June 25th, 2006

RTW — A Vet Speaks Out

The following comment was left in response to some of the comments on this post and I thought it deserved some front page action.

Normally I do not post, but this is for folks like Emmet.

I served two years in Iraq and it’s in total disarray contrary to what the Bush propaganda machine want you to believe. To you armchair civilian chickenhawks who sit in your warm, secure, comfortable homes watching FOX News; if your so damn gung-ho get off your flag waving lame ass’s and prove how patriotic you really are by enlisting, let’s see the true color of your blood. In Iraq you’ll come to your senses real quick when you smell the air permeated with the foul odor of death. The innocent Iraqi people are more than willing to share their daily suffering of losing a family member or friend. Having their homes reduced to rubble, living in constant fear day and night. And who do they blame ? They blame the people of America for allowing George Bush to destroy their country.

The men and women arriving home in caskets are no longer able to speak the truth. Now their loved one’s must endure and struggle with the pain of losing a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, mother a friend. And what exactly were the reasons for dying ? For George Bush’s noble cause of spreading democracy, finding WMD’s, freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. I don’t think so. Yes, many of us truly did think going into Iraq was all about protecting America from terrorists. It’s taken me a while, after many sleepless nights, to figure out what our governments real intentions and purposes were for engaging in this illegal war of aggression. The Iraqi people are not terrorists nor was their government hiding weapons of mass destruction. Have I earned my right to speak out against this war … your damn right I have and I live with the constant nightmare every day. And I personally don’t give a rats ass if you think I’m unpatriotic for standing up for what believe to be a evil political cover up.

Bush supporters better start paying attention to who the real enemies are in this country. This so-called ” war on terror ” is a fictional creation, designed to distract the American people from the real problems in this country while the war mongers in the White House steal more power and destroy the real America. This current FUBAR of a government is systematically disassembling every system of citizen protection, due process and anything resembling the rule of law, it is simultaneously creating a monster, a system of tyranny that has no safety checks or counterbalances.

The War on Terror is, in fact, the War on Freedom. They just didn’t name it correctly. And people who support this war and this administration share philosophies with the Nazi party members who bolstered Hitler to power. Rah rah! Shoot more people! Bomb more nations! Wave more flags! We’re #1! Go USA! Grab that oil! Imprison all the traitors! Censor the media to protect national security! Thin the herd out by getting rid of the liberals ! The list goes on …

And the cross-eyed Bush supporting morons, who have literally no understanding of history or the extreme dangers of unchecked war powers, are marching us right down the same corridor that led Nazi Germany to ruin. Every transgression by the U.S. government against some particular group, the Bushies say, is justified as long as it doesn’t target flag waving, Bible thumping, war hollering white people. In time, it will be turned against every citizen, including the Bush supporters, who will one day wake up to find their freedoms lost and say to themselves, ” But I thought they were only going after the terrorists ! I’m not a terrorist………..”

To damn bad you stupid jack-ass’s ! You made the fool’s bargain by trading liberty for security.

Posted in Military, Middle East, Impeachment, Police State



31 Comment(s)

Leave a response »

  1. Lizzy Says :

    Thank you RTW for your service, but more important for speaking the truth.  


             
    Comment unrated
  2. Dusty Says :

    God bless you RTW for coming home to give your view of the occupation of Iraq. The Iraq Embassy Memo along with your comment here,goes far to show us the real truth of what is happening in Iraq. 

    I am glad that Emmettc as usual, opened up his pie-hole and spewed his usual,anonymous bullshit..it seems to have given us you. and I am grateful for that. 

    I hope that you find peace and are able to put your time in Iraq in perspective,and lead a good life. Far too many people that have been over there for any length of time can not. Another generation of PTSD victims ala Vietnam. 


             
    Comment unrated
  3. Steve O Says :

    RTW, thank you so much for your service and for sharing your experience. If you haven’t already you should join Iraq Veterans Against the War. They are a good group of people. Charlie Anderson, a vet that ocassionally posts on this site is a member and very active in bringing this disaster to an end.


             
    Comment unrated
  4. Liberal Army Wife Says :

    RTW, thanks for posting. and for everything else. and I hope that you get some sleep.. can get some help sleeping. keep fighting, RTW. Keep fighting. take care of yourself.

    ~LAW~


             
    Comment unrated
  5. windspike Says :

    The War on Terror is, in fact, the War on Freedom. They just didn’t name it correctly.

    Pretty much sums it up quite nicely.  Fantastic comment RTW.  Blog on all. 


             
    Comment unrated
  6. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    I respect anyone who serves in the military anywhere in the world and especially in Iraq or Afghnistan at this time. Whatever the author’s opinion on the war, I thank him/her (which is it by the way?).

    I just have a couple of points:

    1. “And what exactly were the reasons for dying? For George Bush’s noble cause of spreading democracy, finding WMD’s, freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. I don’t think so.

    Its a valid opinion and one that is shared by many here but it is just an opinion. The author is welcome to it but I don’t share it. Even if those were faux rationale from the standpoint of the Administration, another widely held opinion around here, there are some people, myself included, that think that they were and are, particularly the ones about removing a murderous despot and giving liberty and democracy a chance in Iraq, very good reasons for having gone to Iraq and even if they were faux reasons advanced deceitfully by the Administration, they are verifyably happening in Iraq so if these were fanciful deceits advanced as cover for some other more sinister reasons, the Administration is following through on its deceit. This leads me to suspect that these were more than deceits as cover for more sinister designs. I rather suspect that they were honestly advanced rationale. Nothing I can prove, mind you; just my opinion.

