al Zarqawi Air Strike

21
I might be wrong here as I'm no expert but I thought the arms were sold to dissident groups that were fighting the regime. Not actually to the Iranian government.


Actually in typical U.S. 'get 'yo dolla on' fashion, we sold arms to both sides.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

al Zarqawi Air Strike

23
SacredAndProfane wrote:
clocker bob wrote:I personally don't believe the calming waters around Iran right now.


Ok, I was going to stay out of this whole "conspiracy" deal, but this whole thing...invading Iran...is a fucking joke. I can't believe you'd actually think that the US would invade Iran.


We've already got special forces in Iran. They don't want to invade Iran to the point that they want to occupy the entire country like with Iraq- they want to appease Israel by knocking out the uranium enrichment facilities, and they may want to capture the Khuzistan province, because that's where the oil wells are ( and that's Arab, not Persian, territory, so there is less allegiance with Tehran down there ).

The Iranian threat to price oil in euros is also a factor.
Last edited by clocker bob_Archive on Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

al Zarqawi Air Strike

24
Earwicker wrote:
SacredAndProfane wrote:The Iranians released the hostages...fucking quick too...after Reagan was sworn in as president. And the bastard repaid the favor, illegally selling arms to them.


I might be wrong here as I'm no expert but I thought the arms were sold to dissident groups that were fighting the regime. Not actually to the Iranian government.

That is wrong. Unless the dissidents you're talking about were the revolutionaries that over threw the Shah.
Last edited by greg_Archive on Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Greg Norman FG

al Zarqawi Air Strike

27
hiredgeek wrote: would you put this past our current administration to create media villains?


I'm not sure I understand the difference between media villains and exaggerated and propagandized villains. I'll assume we are talking about the same thing.

Our defense budgets have been juiced by inflated claims regarding the offensive capabilities of the Soviets, the Cubans, the Nicaraguans, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Libyans, and also, the omnipresent threat of allowing the US government to fall under the control of the godless communist wimpy gay abortionists. That this history is all easily discovered has no impact on future scare tactics- they work without fail.

Osama bin Laden is a walking psy op. He's the Arab Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984. Eventually, holographic bin Laden will take over for him.

There is no respect for the truth if the truth leads to more peace. They'll make pigs with box cutters fly out of Condoleeza Rice's ass if they need to manufacture a threat.

al Zarqawi Air Strike

28
SacredAndProfane wrote:
clocker bob wrote:We've already got special forces in Iran.

Yeah...they've been there since the 70's! That doesn't mean anything.



I beg to differ. Have a look at Seymour Hersh's interview with CNN from April.

hersh on the build up to an attack on Iran

They are doing recon inside that country for some contingency plan. Hersh has a lot to say about Bush's 'messianic' duty to overthrow the fundamentalist regime of Iran and about the potential for a generals' resistance against the madmen in the PNAC branch.

al Zarqawi Air Strike

29
I like how Nick Berg's father refused to give Bush a happy sound bite today. Said something like, "I'm just waiting for this illegal war to end". Cool move.

Random excerpts from the Global Research site- there are links to the leaked documents published in the Washington Post there:

Who was Abu Musab al Zarqawi?

by Michel Chossudovsky June 8, 2006 GlobalResearch.ca

Mythical figure and terror mastermind Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was killed in an air raid, according to a statement of the Iraqi government.

Zarqawi has been upheld both in official statements and the media as head of "the Sunni insurgency", leader of "al-Qaeda in Iraq", allegedly responsible for the the killings of thousands of civilians.

Intelligence Asset

The evidence suggests, however, that Zarqawi was part of a Pentagon disinformation campaign launched in 2003, which was initially intended to justify the US led invasion of Iraq. This central role of Zarqawi as an instrument of war propaganda was recently confirmed by leaked military documents revealed by the Washington Post.

The Pentagon had set up a "Zarqawi program". Military documents confirm that the role of Zarqawi had been deliberately "magnified" with a view to galvanizing public support for the US-UK led "war on terrorism":

"The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and "PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work..." (WP. 10 April 2006)

An internal document produced by U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, states that "the Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." (WP, op cit). (For further details see: Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend" - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2006-04-18)

full article from global research

al Zarqawi Air Strike

30
Michael Berg is one extremely brave and rational man, which almost guarantees that Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will soon question his sanity for these remarks.

Beheaded man's father: Revenge breeds revenge
Michael Berg talks about the death of his son and al-Zarqawi


Thursday, June 8, 2006; Posted: 2:41 p.m. EDT (18:41 GMT)

(CNN) -- The U.S.-led coalition's No. 1 wanted man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- who conducted a campaign of insurgency bombings, beheadings and killings of Americans and Iraqi civilians -- was killed in a U.S. airstrike.

A gruesome video was posted on Islamic Web sites in May, 2004, depicting a man believed to be al-Zarqawi beheading Nicholas Berg, an American businessman who was working in Iraq.

CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien talks to Nicholas Berg's father, Michael Berg, by phone from Wilmington, Delaware, for his reaction to the news.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.

MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.

I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.

BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?

BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?

O'BRIEN: There have been family members who have weighed in, victims, who've said that they don't think he's a martyr in heaven, that they think, frankly, he went straight to hell ...

You know, you talked about the fact that he's become a political figure. Are you concerned that he becomes a martyr and a hero and, in fact, invigorates the insurgency in Iraq?

BERG: Of course. When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously.

I've been shot at. I've been showed horrible pictures. I've been called all kinds of names and threatened by all kinds of people, and yet I feel that I have nothing left to lose, so I do those things.

Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?

That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?

O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading, which would say at some point, Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK -- that they'll be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of he was turned in, for example, we believe by his own No. 2, No. 3 leadership in his ranks.

And, that's actually them saying we do not want this kind of violence in our country. Experts whom we've spoken to this morning have said this is a critical moment where Iraqis need to figure out which direction the country is going to go. That would be an alternate reading to the scenario you're pointing to.

BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...

BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.

BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.

I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.

Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.

Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.

Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

O'BRIEN: Michael Berg is the father of Nicholas Berg, the young man, the young businessman who was beheaded so brutally in Iraq back in May of 2004.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests