As the story below describes the insurgents are responsible for numerous car bombings and beheadings focused primarily on civilians.



The government identified the suspected terrorist captured Monday as Ahmed Hussein Dabash Samir al-Batawi and said he had confessed to hundreds of beheadings.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197430,00.html


Question for debate:

1 How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”

2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities?

Why is this something we don't already know? Post 911, the public has been heavily indoctrinated with talk of war crimes. So we all know what war crimes are. How do we know? We look at the laws, look at the actions of the soldiers who are supposed to obey those lays, then compare. Did their actions fulfill the necessary requirement to be labelled a war crime? Why is it so easy to judge something a war crime if it's the other side that does it? A war crime is a war crime is a war crime.
Here's an example of a war crime:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

That depends on your point of view. If you trust in what the US now claims, that the US is in Iraq to help those they decimated with a decade's worth of sanctions, then yes it should be left to their peers as we would demand over here.

1.) With disgust. Any person or persons who can willingly and repeatedly take the lives of other human beings is fully aware that their actions are morally unethical and effectively illegal under whatever system of public or private regulation. Since I am not an advocate of the death penalty, I would have to be in favor of a prison sentence lasting not a day shorter than natural death.

Certainly they are war crimes. A nation invaded their homeland and they are doing what is in their minds defending it. Our own nation acknowledges that this is a war. Iraqis may feel likewise and insurgents sometimes prove to be the patriots and the nationalists. Toddlers do things because they don't know any better. The same principle may apply when you consider the actions of these people.

Their homeland was invaded forcefully by a Western power. Their knee-jerk response is to take up arms against the aggressor. So from their point of view, they are not wrong and it is perfectly legitimate to be doing what they are doing in the name and under the banner of a war. Ergo, they are taking part in war crimes to some extent.

2.) I seem to find nothing but reports of car bombings and beheadings whenever I turn on a radio, television or read the news reports out of Iraq. I do not know about anyone else, but I cannot escape the attention given to these crimes.

3.) Yes. These crimes would not have been committed most likely if America had not invaded Iraq. Iraq must take responsibility for itself and its people and in that must decide the fate of criminals (by our system of justice or theirs when defining a criminal is up to them).

If these horrors were part of a struggle against the occupying American forces, then they are war crimes. If they were not, then they are terrorist crimes. The difference is of no importance to the victims, of course, but it may make a difference in how the criminals are to be treated. Are we dealing with common criminals, or enemy combatants? If the former, than it might be best for them to be dealt with by the Iraqi justice system (if a reliable one is in operation.) If the latter, than it may be necessary to deal with them in the way dictated by international agreements concerning war crimes.

I particularly want to discuss the question regarding media attention on these crimes compared to that focused on American transgressions. It seems entirely appropriate for the American media to pay somewhat more attention to the behavior of American soldiers than to enemy insurgents and terrorists. Surely we demand a much higher level of behavior from the United States military than from bands of criminals. For this reason, there is ample reason to sometimes pay more attention to a "minor" transgression by American troops than to a more horrible crime by the other side.

Funny- how timely this debate is- have several Iraq vets working here with me tonight, more than one of them seeing combat and dead comrades in arms.

Here is the interesting part of the debate, when it deals with foriegn nationals being killed and tortured and such in Iraq realizing that the victor makes the rules- that being said- isn't every person working as a 'contractor" in Iraq, technically a mercenary, and afforded no international rights whatsoever? Spies and mercenaries are in a very grey area class of combatant. I would submit that the only group of poeple NOT strictly able to be defined in this class are (true, not undercover here) aid workers and Journalists. Outside of that, every single person beheaded, and tortured, is just another dirt mercenary/spy and has simply reaped what they sew- from a world history view of mercs and spies?

1 How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”

Depends on the status of the poeple being killed. If it is domestic Iraqi civilians- it is for the Iraqi's to punish. Foriegn nationals working in Iraq- well, I do feel sorry for them, but, quite frankly, it is part of the job. You need to understand, you are a mercenary, working outside the law, adn you may very well be captured and beheaded, and that is just too darn bad for you. I have absolutely the least amount of sympathy for the security folks working over there as contractors, to me, they need the least protecting by international law of any group.


2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?

Um, no. We made this mess, not the insurgents. We are to blame, in the end, on all of this. So the locals and Al-quiada types didn't welcome us with open arms, and took us on in a new and frightening manner, and don't play by our rules- what were we expecting anyway? For thousands of turban wearing "bad guys" to come running up the US troops like bad guys on the "A"team and shooting wildly into the air, and allowing the US to just mop them up?

I tell you what, if the US had wiped out my wife and children with an "errant" bomb, I would join the local insurgency, and anyone that didn't follow my party line, i would not hesitate to go medival on them either. I think killing my family would be the area that would make me snap and cease to play fair and toss my humanity right out the window.

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities

Can't answer that one- we clearly have instilled a puppet goverment, with no authority beyond our guns to make it hold- so, in the end, it is the US authority right now. I don't think it applies until the US is gone.

1 How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”
The international community really has no grounds for a "response" under the banner of war crimes. At least not how it is currently defined. (link)

While these acts are horrific, the rule of law in Iraq should be sufficient to punish the criminal. Because the act was not on behalf of a nation-state, it does not constitute a war crime. Perhaps its time to revise the Geneva accords in this regard to include those who commit these acts on behalf of an organization like Al Qaeda.

2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?
Perhaps. But given that these transgressions are reported every day in terms of lives lost, are they really being under reported?

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities?
Until the Geneva accords can be updated to include organizational agents vs. actors of nation-states, unfortunately the answer to that question is yes.

I have a problem with the definition of US and foreign civilians working in Iraq (doing mostly humanitarian and civil project work) as “mercenaries”. It may be part of the “job” but IMO we cannot ignore the crimes against them by the insurgents, many of whom are foreign fighters or ex Iraqi military. Why are they “working outside the law”. Certainly the Iraqi government sanctions their work. Please clarify.




So we are the “bad guys” and war crimes against us are OK??? Are you serious or joking?

1. International community? Now? Where have they been since 1996 when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors? (answer providing him with weapons illegally or caught up in the oil-for-food scam or otherwise enabling the Iraqi dictator). No, the Iraqi government should take care of this character. Try him. Convict him. Execute him. Is he guilty of "war crimes"? Well outside of the discussion of whether that concept is redundant, I think that he's simply guilty of mass murder (as if that's better).

2. Of course. EDITED TO REMOVE INFLAMMATORY COMMENT

edited to put some more comments back in. Yes, the press has paid ENTIRELY too much time focusing on alleged US transgressions and too much time focusing on bloviators like Murtha, Sheehan, and the assorted others who have spent almost no time in that country and largely ignoring the brutality of the Islamist fascists and ignoring the progress made in that country and reported by people who've ACTUALLY BEEN THERE!

3. Yes. It's their country and they've elected their government. The gallows are probably too good for him. I'm sure they have more barbaric means for execution at their disposal.

