"Great Iraqi Victory" a massacre + a cover-up?

[Michael Tee]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece

<<US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'
<<By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
<<Published: 31 January 2007

<<There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.
<<A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.>>

You can read the whole article at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece but basically it seems that some trigger-happy guards at the check-point killed a carload of cult leaders and their families, prompting the rest of the cult to open fire, the panicked "Iraqi Army" troops to call in U.S. air support and the usual indiscriminate massacre to follow.  The victims' "plot" to seize the mosques and assassinate al Sistani and the entire Shi'ite leadership was an afterthought, a little bit of PR that was either dreamed up on the spot by the puppets themselves or, IMHO, more likely a cute little spin developed by the world's greatest bullshit and cover-up artists, the U.S. Army.

This could be as big a victory for the U.S. Army as the "Battle" of My Lai.  Congratulations are once again in order.  That "light" is again appearing at the end of the tunnel.

[Michael Tee]

But here's Juan Cole's comment on the above story - -

http://www.juancole.com/

under the heading "Bush comment farcical" about three or four grafs down from the top.  Juan thinks there are a lot of holes in BOTH the Cockburn story and the official line.

Juan is a little skeptical about the cultists travelling by night, but I don't see a problem with that - - you travel all night to arrive somewhere at dawn, especially during some religious holidays when dawn might have a special significance at a special destination.

Either way, Cockburn or Cole, the U.S. government spin on this thing is bullshit.   But I guess the U.S. gov't would say the same about Cockburn AND Cole.  The one account I don't believe is the U.S. gov't account, simply because guerrillas wouldn't stand and fight under U.S. airpower.  They'd spread out and disperse on pre-arrranged escape routes at the first sign of helicopters arriving and probably before then, based on known copter arrival times.

[Mucho]

This story smelled like bullshit from the minute I got a whiff of it. http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1708.msg14915#msg14915 First of all the number of dead went up & down. People usually stay dead, dont ya know. Secondly, it was a group of Sunnis AND shiites that were to attack a group of Shiites, d'oh. Thirdly, attackers were previously "unheard of"-riiiigght. And finally the Iraqi troops fought well and we were only there for "support-BWAHAHAHA!
Who but the most  retarded believer in Bushidiot lies would buy all that crap?

[Plane]

This cult travels in large groups by night , packig anti-aircraft rockets ad fights a pitched battle when cornered.

[sirs]

But here's Juan Cole's comment on the above story - - under the heading "Bush comment farcical" about three or four grafs down from the top.  Juan thinks there are a lot of holes in BOTH the Cockburn story and the official line.  Juan is a little skeptical about the cultists travelling by night, but I don't see a problem with that - - you travel all night to arrive somewhere at dawn, especially during some religious holidays when dawn might have a special significance at a special destination.  Either way, Cockburn or Cole, the U.S. government spin on this thing is bullshit.   

Good gravy, the art of rationalizing evil, while portraying the U.S as evil incarnate, hitting new lows today.     

[Mucho]

This cult travels in large groups by night , packig anti-aircraft rockets ad fights a pitched battle when cornered.

Still looking to absolve the lying mass murderers you put in  power? Muslims travel in large groups on pilgrimages all the time day & night sometimes and nearly all Iraqis carry weapons these days.:
 "Most of the Iraqis use guns to express their joy, grief, anger…etc."
Posted by oblivious on Sun Nov-26-06 11:06 AM
Iraqis adore guns. It appears in every field of their legacy, culture, everyday life and so on. Most of the Iraqis use guns to express their joy, grief, anger…etc. Shooting guns in air is a regular daily incident. I can recall long ago, when I was a kid, a funeral procession of a tribe leader (Sheik). Hundreds of men were shooting their guns in air, and I can recollect the fear & horror I felt then.

Saddam era, through several wars, made the relation between Iraqis and arms much closer, and the society have been militarized. On the 8th of August 1988, Iraq-Iran war came to an end. And to celebrate ceasing fire in a war which seemed to be an endless one, the Iraqis kept on firing their guns for three days! It caused death to more than 300 people and injured more than 3000 in Baghdad only. One of my acquaintances lost his pregnant wife at that time. She was killed by a bullet falling back to ground hit her head.

