The criminals who perpetuated these crimes you see in these photos are in jail now and are subject to the UCMJ and will not escape justice like so many civilians who face the liberal justice system you and the ACLU junkies have set up.

This in no way represents US policy or practice.

How foolish of you to think it does.

To think that pulling out now would be a good idea shows just how ignorant you truly are. No one in their right mind is saying anything like that, to leave now would be the absolute worst thing that could be done.

Y'all truly suffer from cranial sphinter impregnation.

John Kerry got mauled again recently for telling the truth about what was going on in Vietnam back in 1971.
Soldiers will return from Iraq with their own horror stories--maybe some will have the courage to speak out.

I don't think the US should just abandon Iraq at this juncture. Not until a truly international force is in place, can we begin to pull out. I fear that without an outside police effort at this moment in time, ethnic slaughter--ethnic cleansing--like we witnessed in the former Yugoslavia would become rampant.

So much more to say about this but no time.

Here's a link to a credible Israeli newspaper about what really happened in Falluja. 600-700 mostly non-combatants killed in retaliation for the murder of 4 Americans.

By Orit Shohat
in Haaretz
April 28, 2004

During the first two weeks of this month, the American army committed war crimes in Falluja on a scale unprecedented for this war. According to the relatively few media reports of what took place there, some 600 Iraqis were killed during these two weeks, among them some 450 elderly people, women and children.

The sight of decapitated children, the rows of dead women and the shocking pictures of the soccer stadium that was turned into a temporary grave for hundreds of the slain - all were broadcast to the world only by the Al Jazeera network. During the operation in Falluja, according to the organization Doctors Without Borders, U.S. Marines even occupied the hospitals and prevented hundreds of the wounded from receiving medical treatment. Snipers fired from the rooftops at anyone who tried to approach.

This was a retaliatory operation, carried out by the Marines, accompanied by F-16 fighter planes and assault helicopters, under the code name "Vigilant Resolve." It was revenge for the killing of four American security guards on March 31. But while the killing of the guards, whose bodies were dragged through the streets of the city and then hung from a bridge, received wide media coverage, and thus prepared hearts and minds for the military revenge, the hundreds of victims of the American retaliation were practically a military secret.

Yes. The U.S. HAS to get out, but not until an international peace keeping force is in place.

shoprat

There is no doubt that the world is a better place because Saddam is not in power, if you can't see that then you can not see the bigger pitcure.

Iraq is not the END of line for the war on terror either by any strech of the imagination. It is just a stop on the way.

Afganastan was first, Iraq second, Lybia was smart because they knew they were on the list, who is going to be stupid enough to be next??

Here she is again folks! This time waving an obscure rag that agrees with her beliefs and therefore is the truth. She has no knowledge or understanding of the how and why of urban warfare but she is gonna give us a lecture on it so we'll be better informed! She knows all and tries to tell all. She's been soaking up the Kerry horror stories he ``observed and was involved in'', in the very short time he was ``in country'', things others didn't see who spent three full tours! She found another rag with horror stories that made the Army look bad and figured we needed to know about so she puts them up and passes them off as the truth, when in fact she has no idea! One intoxicated soldier makes a whole army of drunks!

The prisoner thing, couldn't have come at a worse time. I'm surprised and sorry it happened. Let me assure you, those guards will not enjoy life for years to come!

By the way, we are the international force!

------------------

Sometimes the US is so naive. I guess we dont have a cultural advisor?? Otherwise we would know better.

These are just the groups that were caught! How many more soldiers are performing similar violations of the Geneva Convention? The problem is multi-fold:

1) many of these soldiers are reservists and have not received full teaching about the Geneva Convention in the way full-time soldiers are taught (however, they should understand basic humanity!)

2) Apparently, intelligence forces were encouraging the soldiers to "soften" the Iraqi prisoners. These solders are the Pawns who have been publicly sacrificed for the cause. The true perpetrators will never be punished. It further begs the question: how much is going on that we don't know about?

Kara, I may be misinterpreting your meaning, but it appears you are misinformed about the potential for a country of Muslims to have a democratic state. Turkey is a prime example of a country of Muslims that practices a Westernized democracy. They have done an admirable job of separating mosque from state and have a strictly secular government. It is quite admirable, really. Now, it is true, if it were truly a country run on ancient Islamic law, then... democracy would be a near impossibility.

It is true that Turkey TRIED to do this. But from the very beginning they had problems. Islam isnt just a religion. It is an educational system. It is a governmental system. It is a way of life.

I have several close family friends who are Greeks who lived under the Turks. And for the rest of us Greeks...we know all to well about the Muslim culture. That is why when Turkey invaded Greece, women linked hands and threw themselves off of the cliffs to commit suicide rather than submit.

Democracy is mob rule. That is why we dont live under a democracy. We live in a Republic.

But the US goes around all high and mighty about how our form of Gov. is better than everyone elses and we are the moral authority.

But for the US to take the stand "you either are going to be a Democracy or we are going to kill you..." is the wrong approach

...or should I say "or we are going to sodomize you with a broomstick"

And I feel bad for the Iraqi's that they had a brutal dictator...but not our problem. We are going to spill our blood for people who would soon as cut our throats because after all we are just infidels.

Ah, if only that were all there was to the picture, you would be right. But there's a lot more.

if you can't see that then you can not see the bigger pitcure.

I'm sorry but it is you who are seemingly unable to see beyond your narrow view.

Because not only is Saddam Hussein gone - but a country that expounds respect for the rule of law has broken numerous points of international law in invading another country "pre-emptively", without having been attacked by that country or its agents. Among others. The invading country has also lost respect with the vast majority of other nations of the world.

But even that's a little narrow, and probably not a concern of yours.

The icing on the cake, in the big picture, is this: the United States by its actions is creating potential terrorists faster than it is eliminating them.

How? The relatives and friends of civilians killed, wounded, and displaced there are learning to hate America. When an 8-year-old boy sees his big brother shot by an American, or his house is leveled by an American bomb, what's he going to grow up like? He's going to hold a grudge, and when he's old enough, he will want to avenge them. Wouldn't you?

We are creating many thousands of people like that by our conduct in Iraq. How many of them will be willing to do anything to get revenge?

In the big picture, if the U.S. is out to eliminate terrorists, it is failing miserably because it is breeding terrorists.

Want a real-world example of how this works?
Try Israel.
Israel is one of the most highly sophisticated military forces in the world.
They have had a terrorism problem for a long time.

Their response to terrorism? Iron-fisted rule. Complete subjugation of the Palestinians. Zero tolerance for disturbances - children throwing rocks are shot. Houses - sometimes whole blocks - where suspected terrorists live or just where their families live, are destroyed.

Israel has been applying the full force of its overwhelming military might against the Palestinian terrorist problem, for decades.

What has been the result of that? More terrorism. Why? Because they are brutalizing the populace and creating more terrorists as they go.

