AL-QAEDA LEADER KILLED IN BAGHDAD

[Michael Tee]

That they're devils doesn't make you angels.  Besides which, the world expected nothing better from them.  It expected a lot better from you.

[sirs]

With the exception of the deaths of al Qaeda members killed by U.S.  action, "good military news" should give no one any cause for rejoicing.

And yet, that was exactly what this story was about. An Al Queda leader was killed. The same Al queda that publishes the torture training manual that you found so abhorrent.
- And the first thing you did was doubt the veracity of the story,
- then you minimized it
- and then you ridiculed it.

SOP

[BT]

That they're devils doesn't make you angels.  Besides which, the world expected nothing better from them.  It expected a lot better from you.

I don't see why, if your assessment of us as knuckle dragging murderous rapists and thugs is anywhere near correct. Is it?

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . if your assessment of us as knuckle dragging murderous rapists and thugs is anywhere near correct. Is it?>>

You're really confused. 

You quoted my assessment of your military as if it were an assessment of the country as a whole.  America is a great country with some great people.   They have - - when the good guys were at the helm - - done some magnificent things and earned the admiration of the world.

Unfortunately, the good guys are no longer in control, and haven't been for some time now.  The bad guys are running the show and everything they touch, naturally, turns to shit.  Including the military.  They had a lot of time to turn it to shit and they've succeeded admirably.

[Plane]

<< . . . if your assessment of us as knuckle dragging murderous rapists and thugs is anywhere near correct. Is it?>>

You're really confused. 

You quoted my assessment of your military as if it were an assessment of the country as a whole.  America is a great country with some great people.   They have - - when the good guys were at the helm - - done some magnificent things and earned the admiration of the world.

Unfortunately, the good guys are no longer in control, and haven't been for some time now.  The bad guys are running the show and everything they touch, naturally, turns to shit.  Including the military.  They had a lot of time to turn it to shit and they've succeeded admirably.

Who are these "bad guys"?

[Michael Tee]

<<Who are these "bad guys"?>>

Well, there goes my Saturday.  Who are the bad guys?  I trace it all back to the downfall of Henry Wallace and the start of the Cold War - - Dean Acheson; John Foster Dulles;  John J. McCloy (who brought Nazi war criminals into the U.S. security apparatus); Allen Dulles; Kennedy (IMHO - - he started the Special Forces; he invaded Cuba); LBJ for sure; Kissinger; it goes on forever . . Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Rummy, Cheney.

Better you should ask:  Who aren't the bad guys?

There's always been a conflict in America between the idealistic, liberal and democratic souls on the one hand and the genocidal, Indian-killing, slave-driving, hegemonic demons on the other.  A battle for the soul of America, only now the bad guys have won, and won decisively and finally.  You could draw a line down the centre of a page and the names would fall naturally on the one side or the other, the side of light or the side of dark.  Jane Fonda here, Lt. Calley there; Condi here, Cindy Sheehan there.  If you have a decent, functioning moral compass, it's the easiest thing in the world.  You just cut through the bullshit and ask yourself:  by their actions, where do they stand? 

[Plane]

<<Who are these "bad guys"?>>

Well, there goes my Saturday.  Who are the bad guys?  I trace it all back to the downfall of Henry Wallace and the start of the Cold War - - Dean Acheson; John Foster Dulles;  John J. McCloy (who brought Nazi war criminals into the U.S. security apparatus); Allen Dulles; Kennedy (IMHO - - he started the Special Forces; he invaded Cuba); LBJ for sure; Kissinger; it goes on forever . . Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Rummy, Cheney.

Better you should ask:  Who aren't the bad guys?

There's always been a conflict in America between the idealistic, liberal and democratic souls on the one hand and the genocidal, Indian-killing, slave-driving, hegemonic demons on the other.  A battle for the soul of America, only now the bad guys have won, and won decisively and finally.  You could draw a line down the centre of a page and the names would fall naturally on the one side or the other, the side of light or the side of dark.  Jane Fonda here, Lt. Calley there; Condi here, Cindy Sheehan there.  If you have a decent, functioning moral compass, it's the easiest thing in the world.  You just cut through the bullshit and ask yourself:  by their actions, where do they stand? 