    2. “The Iraqi people are not terrorists nor was their government hiding weapons of mass destruction.

    The question of whether the people are terrorists is somewhat not a point that anyone in the Administration has made that I am aware of. If the author (or anyone else) has evidence to the contrary, I’d be happy to look at it but I don’t think it is so. Some points:

    a) Bush went to pains at the very beginning to say that we were not at war with the Iraqi people. We are now, of course, at war with those Iraqis who have taken up arms against us but even they, in so far as they are attacking the coalition forces, are not terrorists exactly (there is an argument to be made that anyone who, even when firing on our military personnel, does so surrounded by non-combatant civilians, old men, women and children, as human shields ARE terrorists since, by international law of war, they (the insurgents) are responsible for the collateral deaths of civilians that they, themselves, have surrounded themselves with but that’s not the point either, so I’ll leave that for now), rather, they are an armed resistance, a legitimate thing for any invading army to expect. The point is, here, NOBODY said, at the beginning of the war or before (or since, as far as I’m aware) that the Iraqi people were (or are) terrorists and that that’s the reason that we went into Iraq. I suspect that there ARE Iraqis who ARE terrorists in the sense that there are probably saddamist Ba’athists and others, including Shiites, that, like their esteemed leader, Saddam, HAVE deliberately targetted Iraqi civilians, shot at voters, for example, or shot up Mosques at prayer time. To the extent that there may be Iraqis who have done this, there are Iraqis who are terrorists in Iraq. It could also be argued that, to the extent that saddamists participated in the murders of Iraq citizens under Saddam (think mass graves here) there WERE Iraqi terrorists in Iraq before we entered the country but that’s not the point either;

    b) The point that was made pre-war was that there were terrorists in Iraq before the war. This is established fact, as far as I am aware. If anyone in the Administration said that there were terrorists in Iraq before the war, they were right;

    c) There are terrorists in Iraq now. While they’re there and we’re there, in my opinion, we might as well fight them.

    It is reported that we’ve found some 500 shells that either were filled with sarin or mustard gas in Iraq, both certifiably weapons of mass destruction, however they were, apparently, left overs from the Iran-Iraq war and are not the WMD that were expected or that we advanced as one of the reasons for the Iraq war. Some of the shells had been emptied and the shelf-life of sarin is weeks, so even the ones that were filled are, presumably, inactive. Mustard gas, on the other hand, I understand to be an entirely different thing. While it degrades, it remains partially effective for years, perhaps decades and so might still be dangerous should they be used in an improvised explosive device. In any case, they are WMD that Saddam did not destroy or account for. In that sense, WMD were being hidden or at least were not being accounted for by Saddam pre-war.

    3. “Bush supporters better start paying attention to who the real enemies are in this country. This so-called ” war on terror ” is a fictional creation, designed to distract the American people from the real problems in this country while the war mongers in the White House steal more power and destroy the real America.

    Again, the author is welcome to her/his opinion, and it is one that is widely shared here, though not by me. I consider 9/11 and every one of its precursors to be acts of war. If the author is trying to say that there is no war on terror, s/he’s welcome to that opinion but it’s going to take a whole lot more explaining and arguing than the author has done here to convince me of that. The author, and anyone else who wishes to take a stab at it, is welcome to try.


             
    Comment unrated
  7. Craig, 

    It is not an established fact that there were terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. Unless you mean in the same way there are terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the other Gulf States. If you want us to back up our arguments, which is perfectly reasonable, I think you should back yours up as well, rather than just proclaim them facts.


             
    Comment unrated
  8. Tammara Says :

    dear rtw-

    i saw your post early this morning, but had no time to respond to it, as i was on the computer, waiting for my husband to log in from iraq. i sent him the link to it, so he could read it too. he agrees with your words. 

    i wanted to thank you for your strong words.  i won’t thank you for your service, not because there is any shame in you volunteering to serve, but because there is much shame in what your government asked you to do in the name of that service.   i am not ashamed of my husband as a soldier, i am ashamed of my government. i honor that any of you have the courage to sign up to defend this country when so often our leaders are so corrupt and disloyal to you in return for your sacrifice.

    in my peace work, i spend a lot of time with the iraq vets against the war. i believe them when they say that the work they do to change the course of this country helps them to heal some of the damage they have sustained as a result of serving in this war.  i encourage you to write, to speak out, and to do whatever your heart tells you to help yourself heal.  please continue to share your truth.  your brothers and sisters in arms look always for those who have the courage to say what they feel in their hearts.  when they see your words, they too may find they have the courage to speak. 

    i hope to see your words here again.

    peace be with you.


             
    Comment unrated
  9. Kenq Says :

    Everyone…. EVERYONE… needs to educate themselve on one very important fact.

    Families generally have a culture that is passed on to each new generation. That is why Bush was so upset at Hussein - for the things that man did to his father George Bush senior.  But what you all fail to realize is that both Bush presidents  carry on the family culture of corporatism.

    Our current presidents grandfather was Prescott Bush - the father of our former president Bush senior.  During WWII, President Roosevelt retailiated against the Bush family for supporting Hilter in WWII. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, Roosevelt took action against Bush family businesses including banking and steel manufacturing companies.

     And the Bush family has never forgotten it.

