can roughly estimate that 500 would be children, 500 would be women and 500 would be men (I know these are very rough assumptions but I take it that you get the drift of where this is leading). 300 personal weapons is one hell of a percentage of what could be described as "likely" terrorist material in an area so sparsely populated.

Sorry TIME Online, I do not believe for one minute that Operation Swarmer Fizzled, resounding success more like, now like CNN, why don't you, TIME Online, just report it as such?

I sincerely hope the Journalists enjoyed their freshly baked bread, I also hope that they paid for it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:32 PM

Good take, Jude!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:22 PM

Come to think of it, it's not all that special, it could apply to the Labour Party in Australia too...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:20 PM

Idea for a political cartoon

"Burying the hatchet in Iraq"

A circle of politicians each holding onto a hatchet buried in the back of the guy in front...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:15 PM

Best comment I saw on SBS - we get the PBS News Hours on replay here - was a a man in a military uniform
"Consider it a live fire training exercise for the new Iraqui Troops"....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:10 PM

Taken from Kat's Link:

"Before loading up into the helicopters for a return trip to Baghdad, Iraqi and American soldiers and some reporters helped themselves to the woman's freshly baked bread, tearing bits off and chewing it as they wandered among the cows. For most of them, it was the only thing worthwhile they'd found all day."

It would appear that Bush missed a photo op which would have allowed him to get his 'Flight suit' on again and descend into the hub of a dangerous Iraqi Insurgent strong hold and address the assembled (flown in special) Troops on the Ground and reporters ( also flown in special) and to be heard by all assembled to utter yet more immortal words straight from the mouth of the Commander in Chief (of the Operation formally known as 'Iraqi freedom')....."Kitchen! I'm famished!"

"Don't believe the hype - its a sequel"...a line from the lyrics of "Don't believe the Hype" by (the aptly named in this case named) 'Public Enemy'


....and it seems that the Bush administration now know that sequels rarely get the same response as the original Movie. In this case '4 Long years II '..is a flop at the American and International Box Offices.

I give it a Thumbs down.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM

It looks like this was the real reason for the "air strike"...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060317/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Bush needs US voters to believe the troops will be coming home soon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM

How Operation Swarmer fizzled


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM

If there's really "no resistance" that would rather suggest that the US has targetted the wrong farms, ones where there in fact are no enemy fighters. It wouldn't be the first time. Only a couple of days ago the was an "incident" described here where 11 civilians were killed, five of them children, one six months old, were killed in an airstrike.

If this time they have actually identified the right target, "no resistance" would very likely imply that word of the attack was leaked in advance by friends of the insurgents in the Iraq military.

Foreign armies just cannot win this kind of conflict - you'd think they'd know by now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 03:26 PM

We should have done this 2 years ago instead of pussyfooting around.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Kaleea
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

All this time has gone by, billions & billions of $$, countless lives lost--but only once did I hear anything about Music in Iraq. That was on "Sunday Morning" the CBS show. It was a piece about what remained of the orchestra in Baghdad. I have never seen or heard any reports of the peoples of Iraq and their traditional Music(s). I suppose the average USA tv viewer would not pay much attention? Nevertheless, wouldn't it be something to have Traditional Musicians from round the world making Music with Iraqui Musicians-& put it on tv & radio worldwide? Since the usual diplomacy hasn't worked yet, how about International Music Diplomats?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM

That would seem to be the Propaganda Bee-dubya-ell
That's what gets to me personally. That there is an assumption that the US is full of numb nuts ready to wave the flag and change their minds about the US policies in Iraq based on anything now which alludes to Bush being rough and tough and mighty and staying the course...but Operation Swarmer!! Please.
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'

Hype...total and utter Hype.

Shock and Awe....hardly that, thank goodness.
Mock and Withdraw... more like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM

So it turns out that "the biggest air strike since 'Shock and Awe'" consists of using about 50 helicopters to ferry ground troops in. The 'copters themselves haven't fired a shot and the guys on the ground haven't been doing much either.

So who decided to bill this thing as "the biggest air strike since 'Shock and Awe'"? And why? Is the entire world supposed to stand in awe of the U.S. Air Force's ability to provide air taxi service?


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: 4 April 6:06 AM EDT

[ 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.