Are "terrorists" doing a good thing? No. But it doesn't solve the problem to make more of them.

The British were shocked, surprised and appalled at the tactics of their enemies - they would ambush without warning, hide in peoples' houses and barns, attack and run away... they often didn't wear uniforms, so the Brits didn't know, when they were riding through town, who was against them and who was 'innocent'.

I've asked this before, but never gotten an answer:
If a foreign military power invaded and somehow took over here, in your town; and they were killing and wounding lots of innocent people; and you tried to negotiate with them but they always just did what they wanted anyway; and they had incredible weaponry and technology far superior to yours, so that you didn't have a chance if you faced off with them ...

What would you do? How would you fight them?

Regardless of what we think, and whether they are right or wrong, many Iraqis think the U.S. is an enemy invader. And many of them truly believe they are defending their homeland. In their eyes, they are patriots. Doing just what you and I would do if the Alpha Centaurians took over here - using every tactic available to fight the invader.

(I hasten to add that I don't get the incidences where it looks like only Iraqis were targeted by a terrorist bombing - obviously not the act of patriots. There are many facets to this,many groups taking the opportunity of chaos to act)

Dan

Took it home, BBQd it and ate it.

I agree. The world is better off without Sadaam. But the world would be a better place without Castro, or the Saudi Family (who is funding most of this mess). If that is our standard where will it stop??

We are hated around the world. But not because we promote freedom as Pres. Bush says. We are hated for the following:

1. We are hated in Asia because there has been more than one incidence of American soldiers raping young (very young) Japanese girls.

2. We are hated in the caribean because we conduct nuclear exercises out in "international waters" where there is little danger to us.

3. We are hated in Eastern Europe because for years the Albanians would line up the children in villages and have them cross themselves. That way they could tell which were Roman Catholic (Croat) which were Muslims, and which were Greek Orthodox (serbs). Then they would take the Serbian children into the mountains and murder them. This went on for years. Did the US care?? No way. When the Serbs finally rebelled the US called them Evil.

The US will stop bombing on Ramadan but they had no problem bombing the hell out of inncocent Serbian citizens on Pascha (Easter)!

And the so called UN "peacekeeping force" murdered a Priest (in the sanctuary no less) in cold blood two weeks ago because they were convinced that a rebel was hiding in there..he wasnt. Were there apologies?? No way.

We claim that we are for the freedom on religion yet for years the people of Cyprus have had the churches cut off with barbed wire and the Turks use holy Christian shrines as barns and have mutilated icons of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) and of Christos (Christ). Has the US said anything?? No way.

**But WE are the moral authority??

The blurb about the book was similar to some opinions on here.

I am not in the mood to argue about stuff, but I do feel strongly also about this subject. What I will write are some questions that come to mind now:

1. What happened to "we're going to smoke him out of his cave, do what it takes to catch him, bla bla bal" - I seem to recall Bush saying something like this a couple of years back.

2. Whatever happened to Afganistan? I thought that's where they tried to initially convince us the problem stemmed from.

3. Where are those weapons of mass destruction.

4. What will the Iraqi's think of us when this is done? And, the next generation of Iraqi's?

5. Does this invasion mean that China is next for instance? There is no oil there though - AND a lot more chinese than American's for instance. i.e. does one rule apply only in some places? or all?

6. What's patriotic these days and what isn't?

7. Can we expect one culture to "appreciate" our act of "kindness" when they have a completely different outlook/way of looking at life, and different expectations/values? I am not so sure. Our idea of a good thing, isn't necessarily someone elses (with a different culture) idea of a good thing.

So, I got a lot of questions - not a lot of answer though.........I think it's all a mess though and am not surprised how it's turned out.

Election day is coming - another question - does that make a difference?

Dll

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:
Here's a link to a credible Israeli newspaper about what really happened in Falluja. 600-700 mostly non-combatants killed in retaliation for the murder of 4 Americans.

Here she is again folks! This time waving an obscure rag that agrees with her beliefs and therefore is the truth. She has no knowledge or understanding of the how and why of urban warfare but she is gonna give us a lecture on it so we'll be better informed! She knows all and tries to tell all. She's been soaking up the Kerry horror stories he ``observed and was involved in'', in the very short time he was ``in country'', things others didn't see who spent three full tours! She found another rag with horror stories that made the Army look bad and figured we needed to know about so she puts them up and passes them off as the truth, when in fact she has no idea! One intoxicated soldier makes a whole army of drunks!

The prisoner thing, couldn't have come at a worse time. I'm surprised and sorry it happened. Let me assure you, those guards will not enjoy life for years to come!

By the way, we are the international force!

---

Hardly obscure it's like the New York Times of Israel

International Herald TribuneIn Israel, the IHT includes a daily 8-12 page newspaper, in English, published with Israel's leading daily newspaper Haaretz. On Fridays, the IHT also includes the "Week's End" section, Haaretz Magazine and a 64 page full-color entertainment guide giving full details of all cultural events in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and all over Israel.

Haaretz English

Re: Vietnam atrocities--link to now Pulitzer Prize winning investigation in the Toledo Blade.

Blade wins Pulitzer: Series exposing Vietnam atrocities earns top honor

P.S. (on edit)

LabRat,
Ever wonder why john Kerry wakes up most nights screaming GET DOWN!! GET DOWN! GET DOWN!!!?????

I'll bet Bush Jr. sleeps like a baby.

I don't get it. many of the counries in the UN were fully aware, and very articulate about the atrocities pulled by our administration before we went in..

It has only become more obvious as time has gone by..

through our "victory announcements" and now even American media is finally putting forth at least potions of the truth..

then now the torture by American soldiers themselves..at least the snippets we know about..

and the reactions.

Alkaida (sp?) went into a western oil meeting in Saudi Arabia and opened fire..then dragging the naked body of an oil man through the streets..

That speaks loudly of the resulting hatred, anger and blame for the devastation and havoc reaked in the region we were supposedly there to "save"..

Look at Chaney and Rumsfeld's track record in the area of "restoring" governments..in Nicaragua..Indonesia..

Surprise surprise..it's no different this time. Thay strong arm..totally drop the ball..and then stick in a man LIKE sadaam to clean up the mess..and...SEE YA!!!

We poured money into Afghanastan to help them defeat the Soviets in the eighties, supporting groups led by the likes of Osama..and then after the Soviet Union collapsed..we were out of there..

created a vacuum in which the Taliban could take over..and ten the moist horrible thing happened here on our own soil. Think about the motivation behind 911. Why they did it.

I think it's more likely than not that we will suffer another big hit as a result of the fuel poured on the existing fire.

Who will save America from this dangerous administration? Who is the one in charge of calling Bush to the world court for War crimes?

I think that's what is called for at this point..not only to impeach him, but to call out this entire administration before the world..to even begin to set things right.