Question #1- I believe the Iraqi state to be a puppet goverment- similar to many prior to this in the world, and "contractors" has been the new euphimism for mercs for some time, dating all the way back, in my cases, to early cold war stuff.

Mercs today are very different than those in say, Angola back in the 70s. They are not former draftees with no where to go, and possibly criminal tendencies back home- they are truly there, half the time, to make some huge sack and take it back to thier families- "the big score". But it still doesn't change the fact, that you are working in an occupied country, under the behest of the occupier- making you a merc.

International law regarding mercs has been grey at best, but usually not addressed at all. Spies, well, you can do anything with. Sky is the limit there.

I am thinking, that, if we ever did have a war crimes trial for foriegn fighters in Iraq (to me, themselves a kind of merc- believe me, I give them no "pass" here) - that this would probably be thier defense, and, I think, in a free an fair trial, vs a US show trial, that it would be a very good defense, with some case law behind it.

Question #2- unconventional warfare against our soldiers is not a war crime in my book- it is simply changing tactics to meet the realities of the enemy you are fighting. PLEASE SEPERATE THAT STATEMENT FROM THINKING I AM HAPPY ANY AMERICAN DIES AT THE HANDS OF THESE BLOODTHIRSTY FIGHTERS- I want to highlight that, because, in these debates, out of reverance for our soldiers, the debate of our role in this war and how we are causing those very deaths to our soldiers gets lost.

Legal definitions of what war crimes usually are typically involves certain weapons not being allowed to be used against soldiers, and not including the civilian population in the warfare- #2 is certainly been broken by both sides- I know without a doubt in my mind we have killed WAY more Iraqi innocent civilians than the insurgents- though, not really meaning to, in the way the terrorists do, but not really being all that careful either.

#1, well, we stretch what is acceptable behavior towards others when we feel like it- and get all outraged when the other side does it. WE torture by proxy, they do it direct.

That being said- no, as far as who is the more decent individual fighting in Iraq- I think it is the US servicemen. However, I do not see much difference between Saddam, GW Bush or Bin Laden, except that Saddam and OBL have pretty much no checks and balances on thier genocidal tendencies, and GW just keeps trying to tear down his.

I think you saying "war crimes against us " is inaccurate, but still, no, I don't want violent acts against US servicement to be a good thing, or deserviing what they get, or anything like that, you misunderstood that comment I believe, or I typed it badly.

1 How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”

I think these questions are the wrong way around - if the crimes in question are not war crimes, then the international community has no role to play. If they are, then the whole gamut of war crimes tribunals (in The Hague) is the only sensible course.

My hunch is that saying they are war crimes poses some problems, mostly because international law is something of a grey area when it comes to non-military & non-governmental participants. This grey area is what allows the US to operate Gitmo, and what causes the controversy over them doing so. If unofficial combatants can be treated as 'official' ones when it comes to war crimes tribunals, why can't they be treated as official when it comes to the Geneva conventions on prisoners of war? To my mind, it's a can of worms that, pragmatically, the active international participants probaby should avoid opening. Conversely, I think opponents of the war should be pressing for war crimes charged to be brought in this case and others like it.

A thorny problem.

2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?

I don't think it's a zero sum game. I think the focus on US (and UK) transgressions has been about right (broadly - if anything it's been too low). But the focus on beheadings, in particular, has been much lower key than it should have been.

It seems that now, the media in the West only focuses on a kidnapping/beheading when one of it's own citizens is held or executed. This contrasts with the reporting of bombings in Iraq, whereas the reports come through in the UK media (the only one I see often enough to have a settled view on) even if only Iraqis and no foreigners fall victim.

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities?

In light of my answers to 1 above, I think that yes, the Iraqis authorities should have jurisdiction here.

Indeed, I think that since major combat operations are officially over, and coalition troops are now only present at the invitation of the now extant elected Iraqi government, there's an argument that should be gone trhough as to who has jurisdiction over the actions of ALL foreigners in Iraq on both sides. If an insurgent should be subject to Iraqi justice, how can the UK or USA argue that their troops in Iraq should remain subject to thier own military codes alone? What offences might be subject to local rules? A US serviceman stationed in the UK would not be expected to be subject to UK justice whilst in the performance of their duties, but while off duty, it would be an insult to local laws and people to insist that only US military codes would apply to, say, a robbery, a rape or a murder.

I'm not saying that everything should be subsumed to Iraqi authorities, but the discussion over jurisdictional conflicts needs to be had, and had in public.

Mercenaries are folks who “fight” for pay. The civilian contractors that build and repair infrastructure are not mercs regardless of what they are paid – which by the way is commensurate with the risk. As you might imagine driving an oil or food truck in Iraq can be hazardous to your health. Also some Americans taken have been humanitarian workers.





I should have phrased this to include “crimes against humanity” which would cover the civilian carnage wrecked by car bombs targeting civilians. These have killed thousands of Iraqi citizens and IMO the level of outrage in the media, here and abroad, is far lower than that generated by pictures from Abu-grabe prison. It seems totally out of proportion and IMO reflects an anti-American bias in the press – here and abroad.

1 How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”

Many of them seem to be, since they intentionally target civilians. I'm not aware of any insurgent groups ever coming before an international body to answer for war crimes, though. I just don't know the legalities here.

2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?

I would have said no to this, since I hear about terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians all too often in the media I follow. But then I read this:


This strikes me as preposterous. What about the dozens of car bombings outside mosques and markets? The sectarian death squads working to "cleanse" neighborhoods along religious lines? Either your media is underreporting this, CruisingRam, or you're using a very narrow definition of "insurgents" in order to exclude these atrocities, or you're accusing the U.S. military of massively more civilian killing than I've heard suggested from any responsible person.

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities?

As much as possible, yes. What's the alternative?

Perhaps too much watching of the Faux may lead you to believe this? just do a net search, I am quite sure we have killed more than 35K or more totally innocent civilans at this point, though I think the 100k that some have come up with mathematically is probably high - though, knowing how tightly packed these communities are, and how big an area a bomb can blow up- it is not outside reason-

here is a very partisan, but a good place to start, educating yourself on how many innocent civilians we have killed 'while not meaning too"

I mean, do we prosecute ourselves on those we have "accidently" killed, like the pregnant later and her aunt mentioned on another thread? These folks are still dead, killed by our bullets, for our idiocy of entering this place in the first place.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/4.1.php

Most disturbing and certain about the results is that more than 80 percent of violent deaths were caused by U.S. forces [our emphasis] and that most of the people they killed were women and children.



Intent DOES have something to do with a criminal action- but, if we didn't start it, someone else wouldn't have "brought it on" now would have they? A bully goes around punching folks in the face at random, adn then gets upset when someone retaliates in a devious and dishonorable fashion themselves- that is where we are at right now.

Julian did hit the nail on the head though- our own treatment of "enemy combatants" and forcing them into legal limbo kind of makes these questions very difficult to answer!