     
    It is a family that lives by a culture of nefarious corporatism. Both George Bush senior and junior are here to retaliate against the Roosevelt America of yesteryear that took action against their family name and their family friend - Hilter.

    Look up Prescott Bush on the Internet.  Wikipedia gives some of the facts but of course that republicaon website waters down the facts so that it is easier to swallow and so that you will accept it as no big deal. But none the less, the facts are there. And if you really want to know, look up the actions Roosevelt took at the end of the war and watch his video that was presented on 60 minutes by Andy Rooney last year.  A look into the past…. Roosevelt told us then that our worst enemies were business men right here in America.

    He knew he could not contain the American faction and was trying to warn future America.  And that warning rings as reality today.

    The Bush family knowningly and willingly supported Hitler in WWII.

    Think about that really, really hard.

    What is going on is far worse than even this soldier realizes. I thank him for his bravery in speaking out.

    Let me repeat that one last time, the Bush family is one that intentionally and willingly supported Hilter in WWII and just to send that message home, we see the behavior of the Hitler Administration (torture, etc) of Germany echoed again today right here in America by our own president (lower case intentional).

    THis is not propoganda. It is in the federal archives and available to anyone willing to go to the library and look it up.  The Trading with the Enemy Act. President Roosevelt. And the Bush family.

     God bless what America was - but fuck Bush. Fuck Rumsfeld. And FUCK Cheney. The third reich reawoken in America.
     
    -Ken

     

     


             
    Comment unrated
  10. The End Says :

    To anyone still clueless about this, here’s a little wake-up call:  9/11 was an inside job.  Take a look at the neo-con think tank PNAC (Project for a New American Century); their document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, from SEPT. 2000 (a full year before 9/11!), was calling for big changes in the way America deals with the world, calling for more American domination and expansion.  Their document said that such changes would likely take a long time, absent “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor.”  Does anyone really think that is a coincidence?  Why would they just meaninglessly say, “Boy, if there was another Pearl Harbor, we could quickly implement these plans of ours…”  Do you think they were just shooting the breeze?!   Members of PNAC are  Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Woolsey, for crying out loud!

    Wake up!  It was a neo-con wish-list, and they got their wish.  Scare the American people with ooga-booga terrorism, take away their liberties & rights to protest (free-speech zones, anyone?), then launch an invasion of the Middle East, to conquer all the valuable oil-fields that will be even MORE valuable in the coming years, and will control the economic growth of China, for instance.  These neo-cons want American domination of the world (it’s the only thing that gets their little dicks hard, I guess).

    Don’t buy the government horseshit about some “War on Terror”–it’s just like the “War on Drugs”, meant to last decades, make the target problem WORSE rather than cure it so as to justify further crack-downs and police-state mentality, rob us of our liberties while pretending to protect us, and let the government have free reign to do whatever it feels like doing.  George W. Bush’s administration is a MUCH bigger threat to America than any little ooga-booga group like Al-Quaeda (should be spelled Al-CIAda, anyway!).

    So to the good American people buying into this junk about “We were hit on 9/11 and we need to protect ourselves!”—WAKE UP!   Look at how much money the U.S. spends on “defense”, weapons, vehicles, ammunition, military technology, etc.  You think 4 big airliners were allowed to meander around New England for a couple hours WITHOUT being intercepted by all the F-16 interceptor jets meant for such occasions?  BULLSHIT!  9/11 was allowed to happen, and probably planned from the inside.  Hitler had his Reichstag fire back in ‘33, which was set by the Nazis and blamed on the Communists, so that Hitler’s people could take control of the government.  Sound familiar?  Ruthless leaders know how to guide people like sheep.  They knew so many Americans would react submissively after 9/11, and that’s why they let it happen.  This is no conspiracy theory–there’s so much evidence supporting it that it’s actually a wacky conspiracy theory to think that 19 rag-tag hijackers with box-cutters and little flight training could have pulled this off.   The government lied and said, “Oh, we couldn’t have known that jets would be used like that…” But they were caught lying, since their own internal documents show that they’d used such scenarios in simulations themselves!  LIARS.

    9/11 was meant to crack down on an unruly population that uses the internet to inform and communicate.  They don’t want that.  They want control.  The elite always want more money & power.  They knew all the dumb rural American hicks would jump at the chance to hate some foreigners, and they went through with it.  Now our civil liberties are being quietly eroded every day, and those fools in the White House come up with one blatant lie after another to justify their wars of aggression in the Middle East. 

    They’re willing to send our jobs over-seas, to deny us healthcare, to send us off to die in foreign countries due to their lies, the list goes on.  You think the people in the White House spend sleepless nights worried about the average American and how to protect them?  Don’t be so childish & naive.  To the rulers, the people are just an obstacle, a big unwieldy group to trick, lie, and steal from.


             
    Comment unrated
  11. Neil Says :

    For Craig (and everyone else who’s interested!)

    You use words such as terrrorist…as if you have the monopoly on what this infers…just as the Bushies and the mentally retarded like to. I’m not suggesting that Craig is mentally retarded in any medically defined sense - just in the true sense that he(she?) by choice retards their innate intelligence bt holding such closed and rigidly defined perceptions, that are clearly devoid of (in the least) a true, global view; which, after all, is the problem lying at the compassion-less heart of American society that allows so many of that nation to engage in crimes against humanity - such as invasions of sovereign nations…use of WMD’s…depleted uranium…torture…the sad list of inhumanity is remarkable.