Tipical of a Liberal to see no shades of grey or understanding of nuance.

Kennedy was not the originator of the Bay of Pigs invasion plan , it was a legacy.

The Dulleses were not doing anything for the Communists that they had not done for the same reasons to the Natzi.

[Mucho]

<<Who are these "bad guys"?>>

Well, there goes my Saturday.  Who are the bad guys?  I trace it all back to the downfall of Henry Wallace and the start of the Cold War - - Dean Acheson; John Foster Dulles;  John J. McCloy (who brought Nazi war criminals into the U.S. security apparatus); Allen Dulles; Kennedy (IMHO - - he started the Special Forces; he invaded Cuba); LBJ for sure; Kissinger; it goes on forever . . Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Rummy, Cheney.

Better you should ask:  Who aren't the bad guys?

There's always been a conflict in America between the idealistic, liberal and democratic souls on the one hand and the genocidal, Indian-killing, slave-driving, hegemonic demons on the other.  A battle for the soul of America, only now the bad guys have won, and won decisively and finally.  You could draw a line down the centre of a page and the names would fall naturally on the one side or the other, the side of light or the side of dark.  Jane Fonda here, Lt. Calley there; Condi here, Cindy Sheehan there.  If you have a decent, functioning moral compass, it's the easiest thing in the world.  You just cut through the bullshit and ask yourself:  by their actions, where do they stand? 

Tipical of a Liberal to see no shades of grey or understanding of nuance.

Kennedy was not the originator of the Bay of Pigs invasion plan , it was a legacy.

The Dulleses were not doing anything for the Communists that they had not done for the same reasons to the Natzi.

Funny- You guys usually see in only black & white , but when you see colors, you screw them up.

[Brassmask]

These stories are simply laughable.

They're put out there for you guys to point at and say, "see, we're gettin' 'em but there is still lots of work to be done!"

It's moronic.

They act like people are going to say, "Wow!  They got (insert a middle eastern style name)?!?!?  Kick ass!"  No one knows who these guys are or even if they have really been killed.  They could write a story like this and use one of the hundreds of kids' names that have been killed in Iraq and no one would be the wiser.  I mean, they killed someone by that name, right?!?!   And that person was in Iraq, right?!?!  Musta been a terrorist and was probably the leader of a major "cell".

It's ludicrous.

[BT]

Brass ,

Give the military some time. The have only been at this media stuff for a little bit. Certainly you don't expect them to be half as good as the NY Times or the Washington  Post at posting half truths,  do you?

All sarcasm aside. It is a simple thing here. Either the story is true as reported or it isn't. And if it isn't their credibility suffers.

But the story is not untrue because you or Mikey want it to be untrue.

In that case your credibility suffers.

And even that doesn't matter if i doesn't matter to you.

[Michael Tee]

<<Kennedy was not the originator of the Bay of Pigs invasion plan , it was a legacy.>>

There's no such thing as legacies when it comes to the executive branch.  There's no reason whatsoever for the new team to be bound by the policies of the old team.  In Kennedy's case, he was elected to office because he claimed he could offer better leadership than what had previously been provided.  His opponent claimed the past leadership had done just fine.  How could JFK then have fulfilled his promise by slavishly carrying out the foolish plans of his defeated predecessors?  There was no obligation to do so.  It was his choice.

I have to say that JFK was not all bad.  By refusing to provide air cover to the Bay of Pigs mercenaries possibly despite promises that might have been made to them by the Eisenhower administration, he in effect had signed his own death warrant even as he liquidated the project.  Firing Allen Dulles and others in the wake of the invasion just made it worse, and indicating that he might be pulling out of Vietnam was the last straw.  JFK died for his "sins" so I do in fact regard him with mixed views.

<<The Dulleses were not doing anything for the Communists that they had not done for the same reasons to the Natzi.>>

The Dulles brothers betrayed a war-time ally by cooperating in the "containment" policies that Dean Acheson was able to foist on the Democratic Party after the ouster of Henry Wallace.  By provoking a Cold War, allying themselves with defeated fascist forces and inaugurating reigns of terror in such places as Guatemala and Iran.

