[vyper]

**** it, would someone please send the SAS into rescue those hostages?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: until you show that you are not just slavering-at-the-mouth biased I take all your posts with more than a grain of salt

but yes symbolic control is being handed over, and it is a big show for the elections

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk15.html

[Bobboau]

he said show that you are _not_ just slavering-at-the-mouth biased

[Rictor]

Sorry, these are facts. Or perhaps you're implying that Robert Fisk, one of the most acclaimed British journalist in the world is simply pulling it out of his ass?

You can put whatever spin you want to them, but the facts remain nevertheless.

[Kazan]

no those are not fact's rictor - it's all speculation, pessimistic speculation, but perfectly plausable series of events

don't act like they're facts just because you agree with his speculation.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Gank


Based on what exactly? If I'd have said US troops were doing the same thing you'd be the first to jump on me. Btw US troops did exactly that in Mogadishu.

01010, God sure has a funny sense of humour.

Show some proof of US troops using babies as shields, otherwise dispense with the nonsense. Its really quite unbecomming.

[Rictor]

From the article:

Fact:
the so-called "Coalition Provisional Authority" - the occupying power - has issued unchangeable "orders" on highly significant matters, non-governmental organisations and the judiciary. For example, this places the Iraqi military under US military command until a final constitution begins operating; the new "government" - unelected, of course - will have no power over the Special Tribunals to try former members of the Baath Party.

Fact:
The Americans control the central bank law and companies law. Institutions to control the press and television in Iraq have been set up by the Americans, including a Communications and Media Commission which will be "solely responsible for licensing and regulating telecommunications, information and other media in Iraq".

Fact:
Paul Bremer, the US proconsul, has already issued an executive order specifying that the new Iraqi armed forces will be under the command of the American commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who will lead US forces after the "transfer" of power on 30 June

Fact:
A 1987 Saddamite law which forbids Iraqi workers in state-owned organisations from forming trade unions is to remain in being. Resistance at the work site - political "resistance", that is - will be illegal and trade union leaders can be arrested.

Fact:
And favoured for the future US "ambassador" in Iraq is none other than Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-conservative pro-Israeli academic who is a member of the US administration and one of the "hawks" who encouraged the whole disastrous US invasion of Iraq.

[Gank]

During the night after the botched raid covered in blackhawk down US troops took cover in a building containing women and children. Anyone with a copy of the book can confirm this. Anyone who doesnt should borrow a copy if you can, for all its hoo har cheastbeating ****e its a decent read.

[Kazan]

"unelected of course" is not necessarily true - until a "final constitution begins operating" could (And should) be long after the first elections are held

Fact 1 eliminated

Fact 2 needs not be disputed
Fact 3 needs not be disputed
Fact 4 needs not be disputed
Fact 5 needs not be disputed

I agree that 2-5 are bad things, however fact 1 is not wholly true, any counterexample is enough to eliminate the "facthood" of a fact - the counterexample is that your fact 1 rests on a presumption, which therefore means it's not logically sound


gank: where the women and children just there ie as casaulties of the situation, or was there intent to use them as shields

[StratComm]

The whole issue of militants sheltering themselves in mosques is somewhat dubious as well with obvious political ramifications.  Troops can't fire on the mosque without being percieved as attacking the religious institution or enter it without being accused of defiling the place.  However, militants have no qualms about carrying their guns and RPG's in and firing said weapons out of the mosque.  They are hijacking Islam, and that's a universally bad thing.  I don't care if they are doing it in the name of religion; they are indirectly causing their "holy places" to be placed in danger and then accuse their attackers of attacking the religion.  What is annoying as hell to watch is that no one seems to see a discrepency there.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
"unelected of course" is not necessarily true - until a "final constitution begins operating" could (And should) be long after the first elections are held

Fact 1 eliminated

 

*reads it over again*

I don't see how you are eliminating it. The first sentence is fact, unless you think Fisk is fabricating it. The second bit, about the military being under US control until a functioning constitution is also fact, I think the date December 2005 is mentioned. And then the last bit, about the new government having no power over the Baath party tribunals is also true.

Are you discarding the whole lot of it just becuase you find one part to be questionable? Then its only a matter of breaking it down into smaller chunkcs which will all be true except for one.

err.yeah. Not that it matters much, I just don't see where you are arriving at a fault.

[Kazan]

Rictor: the entire STATEMENT is not true

you're trying to puport his entire ARTICLE as truth though

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Gank
During the night after the botched raid covered in blackhawk down US troops took cover in a building containing women and children. Anyone with a copy of the book can confirm this. Anyone who doesnt should borrow a copy if you can, for all its hoo har cheastbeating ****e its a decent read.

That mission was an utter disaster and the commanders behind it should have been fired. Now, the next time you use what happened during a previous military operation as evidence, make sure the military officers in charge were competent (like the ones currently in Iraq).

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by StratComm
The whole issue of militants sheltering themselves in mosques is somewhat dubious as well with obvious political ramifications.  Troops can't fire on the mosque without being percieved as attacking the religious institution or enter it without being accused of defiling the place.  However, militants have no qualms about carrying their guns and RPG's in and firing said weapons out of the mosque.  They are hijacking Islam, and that's a universally bad thing.  I don't care if they are doing it in the name of religion; they are indirectly causing their "holy places" to be placed in danger and then accuse their attackers of attacking the religion.  What is annoying as hell to watch is that no one seems to see a discrepency there.

I was thinking of dropping infantry into the mosque instead of blasting it from the air to minimize damage to the facility, but that would cause its own PR hell when a bunch of the soldiers get shot while roping down from the helicopter.

[Liberator]

You know we could just pull our soldiers back and glass the entire town.  Probably the best way in the long run anyhow.

[Shrike]

You could drown a whale in your stupidity.  

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Liberator
You know we could just pull our soldiers back and glass the entire town.  Probably the best way in the long run anyhow.

Originally posted by Rictor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108956/posts

Read the people's comment here. Its all war-bloggers splooging their pants at the prospect of leveling Fallujah, trying to outdo each other as to who can think of the most terrible death for the population of Fallujah.

O'Reilly, the quintessential American fanatic.

I had quite a good laugh before I got bored at the sheer repetition.

[Kazan]

yes, let's use nuclear weapons.. that's really freaking smart

you know once in a while i'll suggest it out of PURE SARCASM or use it as a device to show the FUTILITY of an action.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Rictor

*O'Reilly quote"
 

He's Bill O'Reilly. What can I say?

[Gank]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
That mission was an utter disaster and the commanders behind it should have been fired. Now, the next time you use what happened during a previous military operation as evidence, make sure the military officers in charge were competent (like the ones currently in Iraq).

Lemme get this straight, it was the commanders fault for planning such a bad operation. By the same logic germans are excused of the atrocities commited in germany because it was hitlers bad plan? Doesnt work that way mate, if you do something, you are responsible for it.