    To assist Craig and his ‘friends’, the internationally agreed upon definition of TERRORISM:” THE SYSTEMATIC USE OF VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION TO ACHIEVE SOME GOAL - THE ACT OF TERRORIZING (to coerce or control by violence, fear, threats)

    No greater TERRORIST nation exists than the UNITED STATES. Craig, this is a common view held across the (so-called) developed world, who woke up a long time ago to the lies of the power crazed terrorists who you call elected officials.

    God Bless America…because a nation that is recognized as a threat to the continuance of the human species will destroy itself or be destroyed by that force we call (collectively) nature. Take a look at that nation, the US-its effects upon wherever they are, there’s destruction. Not to mention the tragedy of the grave effects the gluttony of their society, which literally ‘rapes’ the Earth of her natural resources, then spews out filth into the atmosphere, for everyone else to breath- without stopping to understand the effects their greed has upon the rest of the world.Then take a look at their own nation, the numbers of murders, rapes, muggings, beatings…they commit upon themselves daily…maybe NATURE is already well on the way to putting the problem right!

    I’m not anti-american, I’m pro-humanity, which includes our home, our Earth -sometimes this means having to encourage others to check their own place in this delicate fabric of life, and how we are playing our part.


             
    Comment unrated
  12. Tammara Says :

    dear keng, end and neil,

    did you folk just drop in? because if you had been paying attention for awhile before you chimed in, i think you would know that we know this.

    bush family history is well known here.  we know we aren’t dealing with the brady bunch.

    we are aware of the controversy surrounding the origins of the 9/11 mess.  

    and we know that the USA (united stuff aqqusitors) is the biggest problem the world has today. 

    this country is like a 3 year old on a rampage, only we have our finger on a nuclear detonator.  in terms of sophisticated understanding of merging cultures, traditions and respectful interactions, this is a country of redneck babys.

    so, it would be helpful if we could work on solutions rather than on preaching to the choir about the origin of the music.  

    we are looking to sing a different song here. 


             
    Comment unrated
  13. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    Paul,

    Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the war, as was, as I understand it, the man who has been chosen to succeed Zarqawi at the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Zarqawi has been described by those who have been in a position to know him in many ways and ‘terrorist’ is one of the ways. He fought against our forces in Afghanistan, was wounded there and came to Iraq to heal. While here he joined several others in making chemical weapons as part of his recouperation. This is my understanding, anyway. If anyone can prove me wrong or show that that is legitimately questionable, have at it. The man who hijacked the cruiseliner from which an American was tossed overboard and drowned, had been living in Iraq for some time before we went to war. I know that I’ve read of others, as well. I could be wrong. If so, I’ll apologize for defaming Al Zarqawi and the guy who tossed a wheel-chair bound American off of the Achilles Lauro. Until then, I stand by my charge.

    I define terrorist as one who deliberately targets civilians or deliberately uses civilians as human shields or simply fails to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civilians and military targets. If that makes me a retard, so be it. Internationally no one has defined terrorism to the satisfaction of all involved because so many of the international community wish to give cover for terrorists and the use of terrorism. THAT, my friend, is retarded.


             
    Comment unrated
  14. Craig,

    I think we’re talking with different definitions again. I accept fully that Al Zaquawi was in Iraq before. But what I meant was a terrorist organisation operating and planning in Iraq, as in Afghanistan. There are individual terrorists all over the Middle East, some with permission of the governments, some not (I’m not sure which category Zaquawi falls into as I believe he was in the Kurdish area which was not really under Saddam’s control). But that doesn’t make them enough of a threat to justify invasion. And I think that’s a point we won’t agree on.


             
    Comment unrated
  15. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    Paul,

    I got places to go right now so I can’t adequately address your last comment. I’ll catch you later tonight or tomorrow. Sorry about that.


             
    Comment unrated
  16. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    Paul,

    I’m back now. Yes, you’re right. I don’t claim that Iraq was teeming terrorists all plotting together against America as Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. The sentence of mine in question here, I believe, is “The point that was made pre-war was that there were terrorists in Iraq before the war.” By this, I mean to say no more than what that says. There were, in Iraq before the war, people who could fairly be called terrorists because they had histories of planning and or executing terrorist attacks. Among whom were Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Muhammad Zaidan (aka Abu Abbas, convicted in the hijacking of the cruise liner Achille Lauro, where an American in a wheelchair was shot and pushed over the side and died) who was seized in Baghdad by coalition forces (apparently in contradiction of the Oslo Peace Accords), and Al Ansar, with which Zarqawi was associated and trained while in Iraq. What were they doing there? I don’t think anybody really knows. There seems to be evidence that Al Zarqawi was experimenting with chemical weapons. What he intended to do with them once made, I don’t know. There was a fuselage of a passenger jet sitting in what is thought to be a training ground for people who think that taking over an airplain would be productive to their ends. Maybe not. I don’t know but that seems a more reasonable explanation than any other that I’ve heard for it’s being there. This wasn’t an old junk yard where old passenger jets go to retire.

