A Guide to Fighting Terrorism
To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can’t think why no one has thought of it before. It’s so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today.
The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards’ bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so – or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt – we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren’t, because they don’t go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers.
It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs – preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.
Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It’s a big place and it’s by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job.
It’s going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets.
Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick’s Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull’s-eye.
In those American cities we couldn’t afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where we could have given them food packets marked ‘My Kind of Meal’ and exposed them to the elements with a clear conscience.
The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area.
And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.
So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let’s make the world a safer place.
– From Terry Jones (Monty Python)

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 20 2005 12:39 utc | 3

there is a horrible quiet about iraq in europe at present
really horrible

Posted by: slugger o toole | Nov 20 2005 14:02 utc | 5

@ Outraged:
Today’s torturers are tomorrow’s talk-show hosts.
Re. Python: If anyone is to make the ‘Apocalypse Now’ of Iraq, it should be Terry Guilliam: like ‘Brazil,’ but with less of the cozy optimism…

Posted by: Tantalus | Nov 20 2005 14:07 utc | 7

‘Former’ Department of Defence (DOD) manuals (apologies for long post):

‘Fact Sheet Concerning Training Manuals Containing Materials Inconsistent With U.S. Policy
From the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense/Public Affairs Office
Documents:
Report from Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight,
“Report of Investigation, Improper Material in Spanish-Language Intelligence Training Manuals”, 10 March 1992.
Memorandum from Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence,
“DoD Policy on Intelligence and Counterintelligence Training of Non-United States Persons”, 27 August, 1992.
Summary of Objectionable and Questionable Passages
Note: these passages are taken out of context
Handling of Sources
-p 1 (Translation p. 1)
“information obtained involuntarily from insurgents who have been captured.”
-p. 31 (Translation p. 25)
“In addition, if an individual has been recruited using fear as a weapon, the CI agent must in a position of [sic] maintain the threat.”
-p. 32 (Translation p. 26)
“Specific individuals, organizations, and commercial companies must be the object of infiltration by government employees, in order to obtain information about the guerrillas.”
-p 35 (Translation p. 28)
“The CI agent must offer presents and compensation for information leading to the arrest, capture, or death of guerrillas.”
-p. 79 (Translation p. 65)
“The CI agent could cause the arrest of the employee’s parents, imprison the employee or give him a beating as part of the placement plan of said employee in the guerrilla organization.”
-p. 80 (Translation p. 66)
“The employee’s value could be increased by means of arrests, executions, or pacification[,] taking care not to expose the employee as the information source.”
-p. 80 (Translation p. 66)
“There are other methods of providing external assistance in order to assure the promotion of an employee. A method of achieving this promotion is by influencing an employee who has a much higher position in the guerrilla organization, another is to eliminate a potential rival among the guerrillas.”
-p. 147 (Translation p. 122-23)
“The ancient Romans had a saying ‘in vino veritras’ [sic] there is much truth in wine-with that they wanted to say that a drunk man reveals his true thought and real reactions. If we could observe our employee drinking or in a drunken state, we could learn much about him.”
-p. 148 (Translation p. 122)
“I am going to mention some of the mechanical methods to test, which could be used under certain extenuating circumstances. Sodiopentathol compound, which is an anesthetic drug, it could be used intravenously injected and would have the result of a ‘truth serum’…Another method that can be used is hypnotism.”
-p. (Translation p. 155)
“If the agent suspects that he could have difficulty in separating an employee, that the separation is to his advantage. That could convince the employee that he has been compromised by the guerrillas. That continuing working for the government could result in serious consequences for the employee and his family. If the employee does not believe this story, other measures could be taken to convince him placing anonymous telegrams or sending anonymous letters. Many other techniques could be used which are only limited by the agent’s imagination.”
-p. 156 (Translation p. 129-30)
“In the majority of cases, the purpose of the informal separation technique will be to have the employee ‘placed on the black list’ by all government agencies, or threatens [sic] to expose himself or admit his activities, or bring about his removal by means of imprisonment, threat of imprisonment, or voluntary or forced reestablishment….Threats should not be made unless they can be carried out. There are many disadvantages in the use of threats of physical violence or true physical abuse.”
Counterintelligence
Chapter 25 uses the term “neutralization”
Revolutionary War and Communist Ideology
-p 49
“It is essential that internal intelligence agencies obtain information on the political party or parties that support the insurgent movement, on the influence the insurgent has on them, and on the substance of non-violent attacks the insurgents perpetrate against the government.”
-p. 61
Insurgents “can be considered criminal by the legitimate government” and are “afraid to be brutalized after capture.”
Terrorism and the Urban Guerrilla
-pp. 40 and 69
Mention of names of U.S. citizens
-p. 112
“Another function of CI agents is recommending CI targets for neutralizing. The CI targets can include personalities, installations, organizations

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 20 2005 14:19 utc | 9

Short sighted Double Vey? When an Iraqi attempts to assassinate his dumb ass, who will avenge?