They have the blood of thousands of Iraquis and Americans on their hands..and I am so worried this is no where near the end of it..
because the hatred they have instilled will last for generations.

I'm pretty confident Bush will loose his job this year..things are too bad to hide anymore..unless they rig another election..
The Bush Jr. administration is going down in history as one of the worst, if not THE worst in our history.

Look at Nixon..all he did was stage a robbery..thousands are dead and devastated and there is no end in sight as a result of an administration shrouded in secrecy and lies. We don't even know the half of it.

I think something much more forceful than voting him out of office needs to happen ..yesterday..

Accountablity..

Mo

What a bunch of trash you have posted too. I don't even know were to start to reply to all the nonsence and twisted logic.

The most glaring err is that ALL/MOST Iraqis are unhappy with the US for overthrowing Saddam's regime. That is simply not true, it is actually quite the oppisite. There is trouble in a small area of the country called the "Suni triangle" and even that hasn't been too active outside of just two cities.

The country for the most part is doing much better than it has since the first Gulf War. The people are enjoying the new found freedoms, schools, hospitals and utilities.

As far as breeding "new" terrorists that too is a lie. The terrorist that have been training in the region are just getting active there finding opportunity during the transition of goverments. Just look at many of the latest targets of these terrorist they are killing other muslims, what muslims? Ones that are settling in and working with the US and trying to make the new Iraq work.

Kara:

1. We are hated in Asia because there has been more than one incidence of American soldiers raping young (very young) Japanese girls.

2. We are hated in the caribean because we conduct nuclear exercises out in "international waters" where there is little danger to us.

What a bunch of nonsence, actually most everything you posted was just plain sillyness but these two took the cake.

We have been hated in Asia for many many years and that has little to do with the recent isolated incedent of the rape of those children. But I don't have time to teach you a history lesson on Japan and why they bombed Pearl Harbor and such...

Testing in the caribean? Wrong ocean, we did our testing on Pasific atols most famously Bikini until we tested our first thermonucular (hydrogen) bomb. After that we switched to underground testing, then sometime in the late sixties or early seventies we stopped all nuclear testing, I'm thinking its more like the seventies, with the SALT treaties, now we don't actually test nuclear bombs but the individual compents by disambeling the bombs, then reassembling them.

You should really be more informed before you speak, or type for that matter.

Other nations were mentioned that pose threats to the US. The answer is yes they should take notice as Pres. Bush said if you are harboring, training, or giving aid to terrorist we will deal with you in time..

As far as the situation in Israel. Again you haven't got a clue. They have managed to hold back the tide of the entire arab world from coming down on them by their tough stance. They have managed to establish and maintain peace with Egypt for over 20 years now and not by being soft but by their strong stance.

The battle and hatred there goes back thousands of years and there will be no peace in Israel for some time yet, but still the nation will continue to exist.

That is just about all I care to address at this time.

Oh, wait on last thing I have to say about the level of ignorace that I read.

To say that the "reservest" don't get the same training as "regular army" is just plain foolishness and absolute ignorance. When you go to training you go to training, it don't matter if you are NG, AR, RA. Basic traing is basic training is basic training and AIT is AIT. In Basic training all those subjects are covered and covered. Plus to become a NCO (sgt) you have to go to more training and again those subject are covered in greater detail.

It is what you do AFTER training that differs between Natl. Guard, Army Reserve, Regular Army.

What a bunch of trash you have posted too. I don't even know were to start to reply to all the nonsence and twisted logic.

I agree!! And I'm not even going to try.

What a bunch drivel..

how can anyone try to even conceive that Bush is in anyway, accountable for the heinous act of a few soldiers???

Please people, we all know you hate Bush..and he is personally blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world..heck he was even blamed when the "Old Man of The Mountain" collapsed in NH last year, by a poster here... ridiculous.

I have no problem with people hating Bush..hate away!!
Heck, Kerry makes my skin crawl every time I hear him speak. ( feels like ticks crawling all over me, every time he opens his mouth...yuk!)

But can we for once, place the blame where it belongs..on the soldiers who did the acts of violence..not Bush.

And ya, ya, I know... Bush sent them to war..yada- yada, blah- blah, but he didn't force them to do these violent acts.

Forget it....I give up..

I think I'll start posting again in November after the elections, this place has become a democratic I hate Bush forum..

~LymeBrat

Well, there's a problem here, and that's the fact that I don't see any posts above which blame Bush for those acts. Blaming him for some other serious stuff, but not the point you're tending to.

So, your main point here is rather moot.

How 'bout starting by replying to what was actually said, rather than what you can make up that's easy to reply to?

"The most glaring err is that ALL/MOST Iraqis are unhappy with the US for overthrowing Saddam's regime."

Well, a rather glaring error of yours is, nobody in this topic said they are unhappy with us for overthrowing him. What has been said is that many of them are unhappy - putting it mildly - that their country was invaded, and with how we've conducted ourselves since the invasion.

"The country for the most part is doing much better than it has since the first Gulf War. The people are enjoying the new found freedoms, schools, hospitals and utilities."

Sent, what have you been smoking? Or rather, from which U.S. administration syncophant are you getting your infotainment?

The country for the most part is a shambles. Most people are out of work. They'd love to get to work, repairing infrastructure for one because that's not happening very well. But the U.S. corporations in charge would rather line their pockets than pay Iraqis to actually get the jobs done. Those 'utilities' you refer to - does that include electricity? The only thing reliable about electricity is that it's unreliable.

"As far as breeding "new" terrorists that too is a lie. "

Well that's an interesting judgement, but you forgot to back it up with any statements pertinent to the subject. Your follow-up sentences merely speak of current terrorists. The subject of my writing that you're responding to was the source of new terrorists, not the occupation of current ones.

"As far as the situation in Israel. Again you haven't got a clue. They have managed to hold back the tide of the entire arab world from coming down on them by their tough stance."

Have you a clue about what you're responding to? The example bit about Israel was regarding their ability to stop terrorists, not their ability to hold a border. We already know they have the best army in the area and can defend themselves that way. But we also know that in spite of being one of the most militarized societies in the world, they have not been able to stop terrorism. That was the point.

"That is just about all I care to address at this time."

You haven't really addressed anything, except Kara's ocean error. By the way, indeed we have screwed bunches of islanders with our nuclear testing and subsequent "managing" of the areas - they're still having problems. Do a search on "Rongelap" for some education.

"To say that the "reservest" don't get the same training as "regular army" is just plain foolishness and absolute ignorance. "

Oh, good. Then the U.S. Army spokespersons were wrong when they told CBS News "most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members". Or else the training just didn't work. Or something.

"It is what you do AFTER training that differs between Natl. Guard, Army Reserve, Regular Army."

Apparently so.