    I do not claim that Iraq, pre-war was a regular training ground for terrorists but that’s what Stephen Hayes claims that documents retrieved from Iraq claim of Saddam’s Iraq. Now I know that linking to the Opinion Journal is somewhat the equivalent you you linking to DailyKos to illustrate your point but the MSM isn’t picking up on these documents much. I’ll see if I can’t find a less biased source for this. However, this is what I have now. I have no idea whether these documents are genuine, whether they are accurately translated or anything. I do not claim to prove anything on the basis of them. I merely note their existence. From this article:

    Mr. Hayes reports that, from 1999 through 2002, “elite Iraqi military units” trained roughly 8,000 terrorists at three different camps–in Samarra and Ramadi in the Sunni Triangle, as well as at Salman Pak, where American forces in 2003 found the fuselage of an aircraft that might have been used for training. Many of the trainees were drawn from North African terror groups with close ties to al Qaeda, including Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Mr. Hayes writes that he had no fewer than 11 corroborating sources, and yesterday he told us he’d added several more since publication.

    Make of this what you will. It does not prove my claim that there were terrorists in Iraq before the war and the article’s claims go beyond anything that I am claiming. At this point, I find them interesting and that’s all. However, if true, it would mean that Iraq was not all that unlike Afghanistan with respect to terrorism after all.


             
    Comment unrated
  17. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    Here’s an article from Newsweek on Al-Ansar.


             
    Comment unrated
  18. cmar Says :

    “I consider 9/11 and every one of its precursors to be acts of war. If the author is trying to say that there is no war on terror, s/he’s welcome to that opinion but it’s going to take a whole lot more explaining and arguing than the author has done here to convince me of that. The author, and anyone else who wishes to take a stab at it, is welcome to try. “

    Craig,

    The only reason there is a “war on terror” is because US President George W Bush coined the phrase. As for 911, well if you can show me what alleged significance or “tie”  it has on the invasion on Iraq, then go for it cuz any excuse the US government had even TRYING to link the two has fallen flat on its face. How ’bout YOU trying to convince us “non-believers’ in the Bush Administrations ‘reasoning’ (sorry for the oxymoron everyone) for the attack on Iraq? Hmm let’s see: NO viable WMD (yeah there has been some stuff found that’s shelf life expired in or pre 1991) but apart from that what’s been found?

    Yeah you mentioned “terrorists” in Iraq prior to the invasion, but as another poster pointed out, that was in Northern Iraq where the Kurds were being “protected” by the US illegal and self imposed (not UN sanctioned) “no fly zone”, so theoretically, doesn’t it make the Kurds, and the US (by association) the harbourers of these “terrorists” you mention?

    Al Zarqawi HIMSELF though did not move into Iraq (proper - as opposed to the North where Saddam had no power) until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.

    “While here he joined several others in making chemical weapons as part of his recouperation. This is my understanding, anyway. If anyone can prove me wrong or show that that is legitimately questionable, have at it.”

    Yes the claim was made, but yet another unfounded comment by the Bush Administration, however, HAD he been doing as you and your fellow ‘hawks’ claim, it would have to have been done in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds and the US government (by proxy) were ‘harbouring’ him at the time.

     

    “I define a terrorist as one who deliberately targets civilians or deliberately uses civilians as human shields or simply fails to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civilians and military targets. If that makes me a retard, so be it. Internationally no one has defined terrorism to the satisfaction of all involved because so many of the international community wish to give cover for terrorists and the use of terrorism. THAT, my friend, is retarded.”

    Well I suppose by YOUR definition in part that the US occupiers in Iraq and also Afghanistan are TERRORISTS as they constantly simply fail to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civillians and military targets.

    While you are going through your “validation of war” process Craig, pehaps you could verify exactly WHY Afghanistan was the target post 911, considering the majority of the “hijackers” were Saudi Nations and NONE of them were Afghani’s. Before you start on the Taliban supported Bin Laden drivel though, show me ANYWHERE on the FBI “most wanted terrorist” page ANY information linking OBL specifically with the events of 911.

    I reckon it is time those following the US Govermnent rhetoric showed their PROOF rather than mere heresay for their validation to follow this illegal “war on terror”.

    Looking forward to it Craig :-)

     

     

     

     


             
    Comment unrated
  19. revcraigh Says :

    I don’t claim that we went to war in Iraq because it was a part of the war on terror.


             
    Comment unrated
  20. revcraigh Says :

    Um, Comment #19 is by me, Craig R. Harmon and is in response to comment #18 by cmar.

    Craig R. Harmon 


             
    Comment unrated
  21. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    cmar,

    I quote a part of a comment at another thread:

    “Iraq was not legitimately a part of the WAMI [War against Militant Islamists, my preferred name for the Global War on Terror] and any efforts to conflate the two, pre-war, were either self-deception on the part of those who tried to make that connection or were deliberate deception on their part. I don’t make a judgement on which of these two are the case with the administration spokespersons who may have advanced that argument.” 


             
    Comment unrated
  22. Emmet Says :

    RTW, thanx for your service.  It will never be forgotten.

    RTW don’t ever respond to me.  Got it!  Besides your service you’re full of bullshit!

     


             
    Comment unrated
  23. Emmet Says :

    RTW, I am a (combat action) Veteran you fucktard!  Don’t EVER refer to me again unless it’s face to face!


             
    Comment unrated
  24. cmar Says :

    ‘define terrorist as one who deliberately targets civilians or deliberately uses civilians as human shields or simply fails to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civilians and military targets. If that makes me a retard, so be it. Internationally no one has defined terrorism to the satisfaction of all involved because so many of the international community wish to give cover for terrorists and the use of terrorism. THAT, my friend, is retarded.