Posted by: ken melvin | Nov 20 2005 17:10 utc | 11

Back when Negroponte was mooted for Iraq I confess to being a bit sanguine about it because the Iraqis had such a good history of getting on with each other (sunni and shia) that I couldn’t see how they could possible drive a wedge through the community.
However I reckoned without USA’s considerable experience in hunting out and recruiting psychopaths. Once they have been put to work the rest is easy because the terror they wreak upon a community soon causes the havoc required to stop any organised opposition. The real problem is though how in hell do you get the oil out from a state in advanced psychosis?
Simple really. Recruit some psychotics to keep the roads open. The Independent has an article detailing the different gangs who have been trained and put in place to keep the roads open:
“Baghdad is now a city in the shadow of gunmen. As I left the Hamra to replace what was lost in my bombed room, I had to negotiate checkpoints of the Badr militia, their Shia enemies, the Mehdi Army of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Kurdish peshmerga. The Iraqi police and the government paramilitaries have their own roadblocks.
And there are others: the Shia Defenders of Khadamiya – set up under Hussein al-Sadr, a cousin of Muqtada, who is an ally of the former prime minister Iyad Allawi – and the government-backed Tiger and Scorpion brigades. They all have similar looks: balaclavas or wraparound sunglasses and headbands, black leather gloves with fingers cut off, and a variety of weapons. When not manning checkpoints, they hurtle through the streets in four-wheel drives, scattering the traffic by firing in the air.”
The nature of the chaos that is visited upon a community which Negroponte and Co have ‘sent Salvadorian’ means that a perpetual motion machine of killers is created. It is no longer neccessary to actively import recruit and train the sort of people that any decent society spends huge resources on to help get through the shitstorm that is their life. No young men who see the world around them now get the message without any expensive “School of the Americas” Training:
“The young man shook his head about what happened at the Hamra. “That is bad, very bad,” he said. “But you are alive, that is good – too many dead people in Baghdad.” He was keen to make the point that “the people like us because we kill the people who try to kill them. Listen, mister, we are fighting bad people, you cannot treat them like normal persons.”
But what about the innocent who get caught and end up being abused in detention centres? “Mister, those are just lies, you must not believe them. These people are terrorists. We are here because the police cannot do the job by themselves.”
Of course it can get out of hand from time to time:
“The paramilitary influence on the police is particularly overt in the British-controlled south of Iraq, where the British invited the militias to join the security forces, and then saw them take over. Nothing was done by the British authorities when police in plain clothes, along with their militia colleagues, killed Christians, claiming they sold alcohol, or Sunnis for being supposedly Baathists.
Action was only belatedly taken when a particularly menacing faction, a “force within a force” based at the Jamiat police station on the outskirts of Basra, captured two SAS soldiers who were gathering information on their mistreatment of prisoners.
British troops smashed into a police station to rescue the two soldiers and later arrested more than a dozen others. But now they more or less stay out of Basra, leaving Iraq’s second city at the mercy of a police force that even its commanders say they barely control. There have been dozens of assassinations, including that of at least one foreign journalist.”
Hannah I think we are in the process of combining a telephone book. Do you think we should include a yellow pages to let our fingers do the walking I is where you look for instigators. T for torturers and the all encompassing A for assholes.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 20 2005 18:37 utc | 13

Hey all, why are you all so negative about Iraq. At least the electricity is back on now. And here is even proof:
British-trained police in Iraq ‘killed prisoners with drills’

Militia-dominated police, who were recruited by Britain, are believed to have tortured at least two men to death in the station. Their bodies were later found with drill holes to their arms, legs and skulls.
The victims were suspected of collaborating with coalition forces, according to intelligence reports. Despite being pressed “very hard” by Britain, however, the Iraqi authorities in Basra are failing to even investigate incidents of torture and murder by police, ministers admit.

Riverbend: House of Horrors…

These torture houses have existed since the beginning of the occupation. While it is generally known that SCIRI is behind them, other religious parties are not innocent. The Americans know they exist- why the sudden shock and outrage? This is hardly news for Americans in the Green Zone. The timing is quite interesting- it shouldn’t matter that this raid came immediately after the whole white phosphorous story came out, but the Pentagon and American military have proven to be the ultimate masters of diversion.
…
For over a year corpses have been turning up all over Baghdad. Corpses of people who are taken from their homes in the middle of the night (lately they’ve been more brazen- they just do everything in the light of day), and turn up dead somewhere. That isn’t as disturbing as the reports about the bodies- the one I can’t get out of my head is that many of the corpses are found with holes in the skull left by an electric drill.
…
Interior Minister Bayan Jabr (SCIRI Thug-Made-Government-Official-In-Italian-Suits) is mollifying Iraqis with this little gem,
…the group included Shiites as well as Sunnis……
I’m sure we can all sleep better at night with the knowledge that SCIRI/Da’awa torturers don’t discriminate according to religious sect- under the new constitution, American military guidance, and the blessings of the Pentagon- all Iraqis will be tortured equally.

Posted by: b | Nov 20 2005 19:06 utc | 15

Re the SAS troopers who were operating covertly, out of uniform, in disguise … hm, should they have been declared ‘enemy combatants’ and denied legal protections under the Law and the Geneva Conventions ?
Preemptive covert operations … yet another pseudo-agency of the expanded powers DOD and with direct input by the White House via the NSC … no Congressional oversight …

Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 20 2005 19:55 utc | 17

Billmon, if you’re still reading here: outstanding post. If you’re not: What a shame your skin is so thin, your temper so short.