Dan

I saw a statement that there never has been and therefore never will be an Islamic democracy, as if you can see into the minds of a people you've never met, and that the US is sooo naive for thinking we can help make one. Of course, as an arrogant person will inevitably do, the poster casually tossed aside the concrete and RECENT example of Turkey. But gosh, the Islamic party won some seats there recently, so all is lost. And what makes you the expert? Because you watched Dateline NBC? Anecdotes from your friends and grandparents?

Then I see statements abound about the US military and what they're really like. How many of you have actually been in the military? Any of you? Yet you can claim without the slightest whiff of doubt that you know every soldier is a closet-torturer waiting for his chance. Though there has been only one incident, you KNOW that these things are happening everywhere, because you know military people better than they know themselves. It doesn't matter if you've never been within 100 yards of a uniform. Arrogance. Oh wait - I know how you know that - because John Kerry told you so.

Then the US is taken to task for its false moral highground, because Americans have the naivete to believe that the chance at a democratically-elected government, even if it fails, is far better than a brutal dictatorship (is there any other kind?) I suppose the US would be considered far more sophisticated if we would just realize that dictators who massacre their own people are just as valid as those officers put in power by a vote.

Then we have the masterminds who claim to know and understand the details of not only what IS happening in Iraq, but what WILL happen in Iraq for years to come. Somehow, all of our military and intelligence services who have people on the ground are inexplicably unaware of what you know without a doubt - that all Iraqis hate the US and that their children will all turn to terrorism because US soldiers are in their country now. Somehow, you have the ability to see into the minds of these people that you've never met and know next to nothing about, and all of the organizations working in Iraq are stupid for disagreeing with you. Complete arrogance.

The question was asked "whatever happened to Afghanistan?" Well, I'll tell you what happened - we still have troops there. But you never here about the situation there in the news and would you like to know why? OK I'll tell you - because the so-called mainstream media in the US are run by people who largely would love to see Bush out of office, so they don't bother with stories from Afghanistan, an endeavor that was an overwhelming success. Why do that when they can focus on every little nasty tidbit that comes out of Iraq, or better yet just make stuff up? It's much more fun to go and find an Iraqi whi represents the 10% of the population who would rather have stayed living under Saddam, or be living under Sharia, and print his allegations that US troops are slaughtering women and children by the millions. No proof is needed, and the media get to stick it to Bush.

"Where are those WMD's?" In Syria.

I'll agree with one thing I saw posted here though - the operations in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia are and always have been a mistake and a travesty of justice. But US involvement was initiated by Clinton, every leftists real hero, and, amazingly enough, the nasty things going on there have never gotten any coverage in our press. Fascinating, isn't it? Instead, Clinton was praised for his leadership, then all events there ignored since. Yet Afghanistan was prophesied to be a quagmire (it wasn't) and a failure (it wasn't), then Iraq was prophesied to be impossible to take (it wasn't) and Saddam impossible t ofind (he wasn't) and the Iraqi people were determined to want the US to stay out (they didn't, by and large). And the misinformation continues. This horrible operation is also a perfect example of what happens when the UN gets involved, yet the same people who decry the US for its false morality also champion the UN as the answer to the world's problems.

No history tells us so. EVERY war has atrocities, and EVERY nationality has been guilty in the past (and present)-- hardly unique to Americans.
Just for example here's my most ignored link which I've posted over and over--re: Vietnam war atrocites.
Massacre Story Needs to be Told

And the Brit's are involved in this latest dirty work in Iraq as well.
TWO soldiers who exposed British troops torturing an Iraqi suspect insisted yesterday they told the truth.
(Photos of a British gaurd urinating on a naked Iraqi prisoner have surfaced.)

And, don't entirely blame the MP's at Abu Ghraib prison for those atrocities. Recently uncovered documents show that the interrogation proceedures may have been ordered by U.S. Army intelligence.

Somehow, you have the ability to see into the minds of these people that you've never met and know next to nothing about, and all of the organizations working in Iraq are stupid for disagreeing with you. Complete arrogance.

Um, why is it then that over 10,000 non-combatants have been killed in Iraq? What exactly is the purpose for that? Can you see how that it might anger many Iraqis?
And, the organizations working in Iraq have many different reports--depending on what part of Iraq is being looked at. The Kurdish north, for example is fairly stable, but the rest of the country is chaotic.

Our good old Gallop just released a massive public opinion poll from Iraq -- 3,444 70-minute, in-home, in-person interviews with a nationally representative sample of Iraqis in 350 separate locations throughout the country in late March and early April 2004. (scroll down and look for the Iraq report on the lower left)

From the report:

While 61% of all Iraqis believe that Saddam Hussein's ouster was "worth" any hardships they have personally suffered since the invasion, opinion is sharply divided on whether the country itself is better off. Forty-two percent believe the country is in a better situation than before the invasion (31% "somewhat better off," 11% "much better off"), but nearly as many (39%) hold a contrary assessment (24% "somewhat worse off," 15% "much worse off"). Similarly, the third of Iraqis (33%) who say the coalition invasion of Iraq has "done more good than harm" are offset by a larger proportion (46%) who say that thus far, the invasion has "done more harm than good."

Furthermore, sentiment often divides sharply along ethnic and sectarian lines. For example, members of Iraq's Kurdish minority are overwhelmingly likely (87%) to view the country as better off now (somewhat: 51%, much: 36%). However, only a third of Iraq's ethnic Arabs (33%) share this positive appraisal (somewhat better off: 27%, much better off: 5%).
Similarly, perspectives and perceptions in overwhelmingly Sunni areas can differ dramatically from those in strongly Shiite areas. One particularly stark example is the fact that nearly three-quarters (74%) of those in overwhelmingly Shiite provinces and neighborhoods believe that the ouster of Hussein was "worth" any subsequent hardships, while only about a quarter (28%) of those in heavily Sunni areas share this assessment.

I know YOU don't believe in polls, R.G., but they are better than nothing, IMHO.

The question was asked "whatever happened to Afghanistan?" Well, I'll tell you what happened - we still have troops there. But you never here about the situation there in the news and would you like to know why? OK I'll tell you - because the so-called mainstream media in the US are run by people who largely would love to see Bush out of office, so they don't bother with stories from Afghanistan, an endeavor that was an overwhelming success.

Now that IS funny. I wish I had Dan's laughing cat.
We don't hear about Afghanistan on the nightly (infotainment) news because the situation is dismal there, and growing worse by the day. So, occasionally, we will hear how a famous ex football player has been killed in Afghanistan.
Al Qaida is coming back in force. War lords and drug lords run the country. The opium crop has sky rocketed, and heroin is the main export and source of income--and much of the profits go to Islamic extremist groups.
Oh. It's just a complete success. But don't take my word for it.