             Comment unrated

    Paul Watson The Cranky Brit Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Craig,

    I think we’re talking with different definitions again. I accept fully that Al Zaquawi was in Iraq before. But what I meant was a terrorist organisation operating and planning in Iraq, as in Afghanistan. There are individual terrorists all over the Middle East, some with permission of the governments, some not (I’m not sure which category Zaquawi falls into as I believe he was in the Kurdish area which was not really under Saddam’s control). But that doesn’t make them enough of a threat to justify invasion. And I think that’s a point we won’t agree on.


             Comment unrated

    Craig R. Harmon Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Paul,

    I got places to go right now so I can’t adequately address your last comment. I’ll catch you later tonight or tomorrow. Sorry about that.


             Comment unrated

    Craig R. Harmon Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

    Paul,

    I’m back now. Yes, you’re right. I don’t claim that Iraq was teeming terrorists all plotting together against America as Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. The sentence of mine in question here, I believe, is “The point that was made pre-war was that there were terrorists in Iraq before the war.” By this, I mean to say no more than what that says. There were, in Iraq before the war, people who could fairly be called terrorists because they had histories of planning and or executing terrorist attacks. Among whom were Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Muhammad Zaidan (aka Abu Abbas, convicted in the hijacking of the cruise liner Achille Lauro, where an American in a wheelchair was shot and pushed over the side and died) who was seized in Baghdad by coalition forces (apparently in contradiction of the Oslo Peace Accords), and Al Ansar, with which Zarqawi was associated and trained while in Iraq. What were they doing there? I don’t think anybody really knows. There seems to be evidence that Al Zarqawi was experimenting with chemical weapons. What he intended to do with them once made, I don’t know. There was a fuselage of a passenger jet sitting in what is thought to be a training ground for people who think that taking over an airplain would be productive to their ends. Maybe not. I don’t know but that seems a more reasonable explanation than any other that I’ve heard for it’s being there. This wasn’t an old junk yard where old passenger jets go to retire.

    I do not claim that Iraq, pre-war was a regular training ground for terrorists but that’s what Stephen Hayes claims that documents retrieved from Iraq claim of Saddam’s Iraq. Now I know that linking to the Opinion Journal is somewhat the equivalent you you linking to DailyKos to illustrate your point but the MSM isn’t picking up on these documents much. I’ll see if I can’t find a less biased source for this. However, this is what I have now. I have no idea whether these documents are genuine, whether they are accurately translated or anything. I do not claim to prove anything on the basis of them. I merely note their existence. From this article:

    Mr. Hayes reports that, from 1999 through 2002, “elite Iraqi military units” trained roughly 8,000 terrorists at three different camps–in Samarra and Ramadi in the Sunni Triangle, as well as at Salman Pak, where American forces in 2003 found the fuselage of an aircraft that might have been used for training. Many of the trainees were drawn from North African terror groups with close ties to al Qaeda, including Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Mr. Hayes writes that he had no fewer than 11 corroborating sources, and yesterday he told us he’d added several more since publication.

    Make of this what you will. It does not prove my claim that there were terrorists in Iraq before the war and the article’s claims go beyond anything that I am claiming. At this point, I find them interesting and that’s all. However, if true, it would mean that Iraq was not all that unlike Afghanistan with respect to terrorism after all.


             Comment unrated

    Craig R. Harmon Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    Here’s an article from Newsweek on Al-Ansar.


             Comment unrated

    cmar Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 9:57 pm

    “I consider 9/11 and every one of its precursors to be acts of war. If the author is trying to say that there is no war on terror, s/he’s welcome to that opinion but it’s going to take a whole lot more explaining and arguing than the author has done here to convince me of that. The author, and anyone else who wishes to take a stab at it, is welcome to try. “

    Craig,

    The only reason there is a “war on terror” is because US President George W Bush coined the phrase. As for 911, well if you can show me what alleged significance or “tie”  it has on the invasion on Iraq, then go for it cuz any excuse the US government had even TRYING to link the two has fallen flat on its face. How ’bout YOU trying to convince us “non-believers’ in the Bush Administrations ‘reasoning’ (sorry for the oxymoron everyone) for the attack on Iraq? Hmm let’s see: NO viable WMD (yeah there has been some stuff found that’s shelf life expired in or pre 1991) but apart from that what’s been found?

    Yeah you mentioned “terrorists” in Iraq prior to the invasion, but as another poster pointed out, that was in Northern Iraq where the Kurds were being “protected” by the US illegal and self imposed (not UN sanctioned) “no fly zone”, so theoretically, doesn’t it make the Kurds, and the US (by association) the harbourers of these “terrorists” you mention?

    Al Zarqawi HIMSELF though did not move into Iraq (proper - as opposed to the North where Saddam had no power) until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.

    “While here he joined several others in making chemical weapons as part of his recouperation. This is my understanding, anyway. If anyone can prove me wrong or show that that is legitimately questionable, have at it.”

    Yes the claim was made, but yet another unfounded comment by the Bush Administration, however, HAD he been doing as you and your fellow ‘hawks’ claim, it would have to have been done in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds and the US government (by proxy) were ‘harbouring’ him at the time.

     

    “I define a terrorist as one who deliberately targets civilians or deliberately uses civilians as human shields or simply fails to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civilians and military targets. If that makes me a retard, so be it. Internationally no one has defined terrorism to the satisfaction of all involved because so many of the international community wish to give cover for terrorists and the use of terrorism. THAT, my friend, is retarded.”

    Well I suppose by YOUR definition in part that the US occupiers in Iraq and also Afghanistan are TERRORISTS as they constantly simply fail to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civillians and military targets.