Yes indeed, you are correct that a net search will lead to a much different kill count. And of course, everything you read on the internet is accurate.



Strange, as of November, 2004 there were only approximately 15,000 total civilian deaths on IBC. Now there are approximately 40,000. We sure have enacted a major carpet-bombing campaign in the last year and a half! Especially in leu of the fact that this is all well after the Fallujah offensive....How about reading the actual incident reports? You'll find out where those deaths came from.

And incidentally, back when IBC's quick facts were working, I remember the breakdown in statistics showing that approximately 85 percent of coalition inflicted "civilian" casualties were adult males. I've posted that before, but 3000 posts are a lot to sort through and alas, I couldn't find those stats this time. Maybe someone else could though.... At any rate, it isn't exactly on-topic anyway.



Well, actually we do. Such attacks are prosecuted as crimes if the situation dictates that they are crimes. That's why we have war JAGs.

1. How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”

I'm not sure. I think they qualify as something similar to the sniper attackers we had in Washington DC a few years back, except there are many more of them and a much larger percentage of the population is being terrorized. It is an Iraqi government matter, under their jurisdiction.

2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?

Yes, but I'm not sure focusing on these crimes will help the US cause. Right now armed groups in Baghdad are begining to take over with impunity, enforcing dress codes and shooting those who don't obey. The Iraq government and we look completely impotent, the citizens cowed.

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities?

Yes.

Edited to add:

Wow, I found a IBC link which completely shoots down this argument.



Now, take a look at the chart at the bottom for last year. Then, read the above again. Last year US military action led to 370 civilian deaths total. By comparison, last year the lowest death count month is over twice this number (nearly 800), the highest over five times that number (over two thousand).

No, I rarely watch Fox News, or other cable news channels. I probably listen to too much NPR. Perhaps you read too much truthout.



I encourage everyone to follow CR's link and read it. Your fragment is a misleading quote within a quote. Read the conclusion at the bottom of the page:



The time period of the Lancet study included the initial invasion (lots of aerial bombing) and the battle of Fallujah. Now look at the most recent entries in IBC's database. As I write, the first entry is a roadside bomb in Amriya, 1 killed. Next is the shooting of 3 "elderly men sitting outside a house" in Baquba. Then 11 Shiite worshippers killed by a motorcycle bomb in Tunis, eastern Baghdad. Then 5 killed by a car bomb outside a Sadr City police station. Finally Ahmed Ali Hussein, University of Technology professor, shot on Palestine Street in Baghdad.

That's just May 23. Do any of those look like the victims of U.S. military carelessness? No, the vast majority of recent entries in IBC look like they were caused by Iraqi terrorists, criminals, militiamen, with perhaps a few foreign jihadis thrown into the mix.

Absolutely impossible. You must be counting all Iraq military deaths (including folks shooting but without uniforms). The real number is far lower but this does not justify the deliberate targeting of civilians including women and children. If theses are not “war crimes” then they are ‘crimes against humanity”. My problem is if you look at the Amnesty International site you get very little reference to any of this recently and a much heavier focus on the US treatment of prisoners. IMO this is disingenuous at best.

Lets just watch the storm that develops in the media around the alleged Marine killings last Nov. The liberal press in the US and I am sure idiots like Teddy K and Schumer will paint it all black as much as possible (given the elections coming- it will be all GWB’s fault) whereas the brutal murder of civilians in Iraq goes on day after day with little more than a brief mention.

1 How should the international community respond to there atrocities? Are they “War Crimes”

Since the insurgents are beyond the reach of the "interational community" and will remain so until (ha ha!) the war is won, the question is moot. Whether these acts are "atrocities" or a necessary part of a heroic struggle for Iraqi national (or regional or sectarian) liberation will be determined by the outcome of this war. Which among irreconcilably inimical parties ultimately excercises "legitimate" power? That is what war decides.

2. Has there been too little focus on theses crimes and too much on US transgressions?

What does this propose, that in addition to reporting insurgent attacks, the media also opine that it is evil? Has any media outlet so far opined that the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq is evil? War is what is evil, for crying out loud. Once at war, the opposing sides merely do what they have to do to win. What, does it matter whether the Germans' releasing poison gas at Passchendaele was evil? It killed and crippled enough people, regardless of the outcome of Divine Judgement upon it. Likewise U.S. military action in Iraq, likewise insurgent activity in Iraq.

3. Should dealing with the perpetrators be left to Iraqi authorities?

The "Iraqi authorities" are a puppet of the United States. They have little authority outside the Green Zone. But again, whether these people or their "criminal" enemies become the eventual government of Iraq will be decided by war, not debate.

Or, in a word, go to Ramadi and propose these questions.

No I bet that no group will ever be held responsible for the atrocities. To even suggest that there is any way to justify this is ludicrous. We will win but there will be no “Nuremberg” trials in Iraq.

We need to watch and learn because the Islaofaciests will gladly bring these tactics to the US if we are not vigilant.

In terms of counting civilian deaths, there is no exact number, but I have noticed that most news agencies and reporters tend to use the aformentioned: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - which lists 38,059 to 42434 dead. The reason is the open and verifyable way in which this website arrives at the figure, by simply adding up the reported dead in individual incidents reported on najor news netowrks, and then verifying it with other networks. The database of individual incidents is very interesting and quite easily verifyable. They themselves admit the number may well be higher due to deaths unreported, but as that is simply a guess, we can use their numbers.




Ted, I swear you make this argument in every post. Either AI, or the UN, or the media, or the 'liberals' are ignoring Iraqi dead and insurgent atrocities, and focussing all their attention on US misdeeds. But there is no truth or logic at all to that claim.

Firstly What EXACTLY do you want AI to do? Appeal to the Iraq militias (considering they don't even know which militias did individual acts)? Send AI representatives to talk to the militias and try and convince them to play nice?

They certainly decry the violence and the atrocities, they release condemnations quite often (which I strongly doubt you ever read) of all of these acts. When the US commits atrocities, there they have a government, a structure and a rule of laws violated to talk to.

Secondly, I don't know what papers you read, but when there are beheadings and massacres, they always figure in the major news releases, every one of them. Just check the above site, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, and look at their database, it will give you multiple reports evey day of every week of every month all out on the wire and reported by the major news agencies. Your assertion that these get no coverage is simply fasle on fact.

Thirdly, and MOST importantly: You seem to have forgotten the one defining feature of the US media. No, not its imaginary liberal bias or refusal to say nice things about your heroes, the most important feature of the US media is that it is the US media.

Thus stories that involve the US tend to get more coverage than stories that don't. If you have some sort of ideological problem with that, then feel free to cite me ANY national media on this PLANET that acts any differently.

You will recall when a US citizen was kidnapped, and executed, the media covered nothing else for days, it was the front page of every newspaper, the first three headlines and the backstories of every TV news show for days and days.

When the US troops massacre some Iraqi civilians, this too makes front page coverage, and is an important news story.