Posted by: Nell | Nov 20 2005 20:02 utc | 19

British Intel Ops Unmentioned in the Corporate Media
Jarlath Kearney, writing for the Daily Ireland, draws a crucial comparison that will of course be completely ignored by the larger corporate media. The incident in Basra, where two SAS undercover operatives were captured, dressed as Arabs and driving a car loaded with weapons and explosives, is similar to an earlier incident in Northern Ireland, where the SAS operated for years. “The incident drew parallels with the March 1988 attack on the funeral of IRA volunteer Caoimhghin Mac Bradaigh,” writes Kearney. “During that incident, two armed and undercover army intelligence operatives drove directly at the cortege in west Belfast. After firing a shot, both soldiers were subsequently captured, beaten and shot dead by the IRA.” Lucky for the British intelligence operatives in Basra, they were not murdered, although apparently beaten.
Kearney also mentions that Brigadier (in the Intelligence Corps) Gordon Kerr, who “played a key role in the activities of covert British activities in the North [of Ireland],” is “now stationed with British forces in Iraq.”…
…Likewise the “establishment” knows what is happening in Iraq—no doubt the sort of “dirty war” launched by the likes of Gordon Kerr and FRU is confirmed British policy (a collaborative effort with American intelligence and Rumsfeld’s Pentagon), well “outside the law.”
Naturally, all of this is simply irrelevant because the corporate media will not report it…

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 20 2005 20:18 utc | 21

Interesting – Rumsfeld talking against Murtha: Rumsfeld, Murtha Continue War of Words Over Iraq

“Put yourself in the shoes of the enemy. The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder maybe all we have to do is wait and we’ll win. We can’t win militarily. They know that. The battle is here in the United States.”

Yes they know. Guerillia never has to win they only have to avoid defeat.

Posted by: b | Nov 20 2005 21:54 utc | 23

Watch it joejoejoe, you may get beat with socks and soap.
It sure looks like the shit has hit the fan for real in Iraq. The civil war is just a matter of time. Its in the beginning stage, but the full blown war within Iraq’s borders will soon start. If the US starts to pull out, or as Murtha would like, pull back to Kuwait and have a quick strick force made up of the marines, or “hit squads”, I believe blood will flow like water.
This whole taking over the worlds second largest oil reserves thing just hasn’t worked out like planned.

Posted by: jdp | Nov 20 2005 22:16 utc | 25

Just because suicide bombers who are dazed and confused adolescents or otherwise disordered older people, believe that they are blowing up the world for the jihad or so that ‘Sunnis Rule OK’ it doesn’t neccessarily follow that the people who recruited the soon to be dead idjit, armed him/her and selected the target believe this also.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 20 2005 23:50 utc | 27

Debs,
The motive that Grady provides for suicide bombing on the part of Coalation and/or Israeli operatives is not just assinine. It’s hilariously assinine.
But you are free to run with it.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 21 2005 0:22 utc | 29

More stupidity.
Sigh.
What other bombings, DM, do you think Grady is referring to? Those spectacular bombs in place? Oh, but wait, that’s not the mass casualty method employed by insurgents/jihadists against Iraqis.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 21 2005 0:55 utc | 31

“Maybe, but maybe not quite as stupid as you and your buddies think.”
What buddies would those be, DM?

Posted by: Pat | Nov 21 2005 2:01 utc | 33

Randi Rhodes was screaming about this type of thing being bound to happen when Negroponte was hired on. I wonder if she gets tired of being right all the time.
When all is said and done..we’ll be damned lucky if there is any country left that will come to our aide next time we need it.
We’re fucking Rome.

Posted by: carla | Nov 21 2005 2:53 utc | 35

Sorry to add to the wrinkles in your armor Pat, but to confirm that many of these “suicide” attacks are false flag, one only has to ask the oft-neglected question, “cui bono?”
Perpetual war (at your immediate risk and cost I’d suggest) is the admitted goal of neocons and war profiteers. It is necessary, is it not, for this war party to counter the flagging popular enthusiasm at home, by…continuously directing bigger and worse atrocities, all blamed on the “insurgents” or the “terrorists.”
The clues that this underhanded false-flag shit is going on are many and large. It is only through control of media reporting that the info has been and is painted and prettied up for home consumption. One who cannot see this by now is truly an idjit. Perhaps the ugly facts are just too hard for you to face? Even if you make your living as a part of the war machine, at least you could be honest about it.

Posted by: rapt | Nov 21 2005 3:44 utc | 37

From Balkinization:

Nuremberg at Sixty: Is Jackson’s Poisoned Chalice Now at Bush’s Lips?
Scott Horton
For the last twenty years, it’s been common practice among law professors to view modern human rights law, and in a sense the entire international law system, as something that started with the gavel that convened the first of the Nuremberg criminal tribunals. That gavel fell sixty years ago today. These tribunals gave force to the concept that international law was not just about relations between nations. International law also created obligations for individuals, who could be subject to trial and severe sanction. America was the most aggressive proponent of this course, and the American prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, was extremely conscious of what this meant for his country. “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.”
Today it seems that Jackson’s poisoned chalice truly is pressed to the lips of the United States, or more particularly, those of George W. Bush. The Bush Administration has retreated from the country’s traditional embrace of international law, and continues to view even its most basic commitments – such as the Geneva Conventions – with contempt. While John McCain has mustered a vote of 90 – 9 in the US Senate in support of a return to the traditional view, Bush remains defiant and threatens a veto. Why the adamant opposition?
Can it be that the Nuremberg legacy provides the answer? If any single consideration stands in the way of the Administration’s embrace of the McCain Amendment, it might well be what Andrew Sullivan calls “concern for immunity from prosecution for past actions and decisions.” Nuremberg set some clear principles, and many of them had to do with the mistreatment of those held in prisons in wartime. A concept of ministerial liability for pervasive abuse was established, and this was based on notions of command responsibility. Another case established that those who write legal memoranda which counsel government officials and the military to ignore the Geneva and Hague Conventions can be prosecuted and imprisoned – as in fact a number of German Justice Ministry officials were in the case of United States v. Altstoetter.
Many in the Bush Administration seem to have a very curious understanding of Nuremberg. Rather than leading a new movement to overturn the international legal system that started at Nuremberg, a number of key Bush officials are more likely to be the Pinochets of the next generation – blocked from international travel and forever fending off extradition warrants and prosecutor’s questions. Notwithstanding a sovereigntist assault, sixty years later the principles of Nuremberg seem as robust as ever – and likely to create lasting troubles for those who would deny them.

And from Andrew Sullivan:

THE IMMUNITY QUESTION: Of course, one critical reason that Dick Cheney will not relent in maintaining his right to order torture, even though he is increasingly isolated within the administration and has isolated the United States even further from its allies and friends around the world is … his concern for immunity from prosecution for past actions and decisions. The truth is that crimes have been committed against detainees – and those crimes were sanctioned all the way up the chain of command. If we agree to end the torture and abuse, the question then emerges of actually holding the really guilty men accountable. Pathetic show-trials of grunts, like the Abu Ghraib disciplining, won’t wash. . .

Posted by: manonfyre | Nov 21 2005 4:07 utc | 39

Americans have been unsold. For awhile.
We’ll see how long that takes to stop them. Took a while in VietNam.
Last time they blamed the media. They fixed that problem this time. This time they’ll blame the internet …

Posted by: DM | Nov 21 2005 5:46 utc | 41

The term “suicide bomber” has almost been branded to mean fanatical Arab and therefore makes a good cover for many types of operations, some of which may be genuine suicide bombings. When a bombing is reported by the media as a “suicide bombing” it is automatically thought to be “them” and not “us”.
But too often they are to the benefit of “our” goals rather than “theirs”.

Posted by: ww | Nov 21 2005 7:20 utc | 43

The motive that Grady provides for suicide bombing on the part of Coalation and/or Israeli operatives is not just assinine. It’s hilariously assinine.
But you are free to run with it.
Pat I don’t know who this Grady person is but having witnessed more than one what is referred to here as ‘a false flag operation’, but I consider to be the incompetent asinine games of overgrown schoolboys myself, I am coming to the conclusion that you are either incredibly naive, or your association with intelligence services is rather limited.
In Iraq the invaders are vainly attempting to control the uncontrollable and they are using a wide range of people with a wide range of motivations to do so.
Some will be stars and stripes waving buffoons, others will be mainchancing careerists and yet others will be semi-domesticated sociopaths whose ‘tour’ in Iraq has finally given them free rein over their fantasies of death and domination. And yes there will be some ‘normal’ people in there as well although I am personally unaware of security or intelligence agencies finding many of those sorts ‘fit their profile’ long term.
All will have one thing in common though and that is they will be under incredible pressure to deliver results. If ‘W’ has been waking up in a cold sweat you can be sure that the minions of BushCo will be feeling the blowtorch as the buck gets passed down the chain of command.
Any and everything will be attempted just to try and make those damned statistics look a little better and one way will be to keep the ‘insurgent body count’ higher than the US military casualty numbers. Remember there is no Iraqi civilian body count so as has been previously discussed at this site any dead Iraqi can be called an insurgent.
But that will just be the simple stuff, almost above board stuff. By now numbers of US intelligence operatives will have been drawn into the arcane world of counter terror politics where nobody is quite what they seem.
By now more and more local operators will be common criminals using the current chaos to prey upon their fellow citizens. (see IRA protection rackets, lebanese falangist hash smuggling, CIA crack dealing )
We have already heard from US military interrogators that their ‘subjects’ were in the main ordinary people going about their business:
“I was believing the intelligence reports that came in with the prisoner. I believed the detainee units, but later it became clear to me that they weren’t — they were picking up just farmers, you know, like these guys were totally innocent and that’s why we weren’t getting intel. And it just made what we were doing, like, seem even more cruel.”
Some of that will be the result of over-hyped informants getting a ‘bit too keen’. Some will also be the result of tribal payback or the simple greed or jealousy which makes the allegations of all criminal informants, anywhere, unreliable unless independently corroborated.
Except that as we have seen time and time again in all societies, when the pressure is on to deliver, the pressure to independently corroborate goes out the window.
We know this is happening with interrogations chiefly because interrogators are at a much lower level of the food chain than covert operatives and are under a lot less pressure to shut up.
Not only are covert operatives less likely to ‘lose their faith’ because they will have been screened and indoctrinated a lot more than MI interogators, they are going to have much larger skeletons in their closet if they did get ‘a bit carried away’.
Now you too can believe what you wish but as I pointed out in another thread since acceptance of these allegations means that US citizens will also have to accept there is ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’ many will be tempted to grasp at any straw to avoid the reality of their nation’s perfidy.
Every time evidence of abuse, torture or straight out murder of Iraqis is presented it seems that there is someone ready to offer an excuse, a prevarication, or a blanket denial of that abuse. The one thing they never offer is any evidence. Quick to accuse others of “barking up the wrong fucking tree” how about next time you allege that such and such didn’t occur you offer some fucking evidence, instead of playing around with semantics as in “torture is not a good tool for eliciting information, therefore US interogators don’t torture”.
This tells us nothing if the interogator was motivated by something other than a desire for intelligence. eg orders, ambition (frustrated or otherwise), revenge, self indulgence or as a catharsis for the horror they are living amongst.
This prevarication is likely to prolong the abuse and the misery for Iraqis so my concern is that you and the other ‘holocaust deniers’ are making the job of the murderers and torturers a lot easier.
This isn’t a parlor game you know. While we carefully debate each twist and turn of this labyrinthine misadventure, cynically called ‘the war on terror’ real people are being knee-capped with Black and Decker drills. Some poor kid going about minding his/her own fucking business will have been turned into an untidy pile of rumpled rags and bloody mush in the time it has taken to write this post. That isn’t guesswork you know, it’s 10.30am Monday in Baghdad and a mathematical certainty that some asshole will have exploded a few fellow human beings as they commute this morning.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 21 2005 7:44 utc | 45