The common way to warn people of a moving car is to honk the horn, and of the emergency vehicles is to use siren. A brand new way of warning people of a coming procession is used nowadays in Iraq, that’s shooting guns in air. So a driver may be totally taken by surprise by an IP or National Guard vehicle shooting in the air to make their way. The American troops use a developed method by shooting directly at cars to draw attention of other drivers.

http://ibnalrafidain.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_ibnalrafidain_archive.html

Anyone might defend themselves when attacked and someone defending himself would seem like a pitched battle to the Iraqi Security Force cowards.

[sirs]

Hmmmmm, whom to believe?  Knute, Tee, and insurgents/terrorists posing as apparently well armed religious folks on some midnight pilgrimage or U.S. and Iraqi security forces defending the newfound freedoms and democracy brought to the Iraqi people.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[BT]

Hmmm.

So basically the Iraqi Army is not ready to take over their own security and in an effort to cover up their incompetence made up the entire backstory to the battle.

Guess that adds at least another year to the timetable for withdrawal.

Wonder if that was Cockburns intent.

[sirs]

Hmmm.  So basically the Iraqi Army is not ready to take over their own security and in an effort to cover up their incompetence made up the entire backstory to the battle.  Guess that adds at least another year to the timetable for withdrawal.   Wonder if that was Cockburns intent.

You know what I have noticed a little more often, though not necessarily in the mainscream news, where it should be happening a whole hell of a lot more, but folks asking politicians & pundits, who are so knee-jerk opposed to Bush and/or the war on terrorism (in general) and the war in Iraq (specifically), "Do you want to see America win this war?"  It's obvious via the above rationalizations of Tee & knute, how that's the last thing they want to see.  (America --> evil, U.S. military --> evil, Bush --> moron/Hitler.....everything else can be rationalized & justified.)  But it's also entertaining watching the 3 part essay answer, to what really is a yes or no question

[Michael Tee]

 <<but folks asking politicians & pundits, who are so knee-jerk opposed to Bush and/or the war on terrorism (in general) and the war in Iraq (specifically), "Do you want to see America win this war?" >>

That's a no-brainer, and the answer is NO.  Why SHOULD the U.S. win this war?  They violated the UN Charter by invading a country that posed no immediate threat (given the distance between them and the relative power of the two nations, it's a patent absurdity to think of Iraq as a threat to the U.S.) and THEN they kill about 100,000 Iraqis, imprison and torture unknown thousands more and still persist in the outrageous charade of maintaining an army there to "bring democracy" to the Iraqis.   That was kind of like asking a German if he or she wants to see Germany win WWII.

<< It's obvious via the above rationalizations of Tee & knute, how that's the last thing they want to see.  (America --> evil, U.S. military --> evil, Bush --> moron/Hitler.....>>

Well, at least you got that almost right, although I've said on numerous occasions that Bush is nothing at all like Hitler except that they're both lying amoral snakes.

<<everything else can be rationalized & justified.>>

WHAT does "rationalizing and justifying"  have to do with telling a simple truth? 

<<But it's also entertaining watching the 3 part essay answer, to what really is a yes or no question>>
More bullshit - - it's always been a simple No, but since this IS a debating club, some of us think that the explanations that accompany the straight answers are at least as interesting as monosyllabic, one-word answers seem to be to you.

[Michael Tee]

<<Hmmmmm, whom to believe?  Knute, Tee, and insurgents/terrorists posing as apparently well armed religious folks on some midnight pilgrimage or U.S. and Iraqi security forces defending the newfound freedoms and democracy brought to the Iraqi people.

<<Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.>>

Hmmm, whom to believe?  A group of men and women who've never shown the slightest interest at any time in their entire lives in bringing freedom and democracy to the people of the U.S.A. , who claim to have suddenly developed a burning interest in bringing freedom and democracy to [wait for it!] IRAQ of all places, but whose primary justification for the war in the first place was fictitious "weapons of mass destruction" and the absurd idea that Iraq was a dire threat to the U.S.A. and who just happen, by sheer coincidence of course, to have laid hold of the world's second biggest proven reserves of oil in so doing?  or just about everyone else on the planet, who finally see that these lying bastards are all fulla shit?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[BT]

Mikey,

You didn't post the truth.