Afghanistan Unbound; Kathy Gannon; in Foreign Affairs,
May/June 2004

Summary: Two and a half years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan is once more lapsing into bloody chaos. Although President Hamid Karzai is strong on paper, he is weak in fact. The drug trade is surging, the Taliban are creeping back, and real power rests in the hands of the country's many warlords. Instead of disarming the militias, Washington is using them to hunt the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban. But ordinary Afghans are paying the price.

Kathy Gannon is Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is currently on leave from the Associated Press, where she is Bureau Chief for Afghanistan and Pakistan, countries she has reported on since 1986 and that she visited last December and January to report this article.

Why do that when they can focus on every little nasty tidbit that comes out of Iraq, or better yet just make stuff up? It's much more fun to go and find an Iraqi whi represents the 10% of the population who would rather have stayed living under Saddam, or be living under Sharia, and print his allegations that US troops are slaughtering women and children by the millions. No proof is needed, and the media get to stick it to Bush.

Again, the number of noncombatants killed in Iraq since the invasion :
Reported minimum: 9018
Reported maximum: 10873

"Where are those WMD's?" In Syria.

We'll just take your word for that R.G. You aren't just making that up, are you?

I'll agree with one thing I saw posted here though - the operations in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia are and always have been a mistake and a travesty of justice.

Why is that military operation a travesty and the invasion of Iraq is not? Just curious?

But US involvement was initiated by Clinton, every leftists real hero, and, amazingly enough, the nasty things going on there have never gotten any coverage in our press. Fascinating, isn't it? Instead, Clinton was praised for his leadership, then all events there ignored since.

No. The Left was/is just as anti-Clinton as you, R.G.
Clinton is a centrist, and if he's anyone's hero, it the moderates in this country and maybe Europe.
As I said, the left hates him, and the same bunch that organized the protests against the Iraq invasion in 2003, protested against the bombing of both Belgrade and Baghdad by the Clinton admin. in 1998 and 1999.

These military actions were brief, (and not geared for a regime change and done in conjunction with NATO and the UN) so the dissent didn't gain the momentum that the anti-Iraq protests did.
What's going on in Kosovo and Bosnia is ignored by the mainstream press--just like Afghanistan--because Iraq is the big story now and our infotainment news industry has the memory and attention span of a gnat.
Also, why am I absolutely positive that you, R.G., will tell me that everything in the Balkan states is horrible, while Afghanistan is paradise?

Sent, what have you been smoking? In the immortal words of George Harrison "No, no, no, no I don't wwwwwwhhhht no more, I'm tired of waking up on the floor, no thank you please it only makes me sneeze; then it makes it hard to find the door"

Oh, good. Then the U.S. Army spokespersons were wrong when they told CBS News "most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members". Or else the training just didn't work. Or something.

Can you say "Spin Doctor", I knew that you could....Even if POW procedures are no longer covered in Basic Training most NGers go straight to the NG from basic and AIT (advanced individual training) to their units, but most reservist were full-time army who signed on for three years of active duty. What is not told to most people is that you ALWYAS sign on for six years what changes is the length of your active duty time after which you go into the reserves, so these reservists were made up of men who were active duty and some who went straight to the reserves.

But either way how we (us forces) treat POWs is harped on in basic over and over, at least when I was in in the mid eighties and I am sure it hasn't changed too much as far as that is concerned.

Sent

ramleguy said:
"Afghanistan, an endeavor that was an overwhelming success."

But just because they lie about one thing doesen't mean they lie about everything or that catching them in lie about something somehow proves all your unfavorable ideas about the military/administration are now true. All it means is that in this one instance they got caught trying to CYA with some spin. The criminal that did these acts will be tried before a court martial under the UCMJ and trust me it is no where near as soft as a civilian court. As it is said they will go to Levenworth and break big rock into little rocks and little rocks into sand and pack sand bags and then start all over again.....

You are correct in that this is not just a Bush (or even a Clinton) problem. The USA has a horrible foreign policy.

We intervene then put in place dictators (such as Castro, Sadaam, and many others) and then later we say they are Evil and should be removed when we put them there in the 1st place.

There are plenty of good examples of the behavior you cite; but Castro got into power by overthrowing - without U.S. help - the previous dictator Batista, who had only tepid support of the U.S. I don't think Castro was ever anything of a favorite of the U.S. government. Shortly after he came to power he cozied up to the Soviets, and that 'sealed his fate' in the eyes of the U.S.

Former American received treatment during Iraqi ordeal

By Hannah Lobel, Associated Press, 5/4/2004 07:34

LANDSTUHL, Germany (AP) Former American hostage Thomas Hamill, who was shot when he was abducted in Iraq, was treated for the wound and regularly received food during his three weeks in captivity, a U.S. military doctor said Tuesday.

Hamill, who escaped his captors Sunday in a daring run to freedom, has lost a few pounds but feels ''in generally good health,'' said Maj. Kerry Jepsen, a surgeon treating Hamill at a U.S. military hospital in Germany where the ex-captive arrived Monday.
. . .
Hamill was shot in the arm when his convoy was ambushed April 9. He recalls receiving medication for the wound and being put under anesthesia after being captured, though it's unclear whether he was taken to a clinic or a doctor came to him, Jepsen said.

His English-speaking captors initially ''left him with some water and a couple packages of cookies,''Jepsen said.

They frequently moved him from place to place, guarding him in cramped, mosquito-infested rooms where he had to sleep on the floor and had to stay inside during daylight hours, Jepsen said.
. . .
Military doctors have said Hamill, from Macon, Mississippi, is in good shape and would likely return home this week. His wife, Kellie Hamill, was expected to meet him at Landstuhl on Wednesday.

''I am looking forward to reuniting with my wife in the morning,'' Hamill said.

Geneva convention 'breached', agencies warn

Tash Shifrin
Monday April 26, 2004

Aid agencies have warned that the Geneva convention is being breached in Falluja, Iraq, amid serious concern about the safety of civilians in the city where at least 600 people have been killed by coalition forces.
The medical emergency charity Merlin has issued a sternly worded statement, saying its fears for the safety of people in Falluja were "based on our experience on the ground in Iraq". The UK-based charity Islamic Relief has also warned of "a potential humanitarian crisis".
The Merlin statement warns: "We have reason to believe that the Geneva convention - which obliges the occupying power to restore and ensure public order, safety and basic service provision in the territory under its authority - is being breached."
The charity cites the high level of civilian casualties in Falluja, where at least 600 Iraqis have been reported dead, and the use of force, as examples of the breach. "International media and our own sources on the ground report untargeted fire resulting in civilian deaths in Falluja," Merlin says.
Other potential breaches of the Geneva convention includes reports of coalition forces preventing civilians seeking safety outside Falluja and a lack of life-saving services. Food, water and electricity are still unavailable in many parts of Falluja, the charity says.
Merlin is also extremely concerned by reports that the general hospital of Falluja is being used as a military base by coalition forces, and the level of delays to aid supplies containing food, water and medical equipment. "Humanitarian agencies trying to supply life-saving supplies such as food and medicine have been obstructed by coalition forces," the statement says.
. . .
They are becoming increasingly concerned for the civilians of Falluja, whose basic rights to safety and care are being ignored."
Islamic Relief, another member of the Iraq Platform, has sent two convoys of humanitarian aid into Falluja, some of it supplied by other agencies that could not gain access to the besieged city. A spokesman confirmed that a third would be on the way in the next few days "if security allows it".

