Assassinations for U.S. Support?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Why would we need him dead, we needed him alive, thats the reason for collaborators. People willing to provide information, support, etc. Al Qaeda pretty much deals with anybody that collaborators with what they called occupation Crusaders. They make it look like they are the good guys who did a good thing.

why would we need him dead?
well one could argue that even though he was collaborating with US forces he was only one man. now with him killed ALL his followers will be fighters against al qaeda. seems like a good trade off in the eyes of the US, garnering LOCAL support for a (now common) enemy.
BTW this isnt totally unreasonable to assume it was a covert operation. this kind of thing has been going on for decades.

so they are only terrorist if the state department designates them as such,
so what happens when they just decide to designate the iranian guard as a terrorist organization?

all war is terrorism. terrorism is a farce, its a phony word. terrorism in their defination is just another word for guerilla tactics.

real terrorism is dropping bombs on iraqi market places, and shooting civilians in their cars who drive by blackwater contractors, thats terrorism.

guerilla warfare is a real tactic. terrorism is a label they slap on forces they dont like.

Originally posted by turbokid

why would we need him dead?
well one could argue that even though he was collaborating with US forces he was only one man. now with him killed ALL his followers will be fighters against al qaeda. seems like a good trade off in the eyes of the US, garnering LOCAL support for a (now common) enemy.
BTW this isnt totally unreasonable to assume it was a covert operation. this kind of thing has been going on for decades.

He was one man, but important enough for Al Qaeda to kill him in the first place. Remember that Bush also indeed considered him important enough to shake hands with him. The man had that much influence. Not to mention that much of his family was killed as well since he started cooperating with the U.S.

Originally posted by TheRepublic

real terrorism is dropping bombs on iraqi market places, and shooting civilians in their cars who drive by blackwater contractors, thats terrorism.

guerilla warfare is a real tactic. terrorism is a label they slap on forces they dont like.

You mean car bombings in Iraq by insurgents, or thats just guerrilla warfare... hmm?

yes an insurgent who is engaging in a car bombing is fighting using guerrila warfare tactic.

but on the news you will hear "an al queda related terrorist group car bombed a us checkpoint today..."

terrorism the way the media uses it is just a smear label

Originally posted by TheRepublic
yes an insurgent who is engaging in a car bombing is fighting using guerrila warfare tactic.

but on the news you will hear "an al queda related terrorist group car bombed a us checkpoint today..."

terrorism the way the media uses it is just a smear label

And when using car bombings against mosques, funerals, and markets?

alright man i dont think we are ever going to come to any conclusions because you buy into the official news and i do not. but alas i will try...

"bombing against a mosque"
lets take the golden mosque which got blown up again a few months ago, by an "al queda related group"

now this mosque has been around for centuries and has never been bombed, exept what do you know when we have been in iraq. actully twice been bombed since weve been there.

so who stands to benifit from violence between shia's and sunnis? not the shias, and not the sunnis ill tell you that much. how come these people have lived together for centuries in relative peace but when the US comes to town highly guarded religious sites get blown up all but assuring civil war. do the people benifit at all from this violence. NO.

what does the US get from civil strife and violence? an excuse to "stay the course" and sit around sucking up oil and crapping out tax dollars to contractors. If Iraq was peaceful the US would have to leave and give the country back to the iraquis. If it is ensared in civil war because heavily guarded holy sites keep getting blown up by "al quaeda related groups" then the US has a reason to stay.

but you keep believin what the corperate media says....

(implied message of post is the US let, or helped bomb the golden mosque to incite war)


[edit on 14-9-2007 by TheRepublic]

Originally posted by TheRepublic
alright man i dont think we are ever going to come to any conclusions because you buy into the official news and i do not. but alas i will try...

"bombing against a mosque"
lets take the golden mosque which got blown up again a few months ago, by an "al queda related group"

now this mosque has been around for centuries and has never been bombed, exept what do you know when we have been in iraq. actully twice been bombed since weve been there.

Gee you haven't study Islam much about Shia versus Sunnis over just the title of the Prophet. Not to mention that Saddam prevented them from killing each other in the first place. After all why you think Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Pakistan which I might point out the U.S. has yet to invade. Saddam is overthrown and Sunnis out of power and Shiites in power, well think of Yugoslavia when Serbs, Bosnians, Croatians, etc.

so who stands to benifit from violence between shia's and sunnis? not the shias, and not the sunnis ill tell you that much. how come these people have lived together for centuries in relative peace but when the US comes to town highly guarded religious sites get blown up all but assuring civil war. do the people benifit at all from this violence. NO.

Highly guarded by Iraqis themselves but easy to see Al Qaeda infiltrating since they speak Arabic easily and look Arabic which they are, anyways some people in the Arab world want to incite Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other anyways, especially by Al Qaeda which benefits the most since they considered Shiites as heretics as they called them, worse then Jews and American Crusaders. After all the U.S. has been trying to point out success that it is peaceful, the next thing you hear is another bomb being blown up in a mosque or market. Thats the reason.

what does the US get from civil strife and violence? an excuse to "stay the course" and sit around sucking up oil and crapping out tax dollars to contractors. If Iraq was peaceful the US would have to leave and give the country back to the iraquis. If it is ensared in civil war because heavily guarded holy sites keep getting blown up by "al quaeda related groups" then the US has a reason to stay.

but you keep believin what the corperate media says....