Assuming that recent polling in Iraq is accurate, over 80% of Iraqis want the US out now, and close to half think attacks against the US are justified — and this polling is a sampling of ALL Iraqis, Shiite and Kurd included, there is obviously widespread loathing for the occupation — well past it being exclusively a “Sunni” phenomena. And I would also conclude that the opinion expressed above regarding Zarqawi and the (car) bombing being connected to the occupation is also a widely held assumption in Iraq. Givin the recent, Saddam>present US track record in Iraq, how could anyone believe anything the US says or does would carry any vestage of truth, least of all Iraqis themselves. The fact that most Iraqis want the US out now belies any widspread fear of civil war, except for those who stand to gain from that fear — the US and the puppet government that is acting under the protectorship of the US. It is in there interest to offer protection from the POSSIBILITY of civil war, rather than actual civil war, for which there is little precident for. This keeps the US in the “legitimate” position of protecting the emergent democracy. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the occupation to continue.
And as to Pats question of the (car)bombings undermining the occupation on the domestic front, this would appear to be true — except for the fact that the threat of civil war has been at the same time the only seemingly legitimate reason for the US to remain. This is actually a clever way to play the reliable — american exceptionalist card, in so much as it has become been primary justification for staying in Iraq perhaps the only justification capable of generating the widespread support across party and ideological lines — necessary to continue the policy. If there were no sectarian threat to illustrate this threat (here at home) then how could the policy of occupation continue? On what grounds?

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 21 2005 8:22 utc | 47

“That isn’t guesswork you know, it’s 10.30am Monday in Baghdad and a mathematical certainty that some asshole will have exploded a few fellow human beings as they commute this morning.”
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 21, 2005 2:44:40 AM | #
American flag operation, 8 a.m., Iraq, November 21st 2005:
Five members of family, including children, shot to death by U.S. soldiers, four others, including children, injured
“We felt bullets hitting the car from behind and from in front,” said another survivor with blood running from a wound to his head and splattered on his shirt. “Heads were blown off. One child had his hand shot off.”
Pat can probably cite the relevant U.S. army rule governing the illegality of Iraqis being alive on their own roads in their own country while American troops are occupying it.

Posted by: kw | Nov 21 2005 11:00 utc | 49

I’m sorry, Debs, but what does that 2:44 AM post have to do with Grady’s suggestion that the suicide bombings are being carried out by the Coalition, or my rejection of it?
“Some will be stars and stripes waving buffoons, others will be mainchancing careerists and yet others will be semi-domesticated sociopaths whose ‘tour’ in Iraq has finally given them free rein over their fantasies of death and domination. And yes there will be some ‘normal’ people in there as well although I am personally unaware of security or intelligence agencies finding many of those sorts ‘fit their profile’ long term.”
That’s QUITE an insider’s view you’ve got there, Debs. It’s always good to hear from those who REALLY know.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 21 2005 17:47 utc | 51

“And as to Pats question of the (car)bombings undermining the occupation on the domestic front, this would appear to be true…”
It would also appear to be true, anna missed, that the bombings have been very effective in sending the message to Iraqis that their government cannot protect them. In this regard, it’s a very efficient means of undermining the new state, which cannot deliver on promises of security. Local and regional non-state entities then step in and compete with the government in providing that service.
I didn’t think so many people here had their heads that far up their hindparts. I didn’t think so many people here were so susceptible to
inane conspiracies. Why should obviously bright people be so thoroughly goofy?
You guys don’t know whether you’re coming or going. On the one hand, the administration is hapless and clueless; on the other hand, they’re evil geniuses. On the one hand, they’ve screwed the pooch; on the other, they keep delivering the goods – and how!
Let me know when you’ve figured it out.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 21 2005 18:16 utc | 53