More on Falluja crisis and prisoner mistreatment

Radio Netherlands

. . .the number of civilian deaths in Falluja - already 600 - has sparked a . . . new wave of opposition among the bereaved. . .
. . .
Mr al-Sadr's so-called army is obviously no match for the US armed forces, and the rebels in Falluja will ultimately crumble if the US really pushes ahead with its offensive. But the number of civilian deaths in Falluja - already 600 - has sparked a sizeable new wave of opposition among the bereaved and in the rest of Iraq, and this has led the US-appointed Governing Council to distance itself increasingly from the military campaign.
In fact, the Governing Council called for the current ceasefire in Falluja, and has pushed the Americans into negotiating - albeit indirectly - with a group which they'd labelled only recently as consisting of "thugs and terrorists".

Falluja buries dead after U.S. pullback
Reuters UK May 3, 2004

By Joseph Logan
FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - Victory, which people in Falluja proclaimed at the withdrawal of Marines who besieged and bombed them, often carries its own loss; with fighting mostly over, for now, they are more free to bury their dead.
At the city's soccer stadium on Monday, Iraqi youths dug the ragged pitch into trenches where they laid bodies freshly pulled from rubble in neighbourhoods the U.S. Marines held until a few days ago. They pulled back to let an Iraqi force take over.
As plumes of dust and a fetid odour rose from the field, workers planted gravestones -- two and three to a grave, in the case of families -- that mark the cost of a month of siege.
"I thank God for letting us stand up to the Americans, but it is also bitter," said Hamid Eisawy, whose daughter was among those buried as residents of the Golan neighbourhood -- pounded from the air by U.S. bombers last week -- brought out bodies they had been unable to retrieve until now.
The leader of the team of gravediggers, his clothes and beard caked with dust that sweat had turned to mud, said the newest graves had been dug in the last two days, after U.S. forces pulled back to the edges of the city.
"We started digging over there almost a month ago, when they were hitting with planes, and the water was cut and there was no food or medicine coming," said Khayri al-Rawi, pointing to a second field filled with graves, arranged in rows dotted with a few dozen headstones each.
By afternoon, about 20 bodies, including the unidentified, whose graves were simply marked "Martyr", had been buried.
"These are all from today, and more are coming," he said.

Saddam foe to lead force in FallujaThe Tronto Star, May 4, 2004

Troops have been abusing Iraqis for a year: Amnesty
Sydney Morning Herald
By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in Washington, and agencies
May 5, 2004

At least four Iraqi detainees have died in British custody in the past year, one as a result of torture, says the human rights group Amnesty International, while the CIA admits it is investigating the death of a prisoner under interrogation.

Amnesty issued a disturbing report on Iraq last month detailing allegations of torture and ill-treatment by US and British forces in Iraq that are remarkably similar to the evidence that has now surfaced. But its report indicates that the abuses began when US-led coalition forces gained control of Iraq in April last year and took place throughout the country.
. . .
A United Nations human rights investigator has called for an independent inquiry into the impact on civilians of the US military's month-long siege of Falluja.
There were credible claims that US-led forces in Iraq "have been guilty of serious breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law in Falluja in recent weeks", the UN special rapporteur Paul Hunt said on Monday.

Amnesty International: we have evidence of 'pattern of torture' by coalition
Canada National Post
JILL LAWLESS
Canadian Press

LONDON (AP) - Amnesty International said it has uncovered a "pattern of torture" of Iraqi prisoners by coalition troops, and called for an independent investigation into the claims of abuse.
. . .
British military police are investigating allegations of abuse by British soldiers after the Daily Mirror newspaper published a front-page picture of a soldier apparently urinating on a hooded prisoner. The newspaper said it had been given the pictures by serving soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.
It quoted unidentified soldiers as saying the unarmed captive in its pictures had been threatened with execution during eight hours of abuse, and was left bleeding and vomiting. They said the captive was then driven away and dumped from the back of a moving vehicle, and his fate was unknown.
. . .
The U.S. Army Reserve general who commanded the military police officers photographed abusing Iraqi prisoners said she was "sickened" by the photos and believes the culprits are "bad people" who deserve punishment.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade told The New York Times that the Abu Ghraib prison cell block where the abuses occurred was controlled by military intelligence officers, who she said may have encouraged the actions.
"The suggestion that this was done with my knowledge and continued with my knowledge is so far from the truth," she was quoted as saying in Sunday's editions. "I wasn't aware of any of this. I'm horrified by this."
On Saturday, The New Yorker magazine said it obtained a U.S. Army report that Iraqi detainees were subjected to "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" at the prison near Baghdad.
The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses," the magazine said in its May 10 issue.
Karpinski was formally admonished in January and suspended from command while being investigated, The New Yorker reported.
Karpinski told The New York Times that she believed military commanders were trying to shift the blame for the abuses from military intelligence officers in Iraq to the reservists.

In focusing on this issue, what's been going on and looking objectively at the history of our countries involvement in situations like this,

It's pretty much a bi-partisan horror that should resinate.

The Bush administration are not isolated in these haneous actions, but they do take the cake..., and are also different in as much as they have been dangerously deceptive and succeeeded for some time in operating behind (not just closed but..) locked doors (the likes of which we have not seen for MANY years). That's particularly frightening..

Democracy dies behind closed doors.

Did I ever "like" the pres or members of his administration? No..but that has little to do with anything.

The concerns are so much bigger than that.

Mo

And what in the world do you mean that congress dosen't have the power to empower the president to wage war??? He is THE Commander in Chief of the Military our Military is Civilian controlled and CONGRESS can and has historically given the president the ability to send troops into action.

Congress APPROVED THIS ACTION AGAINST IRAQ and gave the president the power to act if Iraq didn't comply with UN resolutions. Where were you when this happened??? They are back tracking now and saying that they were lied to and that the intel about WMD's was why they gave him the authority to act.

Try to keep up dear.

Take for example the poor sap from Mississippi that escaped his captors. I doubt she thought we didn't know he escaped. Her reason for posting that was to shrewdly and quietly leave her spin that the Iraqis prisoners are all ill treated but are kind and humane to their prisoners. The Italians might have a different point of view.

Nice try!