BOTH of those stories involve AMERICANS, and thus get more coverage in the AMERICAN media than stories that do NOT involve Americans.

An Iraqi insurgent beheads an Iraqi shopkeeper, do you honestly expect this will get just as much play in the American media as stories involving Americans?

In the past few months I havebeen moving between France and the UK for work, and astonishingly enough, the National medias of France and the UK have the remarkable habit of focussing more on media stories that involve the French of the British (respectively) than stories which do not.


The only surprising thing is is that despite literally 100% precident against you, you would seriously expect any different...

Every post??? Hardly. The fact is the press and folks like Amnesty make a big stink over every US infraction – and there have been some, while no real effort is made to hound the butchers of thousands of innocents. Now we KNOW that many come from Lebanon, Iran, and other countries. Are they blasting those governments for not stopping them? SHOW me please. Answer is hell no. Is the “world court” looking for the terrorists who murder women and children? How about a bounty on their heads? Because they don’t have a flag and a capital do they get to do whatever they want? Go to the AI site and scan over the stories and tell me how proportional it looks to you.

Same for the press. Has the NTY office in Lebanon asked why the government allows thousands to cross the border and join the insurgents? I must have missed that story. Daily “massacres” by the enemy get reported on page 2 or higher once (maybe). US transgressions get front pages for weeks not to mention editorial coverage.

But you can bet the morons at NYT, and others will be doing everything to build up the marine “massacre” story and I would bet they imply, as they have in other similar situations, that Bush is responsible.

The stupid out of proportion bias is what makes me sick.

Do we? Actually every single report on the ground I have heard, including one you aknowledged yourself in another post, states clearly that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is no more than 5%, and dropping. Do we in fact 'Know' that thousands have come from Lebanon and Iran? Could you be so kind as to cite some evidence of how we 'know' that?



Ah, small definitions problem Ted. The world Court is a "court". They prosecute criminals brought before them or identified in foreign captivity. They are not a policing agency, they do not (and cannot) hunt people down, place bounties on their heads or any such thing.

Furthermore, even if your misunderstanding of the world court WERE correct, how do you suggest they proceed? Seeing as how 99.9% of these terrorists are anonymous and unknown, in fact taking great pains to conceal their identities in the few videos we have, what exactly do you suggest the world court do? Who exactly should the bounty (if they could offer one at all) be issued upon? You aren't thinking things through here.

Thirdly, you have shifted your argument entirely. A post ago it was about the American media, now you seem to have ignored most of the arguments rebutting you completely, and changed the point of your ire.

Though not terribly relevant I admit, it is ironic you railing away at the world court, wishing policing powers on it never had nor never will have, at the same time as Bush jr is pushing the immunity of all American citizens from the same world court. Even if your assumptions about the organisation WERE true, you can't have it both ways...



Well, firstly you need to provide some evidence that your assertion has any basis in reality. I did a search of my own and came up with one story of two men of possible lebanese origin killed in Iraq, and another about the Lebanon government actively working with the US to prevent Al Qaida recruitment in parts of the country. So:
1- No evidence of thusands of fighters you mention, 2- Evidence the Lebanese government IS working with the US to PREVENT recruitment, and 3- Evidence that these were BOTH reported in the mainstream media, as I found this on news websites. So given all that, I'm not sure where you are going with this.



Forgive me Ted, I do not mean to snap here, and if I do I apologise, but in all honesty and humility this is a bad habit of yours. I just addressed this EXACT point at length in my last post (it was in fact almost half of my post) and not only do you completely ignore my rebuttal, but you then repeat the same initial assertion as if it had never been adressed. This is not the first time I have called you on this. I would be most grateful if you would try and avoid this, it is understandably very frustrating.



Well, I'm not sure its the NYT that is 'building up the marine massacre story', I think the blame for that story might better lie with the marines who (it strongly appears) massacred two dozen innocent civilians, women and children, then tried to cover it up. The case is not proven to be sure, but it is pretty compelling, and one can hardly blame the media for reporting it.

In particular since the darling of the right-wing, FOXNews, seems to have reported this story just as much as anyone else.



Well, your personal health isues aside, you have yet to demonstrate the bias of which you speak, nor show that it is any way out of the ordinary from the way the media has dealt with the news for decades.

You seem bothered that AI and the media are focusing more on the wrong-doings of our troops than the insurgents. Why do you think both deserve equal attention? The actions of our troops should be compared to the actions of Iraqi insurgents? I'd hope that the US armed forces were held to a certain moral standard not relative to the immorality of our enemies.

I think your strong partisanship is blinding you to the true motivation behind these stories. Media companies are driven by money, not politics. Our attention is valuable to advertisers, and every news outlet wants our attention so that a small portion of it can be sold to them. And what gets our attention? The extraordinary, the unexpected, the interesting, the controversial. "Car Bombs, Violence Kill 54 in Iraq" is not news anymore, it's a given. I'd say the only thing the average Joe would find interesting anymore is the *end* of terrorist attacks in Iraq. That'd be newsworthy. Marines killing 24 civilians is, however, unexpected and controversial and interesting. Something "new" to put on the "news". Besides, wouldn't a liberal media want to report about chaos in Iraq? Wouldn't they want to paint a picture of Iraq on the brink of civil war? Why would a liberal media *not* report about terrorist attacks in Iraq.

As for Amnesty International, might their motivation be to "protect human rights worldwide"? In Iraq there are two general groups of people that are violating human rights, terrorists and US troops. Why would they put reports of terrorists violating human rights on their webpage? Are they trying to fight terrorism? If I had just heard about AI, and went to their webpage and saw stories about terrorists violating human rights, I'd just move on. Why donate money to an anti-terrorism organization. What are they going to do? Write a letter to Hamas? Besides, there's already an organization dedicated to fighting terrorism, it's called the Bush administration. I pay taxes, that's donation enough. However, there is no 3rd-party organization dedicated to bringing attention to and fighting to end the human rights violations of the US troops. Maybe they're just trying to fill a gap.

Actually its not just men but money and supplies. You keep harping on the AQ as only 5% of the “fighters” in Iraq but as leaders smugglers they may be much more. Same for Iran. Can we count al-Zarqawi as one man or is he the (im)moral force behind many others. We know that most of the suicide bombers are AQ not Iraqis who do NOT use this tactic. So just saying AQ is only 5% of the total fighters is a poor argument – ay best. Yes the “Lebanese government” is working to stop the terrorists crossing but how hard is a question. Certainly there are powerful anti-American factions in Lebanon and Iran as well.



Baghdad, Jan. 28 – Iran is secretly transporting weaponry to Lebanese insurgents and its own agents carrying out operations throughout Iraq, according to a Kuwaiti daily.

Al-Siasa (Politics) revealed, "The weapons, to be used by Iranian agents and terrorists in Iraq, are being transported by mercenaries via Syria".

"Ships full of surface-to-surface missiles were bought from an eastern European state and were being transported to Syria", the daily adds in its Wednesday issue.