The U.S. govt. has been trying to find ANY success that it is peaceful, which Bush has been using Anbar as an example. And I have watch the corporate media being critical of the Bush adminstration in keeping the peace, I guess that is what you perceive it to be that its Bush puppets.

look man i know alot more about islam than most people on here. thats why i said relative peace....

it is in all peoples best intrest that there not be a civil war in iraq except for the US's intrest. that is why right after the bombing prominent iraqui clerics on both sides claimed that the US did it to incite violence and begged their followers not to fight each other.

talking to you is like talking to myself 4 years ago. i used to believe all that stuff, i was for the iraq war. i applied to join an intelligence agency. i went over seas. i learned arabic. and i saw how things really are. and it changed my life....i cant tell you how it is... but you have to go over for yourself to find out. the media keeps everyone in the US in a bubble.

you think you know whats going on but you wont, you cant, they lie to you. its not youre fault.

just try and see who benefits, and forget politics...

Originally posted by TheRepublic


it is in all peoples best intrest that there not be a civil war in iraq except for the US's intrest. that is why right after the bombing prominent iraqui clerics on both sides claimed that the US did it to incite violence and begged their followers not to fight each other.

The Iraqi clerics claimed it, yet it seems the Iraqi people seem to know who to blame it on instead. You know its very easy to blame it on Jews or the CIA and get the Iraqis to take their hatred on them without having to lift a finger. But who do they take it on? Each other. Because somehow somewhere they knew who was to blame on.

talking to you is like talking to myself 4 years ago. i used to believe all that stuff, i was for the iraq war. i applied to join an intelligence agency. i went over seas. i learned arabic. and i saw how things really are. and it changed my life....i cant tell you how it is... but you have to go over for yourself to find out. the media keeps everyone in the US in a bubble.
...

I don't care if you do all that stuff and try to tell me you was in my shoes 4 years yada yada yada. You believe this, I believe that.

you dont have to care i was just saying.
and i agree you believe this i believe that so we wont agree and we cant even discuss this because are views are too diffrent. in fact i said that 5 posts ago. so watever.

On that note ....

Back to Blackwater in the news again ...
License Pulled in Iraq

The Iraqi government said Monday that it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghdad.

The Interior Ministry said it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force in the Sunday shooting. It was latest accusation against the U.S.-contracted firms that operate with little or no supervision and are widely disliked by Iraqis who resent their speeding motorcades and forceful behavior.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by tyranny22]

Bogus Sheik?

I don’t know if any one here has yet posted something about fake Sheik Abu Risha.
This men was killed last week by Al Qaeda because he help the US to fight them.
Now reporter for BBC, Greg Palast says that this was a Bush’s Fake Sheik.
According to him , this guy was not a Sheik at all.
Greg Palast has also made a link about the documentary that he has made with an interview with the so called “Fake Sheik”.
The link below is the editorial by Greg Palast.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

this link below will guide you to Filmmakers Rick Rowley and David Enders documantery.

english.aljazeera.net...


kacou

I'll break it down for those of you who don't understand what happened.
Al Anbar province was once considered a lost cause full of all sorts of Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda, and other foreign fighters. At that time, they had the common goal of fighting US forces. Then the Iraqis got tired of Al Qaeda/Foreigners imposing their brand of Islamic interpretation/rules on them(i.e. intimidation, murder, thuggery, kidnapping, beatings, etc..).
The Iraqis then decided that the US forces were far more agreeable to them then the aforementioned groups. Tribal leaders/Sheiks have great influence in Arab culture, and the members will listen to and follow the guidance from them. Al Anbar province is now a model of success in Iraq, as Iraqi Tribal leaders/Sheiks have been cooperating with US forces against Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda realizes that when the locals are no longer helping them, but the US forces, it makes their job much harder, and contributes to the defeats they have been experiencing. Based on this, who do you suppose Al Qaeda might be interested in targeting?
The reason the US General and forces were at the funeral was because this individual had become a valuable Ally in the fight to stabilize the Al Anbar province, and rid it of foreign/terrorist influence, and to prevent any interference/attacks from enemy combatants.

reply to post by TheRepublic


Civil war in Iraq is in no one's best interest except groups and nations that don't want a stable, democratically elected government in their backyard.
I guarantee you, the US Military isn't interested in creating situations where it takes on more deaths/casualties.

I guarantee you, the US Military isn't interested in creating situations where it takes on more deaths/casualties.

Too bad the US Military takes the orders instead of giving them then

The US military may not be interested in taking casualties, but I assure you that those in the White House are quite ready to sacrifice as many of our servicemen as they have to in order to preserve/extend their power.

If it's a choice between US soldiers' lives and Haliburton's profits, you can bet the soldiers are going to lose out every time.

reply to post by xmotex


It's not only Haliburton but security, defense, and industrial contractors as well.

But, it's been speculated that the reason for invasion is that we're currently at the peak of our oil reserves. From this decade and on the oil production will continue to diminish until we no longer have this as a natural resource.

This would have been a major cause of concern for the future of trillionaires fortunes. Thus, the invasion of Iraq and also Iran was a neccessity. (At least in the eyes of the of those who's greed over-exceeds their moral principals)