Remember, Outraged:
You CAN ignore the unsubstantive posts. I suggest you do so. Unless you’ve been appointed Substantive Post Enforcer.
If you have something specific to ask me in the way of intelligence or military matters, I shall endeavor to answer.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 21 2005 18:37 utc | 55

I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility that some of the terror bombings are being conducted by “our” side, but I’d like evidence. The mere fact that the US government is evil enough to deliberately murder civilians isn’t good enough. Lots of people are evil enough to murder civilians, and some of them are Islamic fundamentalists. It’s not as if the Islamic fundamentalists are denying that they target Shiite civilians.
The problem with focusing on an unproven conspiracy theory about who’s really behind the suicide bombings is that it distracts attention from the evidence we have that the US is currently lying about their connection with the Shiite death squads and torture centers. Billmon did a characteristically superb job laying it all out for us– Jeanne at Body and Soul pointed some of this out and I’ve been sputtering about it in comments sections over there, but Billmon put it all together in one place, complete with a HRW study that was based on information from 2004.
Yet we find John Burns at the NYT insisting that the US is the innocent “victim” in all this–yesterday in the Week in Review section he had the incredible gall to talk about Americans with their belief in reason and compromise once again being betrayed in their innocence by the “Ali Baba” culture of deceit and treachery in Iraq. Pure racist claptrap, of the sort the NYT always trots out whenever the US is mixed up in some act of mass murder. Not our fault. Oh no. We’re too good for this evil world and our attempts at civilizing our inferiors always leads to our sad disappointment over their evil ways.
And today the NYT gets around to talking about the white phosphorus story. Nothing to see here–just a PR problem for the Pentagon, something they messed up because they started out by lying. If only they’d just told the truth–I wonder why they didn’t. Too bad the NYT had no interest in finding the truth, but then, they rarely do.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 21 2005 19:24 utc | 57

Pat, I was merely pointing out that if the Iraqi people believe (and I think they do) the US is in some way complicit with “terrorist” actions against their people, then that belief is indicitive of a profound mistrust of all actions the US may undertake (on their supposed behalf). Apparently, this belief is born from the history of duplicity the US has thus forth shown by their actions in that country, and is clear evidence that 1)the “hearts and minds” campaign is an abject failure, and as a consequence2) there is no future for OIF. At this point all rational discernment concerning the truth or falsity of US complicity (with terrorism) is irrelevant — The people of Iraq believe what they believe — and act accordingly.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 21 2005 19:30 utc | 59

If only they’d just told the truth–I wonder why they didn’t
i don’t wonder . they only tell whats previously been outed. only til the end of the article do we get

“I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus.”
But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.
In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. “It’s perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants,” Colonel Venable said Friday.

i don’t know what kind of evidence one needs to have’proof ‘ we are not involved in slime/trickster anything goes actions in iraq. what is so unusaul about blending w/the MO of the ‘enemy’ to play psyc ops? obviously they are going to do whatever works they can get away with. why have psyc ops if you’re not going to play maximum. rendon, the self professed” information warrior and a perception manager” stated in the RS article
“Part of the OSI’s mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations — planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins”.
“It’s sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military’s top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. “When I get their briefings, it’s scary,” a senior official said at the time.”
what do you think they are doing over there? getting paid 100 million a year to plant rosy news stories? is that what he means by
“Because the lines are divergent, this difference between perception and reality is one of the greatest strategic communications challenges of war.”
“Rendon’s new assignment went beyond simply manipulating the media. After the war ended, the Top Secret order signed by President Bush to oust Hussein included a rare “lethal finding” — meaning deadly action could be taken if necessary”
” It is an undertaking that Rendon still considers too classified to discuss.”Rendon was also charged with engaging in “military deception” online”
you mean like creating fake videos w/fake actors doing real things?like berg? remember those guys didn’t have iraqi accents, or jordanian accents? this london event, likely the one referred to in the stone article deals specically w/perception management , the weapon of the future. perfectly justifying killing innocents for the better of society. it’s a leap , delusional to underestimate the enemy..

Posted by: annie | Nov 21 2005 20:15 utc | 61

Taguba’s report.

Death certificates repeatedly stated that prisoners had died “during sleep“, and of “natural reasons“. Iraqi doctors are not allowed to investigate even when death certificates are obviously forged. No reports of investigations against U.S. military doctors who forged death certificates have been reported.

Yep, just some isolated cases of low-ranking rogue MPs, etc … nothing systemic here … no issues of command authority or responsibility … move along, move along now …

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 21 2005 20:28 utc | 63

.. when is that last helicoptor flight due to leave the green zone?