In a separate development earlier this week, the National Guards commander in the southern Iraqi city of Al-Diwaniya accused Iran of carrying out attacks and funding insurgents throughout the country.

"Those who carry out terrorist operations in Iraq either come from Iran or are funded by Iran to carry out their operations", Major-General Othman Al-Qanemi said in an interview with the Al-Yawm Al-Akhar weekly.

"We have arrested a number of the Iranian regime's mercenaries and have handed them over to the Interior Ministry so that they would be prosecuted," Al-Qanemi said.

The National Guards commander added, "All those arrested, particularly in this province, either came from Iran or have been influenced and funded by Iran to carry out their operations".




A well-organised militia linked to al-Qaeda's pointman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has operated in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley recruiting local fighters to join the insurgency in Iraq, a Lebanese newspaper said Tuesday, citing state security sources. Authorities learnt of the militia's existence through the interrogation of 13 alleged members of an al-Qaeda cell based in Lebanon, the as-Safir daily reported. The men were arrested in a December 2005 sweep in which rockets, explosives, handgrenades and assault rifles were also seized.

Still, Lebanese authorities believe that besides dispatching fighters to Iraq, the al-Qaeda cell also planned terrorist attacks in Lebanon, the as-Safir report said.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=...258893022&par=0




Come on please. Please go back and look at the pages of pictures of Abu Grabe and then show me the same level of coverage and PICTURES of the thousands killed by car bombs in Iraq. Please give me some links to the photos and details. I see coverage on FOX but NPR nearly never covers this except to point out that we have not stopped the bombers.


Mass murder and slaughter of innocents by AQ, Fighters from Iran, Lebanon and all over the Middle East and here is the latest from AI.
Amnesty International Disappointed in Verdict Issued in Cardona Case

Here is the list for Iraq
http://66.151.110.202/search?ie=&q=iraq+&s...on&oe=&start=10

They nearly never mention the ongoing slaughter and concentrate on the US and even when they do they push for a UN commission to insure the monsters get proper treatment \http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iraq/document.do?id=A2FEEB687874F76480256D040038353E

So even though the US our Allies and the Iraqi government are there fighting for the future of the country it’s the UN??????? Alone that should be in charge of dealing with human rights abuses. HUH??? Ya these folks are just sooooo impartial.



And to what degree sir. Is anything the US has done since day one even come close to what AQ and the “insurgents” to every week? Of course not. Imaging if the US deliberately targeted the families and children of real or suspected enemies in Iraq, and it was discovered we did so. What would happen? So tell me why when the enemy does it EVERY DAY there is so little outrage from the international community. AI doesen't even want the US or Iraq to prosecute the killers.

Firstly, you still have not demonstrated men at all, so you can't come back and say 'its not just men'. A post ago you stated thousands of Lebanese fighters, are you now withdrawing that comment, or are you going to evidence it?

Secondly I am not 'harping' on the 5%, thats the statistic as listed by the US generals on the ground in Iraq. You even agreed with it in an earlier thread. Now you are disagreeing with not only the generals in charge of the war, but yourself? If it is more than just 5% could you please evidence this opinion?

Thirdly We 'know' most of the suicide bombers are not Iraqis? Really? Do we 'know' this based on fact or do we 'know' it based on you asserting it?

In fact, most of the suicide bombers are Iraqis, and they most certainly do use this tactic, they used it in the Iran-Iraq war after all. However, you ARE correct in saying a fair number of the suicide bombers are not indiginous Iraqis, some are volunteers from other countries. And what pray tell is the single largest nationality of the suicide bombers AFTER Iraqis? Saudi Arabia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5051401270.html

However these foreign volunteers rarely have anything to do with Al qaida, more normally they come to join one of the Iraqi religious militias.




Its remarkable how many time I have seen you entirely dismiss media coming from inside Iraq, sources from inside Iraq from Iraqis when you disagree with them as being 'untrustworthy' or 'biased', but suddenly when the second hand comment of a local Iraq commander partially agrees with you, he is a s good as gold?



OK, I really have tried to be polite. I will try again, but I must ask you to please stop this exceedingly frustrating tactic. I have adressed this point in great detail, you ignored the rebuttal and simply repeated the assertion. So last post I called you on it, asked you please not to just repeat assertions again and again and ignore lengthy rebuttals of them. Then this post you do it again. What am I to do?

In the hope you will notice it, I will cut and paste my rebuttal from two posts ago here again. Perhaps this time it will not slip under your attention.




Please do not repeat the same assertion for a fourth time without at least adressing the obvious logical rebuttal to it posted here. It is frustrating and hardly condusive to civilised debate, assuming that is your interest here.



OK Ted, once again you KEEP repeating this assertion again and again and again without any evidence at all, so let us put this assertion of yours to the test shall we? The issue of the moment is:

Is there even the slightest truth in Ted's constantly repeated unevidenced assertion that AI concentrates only on US acts and never mentions the horrors the other side commits?

A 20-second look at the Amnesty International webpage produces the following results:

"Armed groups in Iraq disregard basic principles of humanity"
http://web.amnesty.org/wire/September2005/Iraq

"Iraq: Amnesty International appeals to armed groups for the safety and release of all hostages."
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140532004

"Iraq: People come first"
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-index-eng

"Decades of human rights abuse in Iraq"
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_3-eng

"Iraq In cold blood: abuses by armed groups"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140092005

"Iraq: Amnesty International condemns the killing of a trial lawyer and urges greater protection for the defence team."
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Amnesty International strongly condemns the latest suicide bomb attack" http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Amnesty International condemns the killing of two diplomats"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Amnesty International condemns recent attacks against civilians"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: targeting of diplomats by armed groups a worrying new trend, says Amnesty International"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Condemnation of beheading"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: End bloodshed and killing of children"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Hostage-taking and killing must end immediately"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Violence must stop - rule of law must prevail"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Beheading of civilian condemned, hostages must be released"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Killings of civilians in Basra and al-'Amara"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Children must not be made to pay the price of conflict"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Civilian hostages must be released immediately"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ

"Iraq: Amnesty International strongly condemns latest bombings"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-IRQ


In fact if we ignore informational releases that deal with neither side, there are at LEAST five times as many condemnations of the actions of the Insurgents as there are questions or condemnations of actions of the 'Coalition' forces.

So I assume you will now completely and unreservedly retract that assertion Ted?



Finally, we go back to your original assertion Ted, which despite my having called you on thrice now, you keep ignoring, and just repeating as though nobody else were here.

Do you actually have ANY evidence of your remaining assertions (apart from the ones just disproven above) that the media is somehow biased or deliberatly not reporting events in Iraq? Plenty of evidence has been posted that they are reporting all the news, on both sides, not to mention the fact that traditional right-wing news sources like Fox seem to be reporting exactly the same. So if you are going to keep repeating the same assertions, would it be too much to ask for some evidence?

Do you ever ever try to be even a little impartial. Must the facts always match your view and must you consistently attack anyone who disagrees personally???