The reason that the participation in the former Yugo was a horrible idea and Iraq and Afghanistan are not is that in the Yugo case, we had absolutely no national interests there, none, not even perceived threats. We basically went in because the UN, with the complicity of the Clinton Administration, arbitrarily decided to favor one side of the conflict over the other (and of course they didn't pick the Christians). So we went in and bombed people who never had the slightest animosity toward the US (they probably do now). The Middle East actions, on the other hand, are directly related to our national security. Even if you completely doubt that Iraq supported terrorism, and I can't understand why you would, you still have to admit that there were very strong reasons to consider Saddam a threat.

Afghanistan was/is a success because we accomplished all of our objectives, except for the capture of Osama. We routed the Taliban, a regime that was fully supporting terrorist operations against the west including 9/11, we destroyed all of the terrorist training facilities, most of the weapons, and most of the terrorists, and we've secured solid allies in the country. Afghanistan certainly isn't s perfect democracy, nor do I believe we plan to create one there, but you people need to realize that you are condemning the US for arrogant stupidity for attempting to create democracy in Iraq, while also condemning the US for creating anything less than that in Afghanistan. You need to recognize your logical inconsistencies. The fact that warlords exist there doesn't change a thing, as long as they're OUR warlords. As far as the drug trade, well hell, the drug trade is flourishing in California too. Should we freak out about that?

Pat Tillman joined the Army Rangers, one of the most elite combat groups in the Army, and they were in operations specifically to find Al-Qaeda in the mountains between Afganistan and Pakistan, an area known for its hiding places. That's what he was doing when he was killed, not fighting in the streets of Kabul. Simply put, the Rangers went looking for trouble, because that's what they do, and they found it.

Non-combatant casualties: how do you even determine a number like that? If ten Iraqi Republican Guards or Fedayeen are holed up in a building with ten civilians, dressed in plain clothes and shooting RPGs and AK-47s at US troops, and we send a TOW missile through the window, who is responsible for the civilian deaths? How do you even know which are civilians when you pick through the aftermath? The New York Times and Al-Jazeera will both report that the US slaughtered 120 "non-combatants", while all the troops were doing is defending themselves. In addition, how many of those so-called non-combatant deaths are even attributed to US actions? If a terrorist psycho drives his car bomb into a US checkpoint and detonates it, killing 2 Marines and 5 Iraqi civilians, do those 5 go into the "non-combatant death" category? I bet they do, at least with the sources you're using. Those sources don't specify that the deaths are caused by the US, just that they occurred. And by the way, even if the 10,000 figure were correct, it is still less than would have died in an average year by Saddam's hand, and at least this way they didn't have to go through a wood chipper.

Clinton is and was a lefty. If you have to look to the right to see Clinton, that is only because you are so far left you have fallen off the world.

I think you guys really need to examine why it is that you hate and blame the US for everything, whether it makes sense to or not. The US isn't perfect, but it is no worse than any other country out there and, in a lot of ways, is a whole lot better. A lot of these accusations that you are leveling at the US as reasons for hating it aren't even sane (the US put Castro in place??). You've been indoctrinated to hate your own country and blame it for things that you forgive every other country for doing. I think you should give a lot of thought as to why.

I wouldnt say my history is lacking. Just differant. I dont believe what our Gov. tells us about a great deal of things.

I personally believe that we knew ahead of time about Pearl Harbor. And we let it happen. To get into the war.

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

But just because Congress may try to hand unlimited power to the Pres. doesnt make it constitutional.

Right now we have Americans that are being held with no right to an attorney and without charges. This is not constitutional. Yet it is being done.

You know the name of the song they play when he enters a room?? Hail to the Chief! get it??

Every military personal is taught the "chain of command" and there is only one person higher then the President and that is God Himself, hence the ability of people to opt out for their religious convictions during times of draft.

I can't wait to check out that web site you put a link to, is that where you are getting all your mis-information???

OK bombiming linked to Al Queda??? You are nuts that was domestic terrorisim and retaliation for what Clinton and Reno did at Waco. Mind you Reno deserved jail time for that fiasco but these twisted morons blew up the Federal building.

3. I will neither kill nor injure another human being, except in such circumstances that it is morally justifiable to do so.

By almost universal custom, those circumstances include self defense on behalf of myself, my family, or any lawful group with legally clean hands of which I am properly a member. By equally strong tradition, they include combat engagements, while I am in the armed services of my country during war with a foreign nation, and am carrying out the orders of my superiors. I shall make no effort, especially in this limited space, to set forth for others the proper decision, with regard to either justification, in every conceivable set of circumstances. In this tight series of resolutions I certainly cannot refute all the errors of the conspiratorial casuists, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant falsehoods.

Sounds like the defence in the Neurenburg trials. Oh, I should mention this is from the John Birch Society.

Takes these folks forever to make a point as Bill O'Riley would say "they bloviate".

5. I shall always support the concept and the practice of monogamy.

This is one course of conduct on which the morality of many other religions and Christian morality sharply diverge. And I am aware that much can be said for those other points of view. Also, I agree that we should be very hesitant about rushing in to try to impose our idea of the proper relationships between men and women on the people of other civilizations. In the first place monogamy, and the chastity outside of marriage which goes with it as a part of the total concept, require the male to rise above almost incredibly strong natural instincts, and to suppress or control those instincts for the sake of other more objective values and considerations. But I believe that this whole rocedure represents a huge step forward in man's "upward reach," and that our Judaic-Christian civilization, by accepting and promoting a monogamous life as at least an ideal, has painfully advanced beyond other civilizations which have gone before it, as well as those which are now its rivals.

It's man's nature to cheat or be polygamoustic? And he has to reach above himself to overcome this?? Why don't they just come out and say it, girls your man is going to cheat it's in his nature you just have to deal with it, he's trying.

Give me a break.

Anyone else bother to read some of this "stuff" on this site???

The reason that the participation in the former Yugo was a horrible idea and Iraq and Afghanistan are not is that in the Yugo case, we had absolutely no national interests there, none, not even perceived threats. We basically went in because the UN, with the complicity of the Clinton Administration, arbitrarily decided to favor one side of the conflict over the other (and of course they didn't pick the Christians). So we went in and bombed people who never had the slightest animosity toward the US (they probably do now). The Middle East actions, on the other hand, are directly related to our national security. Even if you completely doubt that Iraq supported terrorism, and I can't understand why you would, you still have to admit that there were very strong reasons to consider Saddam a threat.

shoprat (in bold)

I had very mixed feeling about the Balkan intervention, however, the former Communist big shot, Milosevic, had the entire Yugoslav army (largely built and maintained by the Soviet Union) at his disposal, and in order to maintain his dictatorship, he used it against both fellow Christians (Roman Catholic Croatia) and Muslims --esp. of Sarajevo--which was under siege for I can't remember how long, but a long time.

I still have grave concerns about the bombing of Belgrade in particular, but it doesn't matter what I think--the UN failed utterly it's humanitarian mission of protecting civilian populations, and NATO led by the US stepped in for better or worse.