    While you are going through your “validation of war” process Craig, pehaps you could verify exactly WHY Afghanistan was the target post 911, considering the majority of the “hijackers” were Saudi Nations and NONE of them were Afghani’s. Before you start on the Taliban supported Bin Laden drivel though, show me ANYWHERE on the FBI “most wanted terrorist” page ANY information linking OBL specifically with the events of 911.

    I reckon it is time those following the US Govermnent rhetoric showed their PROOF rather than mere heresay for their validation to follow this illegal “war on terror”.

    Looking forward to it Craig

     

     

     

     


             Comment unrated

    revcraigh Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    I don’t claim that we went to war in Iraq because it was a part of the war on terror.


             Comment unrated

    revcraigh Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Um, Comment #19 is by me, Craig R. Harmon and is in response to comment #18 by cmar.

    Craig R. Harmon 


             Comment unrated

    Craig R. Harmon Says :

    June 25th, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    cmar,

    I quote a part of a comment at another thread:

    “Iraq was not legitimately a part of the WAMI [War against Militant Islamists, my preferred name for the Global War on Terror] and any efforts to conflate the two, pre-war, were either self-deception on the part of those who tried to make that connection or were deliberate deception on their part. I don’t make a judgement on which of these two are the case with the administration spokespersons who may have advanced that argument.” 

     

    Uh hu, so then validate the alleged reasons the US went to war on Iraq again Craig as you seem to be pretty “with” the Bush Admin on this, if judging by your previous posts. Oh also, please address the other issues I raised.


             
    Comment unrated
  25. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    I have no interest in validating anyone elses reasons for supporting the war in Iraq. Only my own.

    As for the rest of your points:

    The only reason there is a “war on terror” is because US President George W Bush coined the phrase.

    Like I said, as opinions go, that’s as good as any other. I don’t share it. I don’t know what else to tell you about it. 

    As for 911, well if you can show me what alleged significance or “tie”  it has on the invasion on Iraq, then go for it cuz any excuse the US government had even TRYING to link the two has fallen flat on its face.

    I don’t claim any tie whatsoever between 9/11 and Saddam, Iraq, or the invasion of Iraq. As I said, “…any efforts to conflate the two, pre-war, were either self-deception on the part of those who tried to make that connection or were deliberate deception on their part.”

    How ’bout YOU trying to convince us “non-believers’ in the Bush Administrations ‘reasoning’ (sorry for the oxymoron everyone) for the attack on Iraq? Hmm let’s see: NO viable WMD (yeah there has been some stuff found that’s shelf life expired in or pre 1991) but apart from that what’s been found?

    I have no interest in trying to convince you of the administration’s reasoning.

    “Yeah you mentioned “terrorists” in Iraq prior to the invasion, but as another poster pointed out, that was in Northern Iraq where the Kurds were being “protected” by the US illegal and self imposed (not UN sanctioned) “no fly zone”, so theoretically, doesn’t it make the Kurds, and the US (by association) the harbourers of these “terrorists” you mention?

    Yes, they were not under Saddam’s control. I have no idea whether Saddam even knew that they were there, what they were doing or whether he approved or disapproved of their presence in his country. Apparently, Al Ansar was Kurdish and connected to Al Qaeda. Since I have no desire to defend the administration’s handling of the war on Iraq, I see no reason to try to defend what they may or may not have done about those Kurds who may have protected Al Ansar. 

    Al Zarqawi HIMSELF though did not move into Iraq (proper - as opposed to the North where Saddam had no power) until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.

    I’ll take your word for it. It doesn’t effect anything that I’ve written here. 

    “While here he joined several others in making chemical weapons as part of his recouperation. This is my understanding, anyway. If anyone can prove me wrong or show that that is legitimately questionable, have at it.”

    Yes the claim was made, but yet another unfounded comment by the Bush Administration, however, HAD he been doing as you and your fellow ‘hawks’ claim, it would have to have been done in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds and the US government (by proxy) were ‘harbouring’ him at the time.

    You will have noticed that I didn’t claim it as absolutely established and again, let’s say that you’re right. So what. Nothing about what I’ve written stands or falls on this point one way or another. I said that there were terrorists in Iraq pre-war. You’ve not shown that I misspoke. You’ve in fact, confirmed what I’ve written.

    “I define a terrorist as one who deliberately targets civilians or deliberately uses civilians as human shields or simply fails to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civilians and military targets. If that makes me a retard, so be it. Internationally no one has defined terrorism to the satisfaction of all involved because so many of the international community wish to give cover for terrorists and the use of terrorism. THAT, my friend, is retarded.”

    Well I suppose by YOUR definition in part that the US occupiers in Iraq and also Afghanistan are TERRORISTS as they constantly simply fail to adequately or in any way at all distinguish between civillians and military targets.

    I suppose you would say so. I do not. I would distinguish between terrorists who mortar Iraqi children, in order to kill said children, simply for accepting candy from US forces and anything that our forces normally do in their conduct of this or any other war. I, of course, exclude things like Haditha, if what is alleged to have occurred actually did occur. Such things are no better than shelling Iraqi children. I speak of their normal conduct of the war. If insurgents shoot at our troops from a mosque and in the fight civilians die, that is the moral fault of the insurgents who chose a mosque full of unarmed civilians to shoot at our troops from. They are the ones putting civilians’ lives in danger by deliberately choosing to fight surrounded by civilians. You may not agree with this but I’m not responsible for your failure to make moral distinctions between insurgents who fight in such a place and circumstance as to maximize civilian deaths, on the one hand, and our troops who routinely attempt to minimize civilian deaths on the other. That’s your gig, not mine. 