How about this for “slightest truth”

Take a look at the dates. A 20 second view shows nothing after Sept 2005. So do we believe nothing happened since then or has it gotten worse? Of course the latter is the case. And we know the US has been getting hammered in the interim. They called GITMO "the gulag of our time". This is just a pile of nonsense.



And there are at least many times the infractions of human rights by the various insurgent groups. In fact all of the “bad” thing done by the US pales in comparison to what the insurgents do EVEY WEEK.

Here are a few. See if you can find the related AI protest/condemnation. And what I said was that the AI hammering of the US was out of proportion to our mis deads NOT that AI never mentioned the insurgents.

Insurgents kill 54 in Iraq bombings
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/053106/world_20060531014.php

Iraq gunmen kill 24 civilians at checkpoint
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900S...2M?OpenDocument

21 killed in Iraqi minibus ambush
A GROUP of students on their way to end-of-year exams were among 21 people massacred by gunmen at a bogus checkpoint in Iraq's

Bombs Kill Scores in Iraq — 35 of Them Kidshttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134041,00.html

Baghdad marketplace bomb kills 20 - feb. 2006http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/21/iraq.main/index.html

Iraqi police find at least 87 bodies in 24 hours 3/14/2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Police in the past 24 hours have found the bodies of at least 87 people killed by execution-style shootings -- a gruesome wave of apparent sectarian reprisal slayings, officials said Tuesday

Bomb kills four Iraqi children; six police slain in separate attacks 2/15/2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A bomb exploded Wednesday on a central Baghdad street, killing three boys and a girl as they were walking to school, police and relatives said. The dead included two brothers and their sister.

This goes on and on and on and for 2003-2004 see below.

Major Attacks with Civilian Deaths by Insurgent Groups in Iraq
A major attack is defined as having resulted in ten or more civilian deaths. The list is based on major media sources (see below) and may not include all attacks.
Attacks in 2003
August 7 - A truck bomb outside the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad kills sixteen and injures more than fifty.
August 19 - A suicide bomber in a truck demolishes U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing twenty-two people, including U.N. Special Representative to the Secretary-General Sergio Vieira de Mello, and wounding more than 150.
August 29 - Car bomb kills at least eight-three at the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf, including Shi`a Muslim leader Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim.
October 27 - A truck bomb explodes outside the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Baghdad, killing twelve. Bombs at three police stations in the city kill at least twenty-three more.
Attacks in 2004
January 18 - Suicide car bomber kills at least twenty-five, mostly Iraqi civilians, at entrance to the main U.S. headquarters in Baghdad.
February 1 - Ninety-nine Kurdish civilians are killed and 246 wounded when two suicide bombers detonate bombs at the offices of the main Kurdish political parties in Arbil.
February 10 - Suicide car bomb explodes in a police station in al-Iskandariyya south of Baghdad, killing fifty-three civilians.
February 11 - Suicide car bomb explodes outside an Iraqi army recruitment center in Baghdad, killing up to forty-seven and wounding fifty.
March 2 - More than 181 die and 573 are wounded when multiple blasts erupt in Baghdad and Karbala while Shi`a pilgrims are observing `Ashura’, the holiest day of the Shi`a calendar.
April 20 - Insurgents fire twelve mortar rounds into Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. According to U.S. military officials, the attacks kill twenty-two prisoners and wound ninety-two.
April 21 - Car bombs outside three Iraqi police stations and a police academy in Basra kill sixty-eight people, including sixteen children, and wound 200. Nine of the sixty-eight victims were police.
April 24 - Fourteen Iraqi civilians are killed when insurgents fire mortars and rockets into a crowded market in Baghdad’s Sadr City.
April 24 - A roadside bomb in al-Iskandariyya kills fourteen Iraqis traveling to Baghdad on a bus.
June 17 - A car bomb kills thirty-five Iraqis and wounds more than 100 outside an army recruiting station in Baghdad.
June 25 - A wave of attacks by insurgents in six cities kills more than 100 and wounds more than 300. In Mosul, sixty-two people die and 220 are injured from car bombs at the police academy, two police stations and a hospital, although it is not clear how many of the victims were civilians.
July 14 - A suicide car bomber blows himself up at the gates of the U.S.-fortified Green Zone, killing at least ten Iraqi civilians and injuring dozens.
July 28 - A suicide car bomb kills sixty-eight people and wounds fifty-six in Ba`quba intended for men lined up outside a police recruiting center.
August 1 - Coordinated car bomb attacks on five churches, four in Baghdad and one in Mosul, kill eleven and wound more than forty.
August 26 - A mortar attack on a mosque in Kufa kills twenty-seven Iraqis and wounds sixty-three.
August 27 - Unidentified gunmen fire into a group walking on the main road from Kufa to Najaf, killing fifteen.
August 31 - Ansar al-Sunna announce the execution of twelve Nepalese contractors, including one beheading, on a web site.
September 14 - A car bomb near a police station in Baghdad kills at least forty-seven people and wounds 114 in a nearby market. Recruits were lining up out the station to sign up for the police.
September 30 - Insurgents detonate three car bombs in Baghdad’s Hay al-‘Amel neighborhood as U.S. soldiers hand out candy for the opening of a renovated water pumping station, killing forty-one people, thirty-four of them children.
October 10 - A suicide car bomb near the Oil Ministry in Baghdad killed an estimated ten Iraqis.
October 15 - A suicide bomber in a car explodes near a police station in Baghdad, killing ten civilians, including a family of four.
October 23 - Insurgents capture and execute forty-six soldiers from the Iraqi armed forces and three drivers taking them home for the weekend on leave.
October 31 - A rocket slams into a hotel in Tikrit, killing fifteen and wounding eight.
November 11 - A car bomb explodes just after a U.S. patrol passes, killing seventeen Iraqi civilians and wounding thirty.
December 3 - A car bomb kills at least fourteen people outside a Shi`a mosque in Baghdad and heavily damages the mosque.
December 16 - An explosion outside a Shi`a shrine in Karbala kills ten Iraqis and wounds forty-one, including Grand Ayatollah `Ali al-Sistani’s representative in the holy city.
December 19 - A suicide car bomb in Najaf, 300 yards from the Imam Ali shrine kills and wounds more than 120. On the same day, a car bomb explodes at Karbala’s bus station, killing fourteen and injuring at least forty.
December 27 - A suicide car bomber kills thirteen people outside the offices of SCIRI, one of the main Shi`a Muslim political parties, in Baghdad.
December 28 - Twenty-eight people are killed in an explosion that flattens several houses in Baghdad, apparently when a police unit was lured into a trap laid by insurgents.
Attacks in 2005 (through mid-September)
January 19 - A suicide car bomb explodes near a police station in Baghdad’s Karrada neighborhood, killing an estimated eleven civilians.
January 21 - A suicide car bomb blows up outside a Shi`a mosque in Baghdad killing fourteen and wounding forty
January 30 - Insurgents execute at least nine suicide bombings on Iraq’s election day, killing at least thirty-five.
February 7 - Suicide bombers kill at least twenty-seven in two Iraqi cities; outside a Ba`quba police station and a Mosul hospital.
February 7 – A suicide car bomb kills fifteen civilians and wounds seventeen outside the main police headquarters in Ba`quba.
February 8 - A suicide bomber killed twenty-one people waiting to sign up for the Iraqi police and wounded twenty-seven in Baghdad.
February 11 - A car bomb kills at least twelve Iraqis and wounds forty outside a Shi`a mosque in Balad Ruz, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad.
February 11 - Masked gunmen kill at least ten at a bakery in a Shi`a area of Baghdad. It remains unclear if the attack was by insurgents or the result of a tribal dispute.
February 12 - A suicide car bomber kills seventeen Iraqis outside a hospital south of Baghdad.
February 18 - A suicide bomber kills fifteen and wounds twenty-four as Shi`a Muslims celebrate the religious festival of `Ashura’in a procession to al-Kadhimiyya mosque in southern Baghdad.
February 28 - A suicide car bomb attack on a crowd of mostly Shi`a police and army recruits in al-Hilla kills 125 and wounds about 130. Most of the dead were police and army recruits, but civilians from the market across the street were also killed.
March 10 - A suicide bomber strikes a Shi`a mosque during a funeral in Mosul, killing at least forty-seven and wounding more than 100.
April 20 - Nineteen Iraqi soldiers are found executed in a stadium in Haditha.
April 24 - Two bombs kill fifteen Iraqis and wound fifty-seven near the Shi`a Ahl al-Bayt mosque in Baghdad.