Posted by: DM | Nov 21 2005 21:14 utc | 65

“I’m sorry, Debs, but what does that 2:44 AM post have to do with Grady’s suggestion that the suicide bombings are being carried out by the Coalition, or my rejection of it?”
I don’t know. I was hoping you could enlighten me, after all you posted:
“Debs,
The motive that Grady provides for suicide bombing on the part of Coalation and/or Israeli operatives is not just assinine. It’s hilariously assinine.
But you are free to run with it.
Posted by: Pat | Nov 20, 2005 7:22:46 PM | “
It was following that I posted:
“Pat I don’t know who this Grady person is but having witnessed more than one what is referred to here as ‘a false flag operation’, but I consider to be the incompetent asinine games of overgrown schoolboys myself, I am coming to the conclusion that you are either incredibly naive, or your association with intelligence services is rather limited”
To which you responded:
“That’s QUITE an insider’s view you’ve got there, Debs. It’s always good to hear from those who REALLY know”
That’s the interweb in all it’s glory anyone can claim to be an expert on anything Pat. I’m prepared to talk about my own life to give a frame of reference for my experiences but I won’t talk about things I have done to prove anything. Firstly because that sort of rant is usually an egoistic jerk-off, secondly because if I had done much it wouldn’t be smart to talk about it in here with alla these self proclaimed intelligence professionals, but lastly and most importantly to do so would be totally pointless since as I said above anyone can claim to anything in this medium.
The Archangel saga is a good place to start since that is one of the earliest and most debunked claims of someone wreaking havoc on the interweb and when caught out claiming to be an intelligence operative .
Finally:
“You guys don’t know whether you’re coming or going. On the one hand, the administration is hapless and clueless; on the other hand, they’re evil geniuses. On the one hand, they’ve screwed the pooch; on the other, they keep delivering the goods – and how!”
As we have discussed here before; the truth as to whether the Iraqi invasion is a cock-up or a conspiracy seems to be BOTH. It is a cocked-up conspiracy where things are done badly for the basest of motives.
We can keep this internet ping pong going forever, meanwhile boring people who have far more interesting points of view, or we can follow the basic tenets of MoA which seem to me to be “all assertations are meaningless unless substantiated”. Whilst you may protest that it is difficult for anyone to ‘prove’ their innocence, console yourself with the fact that at least you’re not having to do it to the sound of an electric drill penetrating your collar bone.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 21 2005 21:36 utc | 67

Raw source and declassified documents released under FOIA:

U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq (10/24/2005)
CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.
– snip –
While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too….

Summary includes a brief synopsis of key facts re a number of individual deaths during interrogations.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 21 2005 22:42 utc | 69

“I was hoping you could enlighten me.”
I was really hoping I wouldn’t have to.
Grady asserts that the administration desires civil war in Iraq as a justification for staying. We’re not given his supporting evidence for this belief, but there you have it. Grady suggests that mass casualty bombings are being undertaken by the Coalition toward this end.
Some members of the administration may desire or envision a long-term, albeit reduced, U.S. presence in Iraq. As has been pointed out, forward deployment on the model of Germany and Korea is attractive to some seeking more land-based force projection in the ME. This is not to be confused, however, with an assumed desire to indefinitely prolong an already overtime and very costly operation in which the American public has lost confidence and with which even once-tolerant Iraqis have lost patience. General political and civil stability, rather than chaos, is the facilitator of semi-permanent garrisoning. It is that stability that is beyond reach of both the administration and the current Iraqi government.
The Russians in Afghanistan couldn’t afford to stay and couldn’t afford to leave. Although I support military disengagement and withdrawal from Iraq, I understand our position there to be much the same. Damned if we do; damned if we don’t.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 22 2005 3:34 utc | 71

It’s kind of silly arguing about whether the US is behind any of the terrorist bombings. People can imagine reasons why Americans might do it and point to other atrocities we know Americans have committed–Pat can sneer about the sheer silliness about it all.
What matters is that AFAIK, we don’t have any evidence of the US sponsoring any suicide bomb attacks in Iraq. We do have evidence, which Billmon presents, that we’re tied in with the death squad and torture activity by the Iraqi government that we now pretend to be shocked by. So why get distracted by this suicide bombing speculation?

Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 22 2005 4:24 utc | 73

“In the testimony before congress re Abu Ghraib it was put that Gen Sanchez never authorized ‘harsh’ interrogation techniques, yet subsequently we have documented evidence of him having authorized military dogs in interrogations by the MI brigade, amongst other previously prohibited techniques.”
‘Harsh’ interrogation techniques were authorized; ‘harsh’ interrogation techniques are also not automatically prohibited by law. Every interrogator is taught Fear Up Harsh. It’s among the standard approaches. And it’s quite legal.
Taguba listed the use of dogs to frighten and intimidate among the abuses at abu Ghraib, though it is not clearly prohibited by law. A matter of controversy, yes, and a practice subsequently halted, but so too has been the standard procedure of hooding, which, in order to avoid further negative perception and undesirable association, has been given up for denying vision and orientation by other means. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 22 2005 4:36 utc | 75

“As in SF seconded to the agency, ex-military & ex-SF contracted to the agency and/or the DOD’s more *ahem* covert Ops, and of course uniformed specialists (all types) seconded/attached to covert Ops where they don’t where uniforms and leave the ‘rules’ on a bunk back at the barracks …”
No wonder I was confused. By what definition do these consitute paramilitaries? My own husband doesn’t wear a uniform; works with others who don’t. I don’t think he and his colleagues are aware that they’re members of a paramilitary.
The SOF are seeking their own HUMINT capability. There are a number of reasons for this, and the desire to avoid the involvement of outsiders is undoubtedly among them. Is this because there’s a ‘new paradigm’, ‘sanction from above’ of abuses, or is it because the Special traditionally desire to avoid scrutiny?