[Michael Tee]

<<In that case your credibility suffers. >>

MY credibility suffers?  Let me remind you, I wasn't the one prancing around in a flight suit under a Mission Accomplished banner, claiming combat operations were just winding down.  I wasn't the one who waved around forged documents screaming hysterically that I had found proof positive that Saddam was building nukes.  I wasn't the one claiming things were getting better and better while they were getting worse and worse.

Why not just put this to a simple test?  Go back and find all the times that the military claimed to have killed a major enemy leader and ask yourself if this veritable Holocaust of the enemy leadership has had any noticeable effect at all on the progress of the war?

Don't worry about MY credibility, BT.  I'd be a little more concerned for the Army's and the administration's.

[BT]

Why not just put this to a simple test?  Go back and find all the times that the military claimed to have killed a major enemy leader and ask yourself if this veritable Holocaust of the enemy leadership has had any noticeable effect at all on the progress of the war?

This is what they said:
“A key link in the VBIED network has been removed,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.  “We will continue to assault the VBIED network in order to stop their indiscriminate attacks against the people of Iraq.”

What part of that statement is untrue?

[Brassmask]

Brass ,

Give the military some time. The have only been at this media stuff for a little bit. Certainly you don't expect them to be half as good as the NY Times or the Washington  Post at posting half truths,  do you?

All sarcasm aside. It is a simple thing here. Either the story is true as reported or it isn't. And if it isn't their credibility suffers.

But the story is not untrue because you or Mikey want it to be untrue.

In that case your credibility suffers.

And even that doesn't matter if i doesn't matter to you.

Are you kidding?
The military learned misinformation and propaganda from the Nazi masters.  After WWII, they simply gave all the Nazis they could get their hands on new jobs as military trainers for the US.

The military doesn't just use those techniques on foreign soil only, you know.  What do you think they've been doing for the last six or seven years on FOX "news"?

The military's claims of having destroyed another leader are moot since no one knows who they're talking about nor does anyone care.  Their credibility is nil on this subject since they have been caught in lie after lie.  Tillman, Lynch, WMD and on and on...

You're continued support of the military is touching.  I myself feel for the men and women on the ground who are "simply following orders" and have no control over the decisions regarding their deployment, their orders or their mission but the military leaders are the ones who should be housed in military prisons across the globe for their continued lies, disinformation and obfuscation.

People like you also bear some responsibility to those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for your continued willful ignorance (the most polite term I felt even remotely expressed what I meant) and unwillingness to believe any other source than the propaganda that continues to be the lamp post to you, the drunk.  (Meaning it is support rather than illumination.)

[Michael Tee]

<<A key link in the VBIED network has been removed,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.  “We will continue to assault the VBIED network in order to stop their indiscriminate attacks against the people of Iraq.”

<<What part of that statement is untrue?>>
 
For starters that a key link was removed.  They killed a guy.  Another guy will step up to the plate.  There is no "key link."  This is part of the Army's bullshit.  It reminded me of the statement by the "President" of "South Viet Nam"  - - a nameless schmuck now lost in the dustbin of history - - on the death of Ho Chi Minh:  "The snake has lost its head."  Meaningless rhetorical garbage.

The Iraqi Resistance - - as morally repulsive as parts of it obviously are, but certainly no more so than a U.S. regime which itself sponsors a worldwide network of torture and murder - - springs from the desire of an entire people to live free of foreign dominance, in full possession of their own natural resources and ordering their affairs the way they themselves in their own wisdom (or probably more accurately, their own unwisdom) see fit to do so.  It's like the scene from "Casablanca," where the Paul Henreid character "Viktor Laszlo" tells the Nazi, "And what if you do kill me?  Thousands more, from all over Europe, will spring up to take my place."

Nobody's a "key link" in the Revolution because the fight against oppression and fascism will go on no matter how many fall in the struggle.  To paint this one hapless schmuck as a "key link" is misleading because it indicates progress is being made.   In reality it was just one more ultimately senseless killing in a long chain of senseless killings that have no hope in hell of changing the ultimate outcome of the struggle to rid Iraq of its foreign occupiers and restore control of Iraqi oil to the Iraqis.