Most suicide bombers in Iraq are not Iraqis, Pape says, suggesting that the war may be sucking up the supply of international suicide bombers. ...
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._7420_db056.htm

That is without question the strangest personal attack that has ever been levelled against me Ted, I don't even know what to say.

Perhaps the question you should be asking is not 'why do the facts always match my view', but 'why do the facts never match yours.'

As for 'attacking anyone who disagrees with me', that is pure and simple an utter falsehood. In light of recent threads being closed, I have gone out of my way to be polite to you in this one, trying as hard as possible not to snap at your tactics and continuous ignoring of any point or evidence that disagrees with you, a tactic I note you continue in this post. I have not attacked you or anyone in this thread, and I think if you read back you will discover that I have gone above and beyond in order to be polite in the face of your obfuscations. Can you say the same Ted?



Yes Ted, I posted over TWENTY Examples of AI condemning terrorist actions, but you noticed there are none on my list after September 2005, so (ignoring that I just completely disproved your point) you INSTANTLY assume that the only possible explanation for this is that they suddenly stopped caring in September 2005?

Or Ted, perhaps, just perhaps there would be another, far more obvious reason, if only you bothered to check it out? Perhaps that their news archive only goes up to September 2005? Ooops.

What was it you said in your first sentence about me not being 'even a little bit impartial'?


However, since for some baffling reason you continue to pursue this point, allow me to FURTHER hammer the nails home.

From AI, in 2006:
"The persistence of armed conflict and other forms of political violence was the context for war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by several parties. Thousands of children and adult civilians were killed or injured in the continuing conflict in Iraq, many of them victims of suicide bomb attacks carried out by militant groups that frequently targeted civilians. Other civilians, including Iraqis and foreign nationals, were abducted and held hostage; some were released but others were killed by their captors. In November, the Iraq conflict spilled over to Jordan when suicide bombers apparently linked to Iraq targeted three hotels in the capital, Amman, killing 60 people and wounding many others. In Egypt, bombs that targeted civilians exploded in Cairo in April and Sharm el-Sheik in July; 90 people were killed and at least 100 were injured."



I see, so when confronted with the fact that AI actually condemns in its releases and reports the Insurgents five times as much as they mention the US and US allies, (thus completely disproving your earlier assertions) you now change your position to, yes, they do condemn the Insurgents FAR more, but not sufficiently more on a ratio basis. To you, condemning them five times as much is still rampant anti-US bias? I just want to be clear.

What was it you said in your first sentence about me not being 'even a little bit impartial'?




Now this is hysterical Ted, I have to be honest. lets divide this into two parts, Good news for Ted and bad news for Ted.

The good news for Ted is that you are of course, correct, AI does not condemn every single individual insurgent attack in Iraq. I'm not entirely sure why you would expect them to do so, releasing a new press release every time. Instead they release 'week in review' statements in which they list the atrocities and attacks, on all sides, that week. Thus most of these attacks you list above ARE mentioned and condemned, but as you say, not in their own individual press releases. Thus, you are technically correct on this point, though I'm not sure how this furthers your assertion about the 'horrendous bias' of the UN...

But then there is the Bad news for Ted, and thats in your desire to score points on this issue, you seem to have forgotten what your original contention was.

Looking at the list you provided above, do you know what I see Ted? I see news reports on atrocities and attacks committed by the insurgents, reported in the mass American Media. Lots of them. You quoted from a dozen news networks, even CNN.

Thank you Ted, for providing such sterling evidence that completely disproves your original contention. These are reports in the US media about the many attacks committed by the Insurgents, you cited them brilliantly, and with great expertise completely shot down your own original assertion:

QUOTE

Most suicide bombers in Iraq are not Iraqis, Pape says, suggesting that the war may be sucking up the supply of international suicide bombers. ...
[url=http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm]

OK Ted, I admit to being completely confused by this one.

You asserted that most suicide bombers in Iraq are not Iraqis, and I challenged you to evidence that assertion.

So in response, you provided the above link.

Except that NOWHERE in that link does it in ANY WAY evidence your assertion at all. In fact, it does quite the opposite, it disputes it.

"Pape argues that the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they're nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs. The suicide terrorists, who account for about 5% of all terrorist incidents but about 75% of all fatalities, believe their land and way of life are threatened. The religions of the occupier and the insurgents invariably are different"

He never once makes any KIND of comment about most suicide bombers not being Iraqis.

Thus that would be the [b]second time in just one post you have given evidence which completely and directly DISPROVES your own assertions.

What was it you said in your first sentence about me not being 'even a little bit impartial'?


Lastly, I am foced to note that despite my calling you on it four times, and actually recpying my rebuttal so there could be no chance of you mising it, you STILL refused to address half of my arguments, and just repeated the same assertions again as if nobody had said anything. Please, (for the fourth time in as many posts) please I ask you to stop doing that if you have ANY desire for honest debate here.

I am quite sure that Lord Carleton took the same view of the actions of the Americans during the Revolution, right up until England sued for peace.



There is a "Nuremberg" trial going on in Iraq (it would be more precise to say, in the Green Zone) right now, haven't you noticed? But my point was, it is the victors who will get to write Iraq's history books and conduct its trials.



I don't know which is more risible, the blithe claim of eventual victory or the notion that continued warfare is required to stop "Islamofascists" from attacking the United States.

