October 2, 2004
@ 05:46 AM

It's always interesting to me how the same event can be reported completely differently depending on who's reporting the news. For example compare the headline US army massacres over 100 civilians in Iraq from Granma international where it begins

BAGHDAD, October 1 (PL).—, More than 100 Iraqi civilians have been killed and some 200 injured in Samarra and Sadr City today during the cruelest retaliatory operations that the US occupation forces have launched do date.

According to medical sources quoted by the Arab TV network Al Arabiya, 94 people died and another 180 were injured when soldiers from the US 1st Infantry Division attacked a civilian area of the city of Samarra with heavy weaponry. 

In the Sadr City district, located in west Baghdad, US soldiers massacred nine civilians during an operation to eliminate militia forces loyal to the wanted Islamic Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr. Another three people were seriously injured.

to the following description of the same events reported by the Telegraph entitled '100 rebels dead' after US troops storm Samarra where it begins

American forces have stormed the rebel-held town of Samarra, claiming more than 100 insurgents killed, as coalition forces try to establish control in the Sunni triangle.

The US military said 109 fighters and one US soldier were killed in the offensive. Doctors at Samarra's hospital, said 47 bodies were taken in, including 11 women and five children.

An Iraqi spokesman said 37 insurgents were captured. During the push, soldiers of the US 1st Infantry Division rescued Yahlin Kaya, a Turkish building worker being held hostage in the city.

The operation came after "repeated attacks" on government and coalition forces had made the town a no-go zone, the US military said. Samarra lies at the heart of the Sunni Arab belt north and west of Baghdad where many towns are under the control of insurgents.

So was it a 100 civilians killed or a 100 insurgents? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Iraq is becoming even more of a giant Messopotamia. So far I can only see two choices for the US in Iraq over the next year; pull out or attempt to retake the country in force. Either way there's even more significant and unnecessary loss of life coming up.

All this because of some chicken hawks in the Bush administration...


Saturday, October 2, 2004 3:21:01 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I believe the correct term is terrorist. There are some people out there who hate America and want to destroy it. They have been at it for years. Not because of anything America did but because she is a convenient target for those who want power. I.e your problems are not your fault or my fault, it is Americas fault. Change the object of hate and this scenario is repeated all throughout history.

Now America can either retreat, sacrifice its freedom and live in fear of even larger and more violent attacks that will happen and eventually be destroyed, or she can fight. Fight terrorism wherever she finds it, defend her freedom and as a side effect spread freedom and prosperity to those who where oppressed.

So unless America wants to live in fear of another 9/11 she needs to finish the fight the terrorists started.

Saturday, October 2, 2004 5:47:00 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
What does the War in Iraq have to do with America's War On Terrorism? Several senate investigations and members of the current administration admit there is no serious link between the two.

America has invaded a relatively stable country and turned it into a war torn hell hole. I don't think reductionist jingoism is a proper response to this tragedy.
Sunday, October 3, 2004 3:48:11 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

don't forget that the terrorists think America was the one who started it. And "the truth is probably somewhere in the middle".
Sunday, October 3, 2004 10:17:14 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Since the terrorists have been attacking America for over 10 years and America, other then the occasional response, has been basically ignoring them up until a few years ago. I’ll let you do the math on who started it. There was of course the first gulf war, but America didn’t start that either. I’m sure the terrorists have some reason for there actions, something like America is acting to American, jingoism, etc., there always is a reason for hate and prejudice.

If you think back before all the spin on the war, before the invasion, before America going to the UN, Iraq’s violations and failure to account for its WMS’s, you will find that the Iraq war began as a war on terrorism. I know the 9/11 commission found no proof of a connection between Iraq and 9/11, that was not its task. It also did not find proof that Iraq wasn’t involved either. We just don’t know. What we do know is that Iraq provided safe haven for terrorists including those escaping Afghanistan. We do know Iraq provided training for terrorists including training on how to hijack airplanes. We do know Iraq funded terrorism. We do know that Iraq made threats against America and even tried to kill President Bush(41). And we do know that Iraq had the capabilities to produce WMD’s and every intention to reconstitute those programs after the heat was off. I know people make the case that other countries are guiltier then Iraq. All things considered, Iraq was probably the best choice in the next step in the war on terrorism. Bush thinks that by freeing the people of Iraq and establishing a democracy it will stabilize the region. Personally, I hope he is right. Then maybe America will not have to do this again. Terrorism is a big problem in that region of the world. It would be nice if it could be ignored, but if America wants to remain free, it just can’t afford to do that.
Tuesday, October 5, 2004 10:55:15 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
No, Mike terrorists weren't being ignored "up until a few years ago". To avoid you having to learn new "math", let me tell you who started it. First of all, in the first war, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which was immediately followed by coalition forces attacking Iraq (not just driving them out of Kuwait). Now, that America has invaded Iraq, coalition forces are attacking americans. Do you think theat the terrorists are there now because without a standing army (or a real goverment) Iraq's borders are wide open now? While this might be simplified to avoid any spin, it's the reality of what's happening. I served this country and I was proud to be there (the first time), but last year when I was at a funeral for friend (http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/31/news/story1.html) the spin kind of stopped. So if you and Bush think that a democracy in the region will help stabilize why not start with our Saudi Allies? Maybe after you see some of your friends and relatives come home under a flag, you might not be so quick to blindly buy into the president's choices.
Thursday, October 7, 2004 6:48:10 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Why not think for yourself and stop repeating the DNC talking points when comparing Iraq with Vietnam. You are smarter than that.