    While you are going through your “validation of war” process Craig, pehaps you could verify exactly WHY Afghanistan was the target post 911, considering the majority of the “hijackers” were Saudi Nations and NONE of them were Afghani’s. Before you start on the Taliban supported Bin Laden drivel though, show me ANYWHERE on the FBI “most wanted terrorist” page ANY information linking OBL specifically with the events of 911.

    Afghanistan was chosen because that is where OBL and the Al Qaeda leaders, who planned and ordered the 9/11 attacks, were being harbored by Taliban forces. 

    I reckon it is time those following the US Govermnent rhetoric showed their PROOF rather than mere heresay for their validation to follow this illegal “war on terror”.

    I don’t follow the US Government rhetoric so I am under no obligation to validate it.
     


             
    Comment unrated
  26. angry american Says :

    Hey CraigH, regarding our soldiers who attempt to “minimize civilian casualties”

     

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

     

    Craig, you are a man who talks in circles, and who cannot accept that maybe, just maybe, he was fooled by the government.  Dont worry buddy, we were all there. Weve all made arguments that basically boil down to “Nuh uh!” when faced with something we cant answer, or even want to contemplate.

    Bin Laden has never been proven to have orchestrated the attacks, has he? can you show me the proof?  it should be easy to procure, right? I mean thats all they ever talked about, was how guilty Osama was…but hes just sorta faded off, hasnt he? not even on the FBI top ten…what a disappointing jihadist.
     


             
    Comment unrated
  27. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    Angry,

    Circles? What circles? You prefer to blame our military for civilian deaths, most of which have been targetted by the enemy, most of the rest of which are the fault of the enemy who choose to fight in heavily populated cities, who deliberately surround themselves with unarmed civilians. Sorry for their deaths. Honestly. Put the blame where the blame belongs: with the insurgents. You simply will not sell me on a moral equivalent between our soldiers and the head-choppers.

    OBL has confessed his responsibility, on tape, freely and of his own accord. In a criminal trial, a confession trumps the presumption of innocence. So does it here. If you have evidence of his innocence, let’s see it. I’m not responsible for whether he is the high priority that he should be.

    People, if you want someone to defend the policies of the President, you’ve talking to the wrong guy. I don’t even look like the White House Press Secretary. That’s his job, not mine and I won’t do his job for free. You want to know why Bush has done what he’s done, get a seat with the White House Press Corp. and ask him.

    As for whether the proof should be easily procured, yeh, right. I have the highest security clearance. I know everything the President knows in terms of intelligence matters. I could tell you but then, I’d have to kill you. Sheesh! 


             
    Comment unrated
  28. cmar Says :

    uh Craig,

    areyou talking about the “confessional” tape dated 13th december 2001  where a quite robust “osama” is sitting with his pals in a cave or somewhere dingy? Hmm… lmao.. erm ok. Even in that tape there was no “confession” as such. “Osama” in that particular video said he heard about the pending attacks 5 days before they happened so to you him hearing about it 5 days in advance means he is claiming responsibility for orchestrating it? If that isn’t the video you mean, then please by all means give me a link to the one you DO mean because in every other one I have seen or heard, he vehemently denied any responsibility.  The US government allegedly knew more than 5 days (august 2001) in advance so that would make them complicit too in your eyes?

    Odd though, if you reckon he has “confessed” then why don’t the FBI think the same? An interview was had earlier this month (2006) with the FBI’s Rex Tomb, (Chief of Investigative Publicity) and he said, and I quote “ The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″.

    Obviously, the FBI didn’t buy the “confessional” tape as readily as YOU did Craig! lol

    The rest of your reply was as angry stated, running in circles so there is no need to touch on any of it, except your comment re insurgents in Iraq. Blame them for all the BS all you want, but it is more than obvious that there were NO insurgents in Iraq prior to the US occupation/ invasion/ genocide of Iraq. Oh too the insurgents cannot be blamed for the “shock and awe” campaign either which specifically targeted civillian areas.

     

    cmar

     


             
    Comment unrated
  29. Craig R. Harmon Says :

    cmar,

    I guess I am misinformed. I bow, defeated, before you.


             
    Comment unrated
  30. cashMoney Says :

    interesting article… but I’m thinking, is what is happening today, that has us up in arms, always gone on. These people, are they following any new rules ?

    I think the answer is no ? If that is the case, then when these particular satanists are out of the loop, there will be more to take their place.

    Which leaves me wondering, why are we so good at producing these psycho nutcases in the first place.

    Why is fascism and nazism and all the other ‘bad’ ism’s so appealing ? Hanging people for war crimes just doesn’t seem strong enough ‘repellant’. Coz 70 years later we are at the exact same juncture, with a lot more people on the ‘wrong end’ of it all…


             
    Comment unrated
  31. Fluxrostrum Says :

    If you’d like to watch video interviews with actual AWOL soldiers “Not as seen on TV” then visit Fluxview.com


             
    Comment unrated

Leave a Reply

Note: if you are typing html tags into the comment area manually (i.e. not using the editor) please use the "toggle html source" option above.

Fact-check it!

Enter a keyword, click the button below. Search result opens in new tab / window





Fish.Travel