But as a matter of fact, it would be simple enough for the United States to make peace with its Middle Eastern enemies: stop supporting Israel and withdraw the military bases from the Arabian peninsula and the Gulf. Oh, and get out of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq, rather than making the United States any safer, has only proven the other side's perfectly reasonable point that America wants to dominate the oilfields and Make The World Safe For Israel -- at the expense of any number of Arab lives. If bin Laden ever had any concern for recruiting, they vanished on the day U.S. tanks rolled across the Kuwaiti frontier.

Wow. I am impressed. ONE in 2006 and no groups mentioned and nor mention of the countries that certainly supported many of these killers. Is this your best evidence? Is this all there is?? If it is it makes my point – thank you. Now imagine or a second if the US was sending men, or knew of men, from the US going to country X and murdering women and children. What would AI do to the US in the court of world public opinion.

So your evidence of the thoroughness of AI is this ridiculous half baked statement above with this classic line – “crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by several parties” … many of them victims of suicide bomb attacks carried out by militant groups that frequently targeted civilians”

Are you kidding or is there more??? Certainly you cannot be serious in telling me that in all of 2006 AI could only come up with THIS. Should I show you how many times the US ewas blasted specifically in 2006 by AI or can YOU look it up. Clearly if AI cared about exposing these ‘militant groups” they could say one hell of a lot more.




So you mean five times as much for 50 times or 100 times more incidence. Are you have trouble with the math here sir?



I never said the media never reported it. Please stop your usual twisting of my statements to try to make your point. What I said was that any single US incident gets FAR more coverage by US media, esp NYT and CNN, than any single mass murder by insurgents.




Wrong article speaking of Tamel Tigers. Her is the correct reference. My error.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners -- mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs - - and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their deaths, the officials told The Associated Press. The young men are not so much fighters as human bombs -- a relatively small but deadly component of the Iraqi insurgency.
"The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation," said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq.
Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has confirmed that thinking.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...01/ai_n14687818




You are certainly correct about Israel and leaving the Middle East ( not Iraq). Un fortunately it is politically impossible here. In addition or national interests in the safety of the oil supply supply has forced us to look at this area as vital.

It is "politically impossible" because it is contrary to the aspirations of U.S. corporate interests, which is to say, U.S. governing elites. It is not necessarily contrary to the interests of Americans in general. It would bring a peaceful end to the mis-named "War on Terror," and it would not be fatal to the United States to have to deal on more equal terms with the nations and peoples of the Middle East. Its having to do that would be fatal, of course, to Israel's long-term survival as presently constituted, but that is problematic in any case. There is no necessary conjunction between the interests of Israel and those of the United States; the present war shows indeed that there is an extreme disjunction.

The nation is involved in an imperialist, expansionist war whose purpose is to gain substantial control over the oil fields of the Middle East and to set up one or more client states in that region. It does not hurt that the war and so-called "reconstruction" in themselves provide vast opportunities for corporate profits. It also does not hurt that there is a highly influential Zionist movement in the United States many of whose partisans are, to put it mildly, more interested in Israel's welfare than in Amerca's.

It is all this, not so-called democracy, not weapons of mass destruction, and certainly not some silly notion of Bush's ambition to do what his father had not done, that gave rise to the war. The liberal analysis fails utterly here because it is unwilling to confront actual U.S. political economy and, through it, the actual reasons for the war. This account further explains why so many Democrats were and remain war supporters -- many of them serve the same, or only slightly different, segments of the ruling classes that their Republican "opponents" do. Also unfortunately, many of them, e.g. Joseph Lieberman and Hilary Clinton, are irretrievably entangled with Zionism. The standard liberal account can do nothing but point to the supposedly inexplicable "disloyalty" of these powerful Party leaders to "progressive principles."

Although these points of view are extremely current in the world as a whole, they are seldom heard in the United States, and particularly seldom in in the major media which are, of course, owned and sponsored by these same elites. If someone says these things in Rome, Paris or Moscow, people yawn and say, "of course." If someone says them here he is, if possible, ignored; otherwise he is called a kook, an anti-Semite or a traitor.

More likely it’s the long association with Israel and millions of Jews in America that would never allow us to slip in out unflinching support for Israel. IMO this is THE reason the Muslim world hates the US above all other nations. WE support their worst enemy.




Old line Communist rhetoric is really not the reality. We will have, at the end of the day no real “control” of Iraq (or any other) oil fields. What we will have is a safer region where ½ the worlds oil resides and without which our economy would be a disaster. Current production is only 2% over demand (quote from Alan Greenspan on C-Span tonight). ANY disruption in this critical area leads to disaster.

No Ted, not one, just one I cited. One I cited to answer your assertion that 'there is nothing after September 2005', now proven false. Just as I cited 20 before to answer your assertion that 'AI never condemns Insurgent actions, now proven false.

ALL of this of course would have been unecessary if you had bothered to look for just 20 seconds at the AI site before making your patently false assertions. Now you would not be forced to withdraw your comments one after another every post.




NO, I'm just curious to find out what exactly would make you happy. Having accepted the 5:1 ratio, and seemingly still furious, now we know you would not be happy until the 'condemnations' coming out of AI were at a ratio of 50:1 against the insurgents. I suppose what is realistic, and what they can accurately report on with limited knowledge of the insurgent activities never entered your 'bsic maths'...



Firstly, thats not what you said at all. I'm not twisting your words Ted, you are just wiggling from position to position as each one gets disproven.

However, in THIS case, your new position is essentially accurate, that a massacre by US troops of Iraqis gets more coverage per incident then a massacre of Iraqis by Iraqis.

What I find very interesting, is that in every one of my posts I have been BEGGING you to stop repeating the same assertion over and over again and stop ignoring evidence and arguments posted against it. I have pleaded with you on this very issue for about 5 posts now, I even directly reposted my own comments word for word in the hope you would not ignore them and repeat the same assertion yet again, as if nobody had ever said anything.

Yet, it continues. Thus, in an increasingly vain attempt to get you to actually debate your assertions, I will RE-re-post my comments for a THIRD time. Hopefully this time you will not miss it.






Yes this is better, though it still does not rebut the quote you posted last time:

""Pape argues that the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they're nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs. The suicide terrorists, who account for about 5% of all terrorist incidents but about 75% of all fatalities, believe their land and way of life are threatened. The religions of the occupier and the insurgents invariably are different""

But anyways, this gentleman posting a year ago does support half your assertion, that many of the suicide bombers are foreign, however he opposes you by saying that the largest group of foreign suicide bombers are Saudis, he does not mention the states you chose to blame.



Backing up to the original issue, now that you have kindly cited literally dozens of examples of western media covering Iraqi insurgent atrocities, thus torpedoing your original assertion, and I am forced to remind you for the fifth time in a row you still have refused to deal with the rebuttal points I posted (preferring instead to rebut your assertion with your own rebuttal evidence), what exactly remains of your original contention about the supposed 'bias' of the US media?