Posted by: Pat | Nov 22 2005 4:54 utc | 77

Fear Up Harsh. Been there done that.
When the interrogator behaves in an overpowering manner with a loud and threatening voice. The interrogator may even feel the need to throw objects across the room to heighten the source’s implanted feelings of fear.
Don’t remember anything about physical contact, beating to death or savaging by unmuzzled dogs … especially when 60% of the detainees are total innocents.
Doesn’t include physical contact nor threats nor physical or mental coercion. In more normal times interrogators and command avoid the legal risk of violating the Geneva Convention’s prohibition against the use of coercion and threats.
Article 17 of the 3rd Geneva Convention does not allow “physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion” in interrogation. Article 31 of the 4th Geneva Convention states that “[n]o physical or moral coercion shall be exercised … to obtain information.” The conventions also prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
But then again ‘necessity’ can override any rules let alone guidelines …
Re military forces operating out of uniform, go revise the Geneva Conventions, a twisted interpretation is the basis for this administrations new found definition of ‘illegal combatant’ … and your husband and other SF may sadly in the future rue the day Bush ever tried to put that one on.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 22 2005 5:08 utc | 79

More information of the Geneva Convention

Posted by: DM | Nov 22 2005 5:21 utc | 81

“Don’t remember anything about physical contact, beating to death or savaging by unmuzzled dogs”
No shit, Outraged. Beating to death and canine savaging are prohibited. They were then; they are now. What’s yer point? Did I mention that even Fear Up Harsh has been taken off the list of permissible approaches? Yes, indeed. No more verbal nastiness.
Physical contact isn’t prohibited, unless the rules have changed again, which they very well may have. I would not be surprised if, in a few years, interrogator and source must sit in separate rooms and communicate via video link, the former required to use at all times the soft and soothing tone of an NPR host.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 22 2005 5:33 utc | 83

I would not be surprised if, in a few years, interrogator and source must sit in separate rooms and communicate via video link, the former required to use at all times the soft and soothing tone of an NPR host.
now that’s a pretty revealing statement. the thick face cracks for a moment and we see how ugly you really are.

Posted by: DM | Nov 22 2005 6:05 utc | 85

“…your husband and other SF…”
Who said he’s SF?

Posted by: Pat | Nov 22 2005 6:06 utc | 87

DM,
Strategic positioning. Not sure, but I thought it was about trade routes, pipelines, and maybe water rights, and more about the oil under the Caspian Sea than Iraq’s oil. That’s why I was watching Syria which is more important I think. And of course the Russian provinces. That’s why they seem to be heading north. I’ve seen it as sort of a modern day Silk Road to China. I worked on piecing it together for awhile, but stopped and looked at other things. I think, and this is still guessing, that ultimately control of commercial trade is more lucrative than oil fields. I know little about geopolitical details, But I know someone does know. I have noticed, however, that all my life I’ve asked the educated experts for answers and I’ve never gotten them. That leaves me in the dark, but the pleasure of discovery remains.

Posted by: jm | Nov 22 2005 6:27 utc | 89

How about all of the above.
The have been fucking fighting over Iraq’s oil resources since 1914. The American, British, and French started carving up the ME the day after Armistice day. There wasn’t even 1 barrel of oil at that time. They knew it was there – somewhere (’cause the British already had the Persian oil fields) – but the first oil was not discovered until 1927 in Kirkuk.
Oil, Imperialism, the Great Game .. it’s all the same fucking thing. One thing is for certain – Americans don’t give a shit about Iraqis and anyone now crying about what might happen if America leaves is a conniving lying bastard.

Posted by: DM | Nov 22 2005 6:43 utc | 91

Yup, Annie.
I think the withdrawal is decided and will be faster than you think. If it doesn’t happen by ’08, the next administration will do it implement a more reasonable foreign policy. They have no choice. We have to survive. The PNAC plan has failed. The Great Game always goes on and it provides the luxuries you partake of. It will be the huge challenge of history to live like we want to without stealing, killing, and what-not. That’s where our intelligence can be put to good use. I’m as frustrated as you are and I want it all to be gone, but that’s not realistic. Our experience will lead us. All toppling from above has led to a re-creation. Maybe converting some of this energy to restructuring from the bottom would work. It’s never too soon to begin. I do believe that the corporate structure is in worse shape than you think and will be falling somewhat under its own weight. Our safety net is a building of individual autonomy. Something the upper crust doesn’t know how to do, they are caught in such a huge complicated web. They are more stuck than we are. And in a more dangerous and insecure position. In a million years, I wouldn’t want to be where they are. I like it down here, just fine.
It’s clear as a bell that the imperial designs of this country have been thwarted. As Pat Buchanan called it, “the Stillborn Empire”. They’ve been good at economic empire building but this experiment in the geographic failed. As a result, it probably diminished the further economic expansion as well. There are other powers emerging and a lot of shifting is about to occur.

Posted by: jm | Nov 22 2005 7:17 utc | 93

There are other powers emerging and a lot of shifting is about to occur.
china

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2005 8:12 utc | 95

Water, Debs. The oil is useless without those rights. The Caspian Sea has both.

Posted by: jm | Nov 22 2005 9:07 utc | 97

To all you pinko leftist dogooder brain-dead effeminate faggot progressive bastards that tend to congregate at sites like this one there is only one thing I can say: From the bottom of my heart, GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mark Santini | Nov 22 2005 16:29 utc | 99