You posted a column that coincided with your worldview.

Simple as that.

[Michael Tee]

I didn't vouch for either of the two articles BT - - just pointed out that even if they both couldn't be correct, either one of them made more sense than the administration bullshit that portrayed the victims of the massacre as foiled participants in some bizarre plot by minority Shi'a to assassinate the entire mainstream Shi'ite religious leadership.

My comments in my last post were basically not in defence of either Juan Cole's or Patrick Cockburn's views but just meant to ridicule sirs' knee-jerk obeisance to whatever BS his beloved "President" chooses to put out, however unlikely it might appear to be.

[sirs]

<<but folks asking politicians & pundits, who are so knee-jerk opposed to Bush and/or the war on terrorism (in general) and the war in Iraq (specifically), "Do you want to see America win this war?" >>

That's a no-brainer, and the answer is NO.  

I rest my case.  Thus everything that leads to that conclusion is thus justfied and/or rationalized.  Not just is, but must be, in order to follow the predisposed template.  Insurgents, heavily armed, moving at night, MUST be Religious pilgrims heading for a.....? (what's the big AM celebration they were heading for again, Tee?), who just happened to be armed to the teeth.  They're simply religious folk because....well because they would have had pre-arranged escape routes otherwise.  It's the only explaination.  They're heavily armed because.....well, because the U.S. military is a bunch of murdering rapists, so they have to protect themselves.  Yea......that's it

[Michael Tee]

<<I rest my case [on me, Michael Tee, saying that I don't want the U.S. to win its illegal war of aggression and self-aggrandizement.] ..

I have to say, that's a pretty weak reed on which to rest ANY case.  Any normal, decent, law-abiding, straight-thinking person would want the U.S. to lose this war.  What gives them the right to invade any country they choose and take control of its natural resources for their own benefit?  Who but a fascist thug would ever want them to win?

 <<Thus everything that leads to that conclusion is thus justfied and/or rationalized.  Not just is, but must be, in order to follow the predisposed template. >>

Well, first of all, I didn't say that either Cole or Cockburn "must be" right, just that the U.S. government version was obvious bullshit.  They lie all the time, what would have happened to suddenly convert them into purveyors of pure truth for this one single massacre?

<< Insurgents, heavily armed, moving at night, MUST be Religious pilgrims heading for a.....? >>

PROBABLY were religious pilgrims because it's a holy festival time and the alternative explanation (a guerrilla band) doesn't match the lop-sided casualty count or the stand-and-fight rather than melt away tactics of the typical guerrilla band.

<<(what's the big AM celebration they were heading for again, Tee?)>>

How the fuck would I know, what am I, part of their religion now?  I speculated that they might be heading for dawn prayers on a day that was holy to them in a place that was holy to them.  The first prayer of the Muslim day is before sunrise.  What the hell is so unlikely that a group of pilgrims headed for a holy place want to make a pre-dawn prayer there or maybe a full cycle of all their daily prayers there?


<<, who just happened to be armed to the teeth. >>

WOW!!!!!   ARMED TO THE TEETH.  And in IRAQ, of all places.   I could see religious pilgrims being armed to the teeth in the Vatican Library, maybe, but in IRAQ?   Man is that Tee crazy.  I'll bet the next thing he tries to tellya is that Iraq is a violent place.  BWAHAHAHAHAHAH.

 <<They're simply religious folk because....well because they would have had pre-arranged escape routes otherwise. >>

No, they're NOT GUERRILLAS because guerrillas don't attack superior forces and then stand and fight - - especially when the superior forces can call in U.S. air support. 

<< It's the only explaination.  They're heavily armed because.....well, because the U.S. military is a bunch of murdering rapists, so they have to protect themselves.  >>

Yeah, what a radical thought.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis blown to bits, kidnapped, tortured and murdered by the U.S. forces and these guys want to arm themselves for protection?  Whoa, incredible.  Why don't they just lie down on their backs in the middle of the road and ask the U.S. army to bayonet them in the gut like any normal reasonable man would do?  Why fight the inevitable?

sirs, your knowledge and grasp of the real world continue to amaze me.