Here another take on it:

Will, terrorists know no borders. I am profoundly grateful that our soldiers and marines are taking the fight to them and making the ultimate sacrifice. Regarding addressing SA, surely you understand tactics and strategy. After Syria, Iran, and NK, SA will be next.
Thursday, October 7, 2004 10:04:20 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I have no idea what these DNC talking points you mention are. As far as I'm aware no one has shown any conclusive proof of strong ties to Al-Qaeda and Saddam. On the other hand, the US troops are under funded in Afghanistan while rogue governments like Iran and North Korea continue to thumb their nose and the US.

The Bush administrators and its supporters keep trying to spin the justification for invading Iraq but their words hold little weight in the face of mounting evidence against them.
Friday, October 8, 2004 7:44:19 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
You have proven my point Dare. Who has claimed that there is a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (aside from the DNC?). The people of Afghanistan are about to embark on their first attempts at voting for a gov't. How great is that! As for underfunded troops, who is making this claim (aside from the DNC?). I agree with you on Iran and NK. Although I would rephrase it as "thumbing their noses at the world". The only spin I hear is from the MSM that keeps pointing out negatives at a far higher clip than positives. I have not seen any headlines on the front page stating "Schools open. Girls attending for the first time! Yay!" Talk about spin. Expecting perfect results is a fool's dream. But I tell you, if in the end, the Iraqi people embrace and fight for a democratic Iraq, there will be one less country I worry about giving terrorist access to its arsenal of weapons, money, intelligence, and support.

It appears to me that your argument is why do Iraq with all the issues in Afghanistan, Iran & NK? And if the response is, ok, we'll address NK. Then your argument will be why NK with all the issues in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Blah blah blah blah blah. You have to start somewhere. A country that has violated all UN resolutions, used the Oil-for-Food program to skim money and bribe foreign country, gassed its own people, shot at countries attempting to enforce the UN no-fly zone, paid blood money to palestinian family when a member blew him/herself up and killed Israelis, etc. How's that for a starting place?

Using your logic, its justifiable to say why give aid to country A if country B, C, D, & F are just as bad off.

Or at Microsoft, can we say why release .NET when VB6/VC6/ASP are not working perfectly? Why release SP2 if it doesn't fix bug x, y, & z? Why come out with new products to solve solutions that the existing products could not? Why not make the existing ones work first? Why? Why? Why?

Friday, October 8, 2004 8:15:09 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
You are kidding right? The point is that the Bush administration has given no good justification for invading Iraq. End of story. The evidence of WMDs was shaky and it turned out there weren't any. But there are countries more hostile to the US with known WMD programs that have been ignored. The links to terrorism were similarly shaky and turned out not to exist. Again there are countries more hostile to the US with known ties to terrorists that have been ignored besides some verbal wrist slapping.

The only thing you Bush supporters have left to justify the first truly imperialist act of the United States of America is "he was a bad guy" as if turning the country into war torn hellhole and Abu Gharib are somehow better than what Saddam did while he ruled there.

The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You people disgust me.
Saturday, October 9, 2004 1:55:05 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

you must be kidding. How about UN resolutions? Support for terrorists? Massive human rights abuse to Shiites and Kurds? Use of WMD on his own people? Pursuit of WMDs? None of this matters right? Only a mushroom cloud in the good old USA will change your mind...or will it?

See Dare, you do know the DNC talking points! "Wrong..time." heh heh heh.

You act all high and mightly about imperialism this or abuse that but only when it applies to US. Never a bad word said about Saddam. Never a bad word said about the UN corruption. Never a bad word said about terrorists blowing up innocent people. To you, it is only worth getting uptight about when its the US. How do you live with that hypocrisy? Yeah, other nations. The moment we try to rectify those situations I can see you right here moaning and groaning about how some other country is worse. blah blah blah blah blah.

Oh yeah, on the imperialism crack. I think its ironic that the countries we take over for one reason or another end up in better condition than when we got there. Its also ironic that money & resources seem to flow in rather than out. How'd that happen?

What makes you think I am a Bush supporter? You know what? I support the man who will tell me he will do everything in his power to protect me and my family. As far as I can see, Bush is ahead on that point. Everything else comes in a distant second.
Saturday, October 9, 2004 5:17:08 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
You are obviously just parroting talking points without actually reading my posts. I'm bored with playing this game with you. Have a nice weekend.
Comments are closed.