I have much more sympathy for someone like Kara. I view her as far less hypocritical than people like you R.G,. who only view the world thru right/left, Dem/Rep eyes. Hey! that's kinda like dialectic materialism--like Marxism--oooops I digress again. Kara is against all US military involvement in foreign countries unless it is a clear cut case of national defense. At least that position makes sense to me.

You say military action is warranted any time anywhere U.S. interests are at stake. In the case of Iraq that would be:
1. Oil
2. Israel
(not necessarily in that order)

That is just imperialism. Call it by it's proper name at least. The neocons who control Bush Jr. are unashamed of it. They think it is a fine way to order the world and are proud of it. Just admit it R.G. you think the United States has the right to go into any nation in the world and use the force of our military might (the largest and most powerful in the world by far) to protect our interests. Even though those interests are determined by a small group of elites--most of whom are not elected officials--but cabinet appointments made by the president.
That to me is a very, very scary world view. Waaaaay too much power in the hands of the executive branch--and even more so after the reforms post 9/11/01.

You know as well as I do, that the ouster of Saddam, was a plan in the works of the Bush administration well before 9/11/01. (see: ``Against All Enemies'' by Richard A. Clarke, ``The Price of Loyalty'' by Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind,, both former Bush administration officials.)
They would have never gotten public support for the Iraq adventure with out the cover of that national tragedy, which was exploited by this administration to achieve it goals for a stable middle east. That is why the majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind the attacks of 9/11/01. The public was deceived by this administration as to the real purpose for invasion which was, as you stated, to protect American interests. Interests as defined by these guys. The Empire Builders.

Afghanistan was/is a success because we accomplished all of our objectives, except for the capture of Osama. We routed the Taliban, a regime that was fully supporting terrorist operations against the west including 9/11, we destroyed all of the terrorist training facilities, most of the weapons, and most of the terrorists, and we've secured solid allies in the country

The Taliban WAS routed, but they are now back IN FORCE. Why? Because the U.S. did not follow up on keeping them out. All attention was diverted to Iraq. The terrorists were NOT destroyed for the most part, they simply ran across the border to Pakistan--the area of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan is completely lawless-- and rife with Islamic militants. Usama and his gang most likely move back and forth between the two areas, aided and abetted by their many sympathizers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. As for allies--puleeeeeze. Our only ally is, Hamid Karzai, president of the country on paper only, as he controls only the Capital city of Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is controlled by tribal war lords and drug lords. Even the supposed ``liberation'' of women is only on paper, as most women fear brutal attacks from the Islamic fundamentalists if they appear in public unveiled. As I`ve said before many times, only in Kabul, have the rights of the new constitution been exercised. Most of Afghanistan is the same or even worse than it was under the Taliban.

Afghanistan certainly isn't s perfect democracy, nor do I believe we plan to create one there, but you people need to realize that you are condemning the US for arrogant stupidity for attempting to create democracy in Iraq, while also condemning the US for creating anything less than that in Afghanistan.

I never expected Afghanistan to be a democracy, perfect or otherwise, due to the U. S. military action there (which I was in favor of, BTW)
But, I did expect, or at least was under the impression that the U.S. military presence would keep the country from being a haven and a bankroll for Islamic terrorists. This HASN'T HAPPENED!
As I stated in my previous post, the opium crop in Afghanistan has increased monumentally. (It was almost wiped out by the Taliban) Now not only are opium poppies the main crop of Afghanistan, but heroin is now being processed from the poppies in country (something new) and the profits are sent to militant Islamic organizations through out the world.
This is a direct effect of the neglect of Afghanistan while U.S. resources went to the invasion of Iraq. Very counter productive.
I would like to see the situation remedied. THAT is the reason I refuse to repeat the lies of the administration that the mission was a success. Lies like you repeat, R.G. are actually dangerous, because they attempt to cover up the resurgence of Islamic terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan.

. . .The fact that warlords exist there doesn't change a thing, as long as they're OUR warlords. As far as the drug trade, well hell, the drug trade is flourishing in California too. Should we freak out about that?

No. Most of them are NOT our war lords. If you had read this excellent article in ``Foreign Affairs'' that I posted a link to in a previous post, you might have an inkling of what is going on there. And your glib attitude about the skyrocketing opium crops, thankfully is not shared by the rest of the world (or even the Bush administration) And, I don't think the Cali. pot growers are financing al-Qaeda and their ilk.
to sum it up in simple terms:
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF KABUL, AFGHANISTAN IS LAWLESS!

''Kansas City Star: Afghanistan heroin boom overwhelms border nations

Rueters UK: Afghan opium boom spreads to traditional farmers

Oregonian: From a place as Remote as Afghanistan

Billings Gazette: Afghanistan's Opium Poppy Crop Skyrockets

Huston Chronicle: Opium on rise; Afghans return to top cash crop[/URL]

Arizona Central: Violence by Taliban Makes Surge

New York Times: Ambushes by Taliban Gunmen Kill 10 Policemen and Soldiers

Boston Herald: U.S. deploys Marines to Taliban stronghold

Non-combatant casualties: how do you even determine a number like that?

Iraq Body Count:Methodology
From the site:
This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies.
This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC Counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

And by the way, even if the 10,000 figure were correct, it is still less than would have died in an average year by Saddam's hand, and at least this way they didn't have to go through a wood chipper

Average? No. I don't think that Saddam has killed that many in one year since his hey day in the war with Iran, or his slaughter of Kurds and Shi'ia after Gulf War I-- the U.S. didn't intervene then--talk about closing the barn door after the horse's out. And I thought this wasn't a humanitarian mission? Or that's right; it became one when the WMD lies fell apart.

Clinton is and was a lefty. If you have to look to the right to see Clinton, that is only because you are so far left you have fallen off the world.

No. The Clinton's (both of them) are Centrists. You, R.G., and the public discourse in general has gone so far to the right that the rest of the world thinks all Americans are crazed militant jingoists. Fortunately, as this discussion shows, that's not the case. I don`t think I`ve read a world on this thread expressing hatred for the USA. What I`ve seen is criticism of the policy of a particular administration. I doubt that anyone accused you of hating your country just because you hate Bill Clinton, or you disapproved of his intervention in the Balkan conflict, but in fact that is just what you are doing to the others on this forum who disagree with you or the current administration.

One final link to put a human face on all of this cheap talk. (not for the squeamish)

Pictures of Civilian Victims of British and U.S. bombing in Iraq since March 2003

Well, I don't need to 'admit' that. All the real evidence has shown rather to the contrary. Now WMD's, no capability to deliver them even if they existed; no nuclear program; a military that just about wasn't there; no ties to AlKaeda... Iraq was rather well-contained before the invasion. "Very strong reasons", indeed.

"Afghanistan was/is a success because we accomplished all of our objectives, except for the capture of Osama"..."and we've secured solid allies in the country."

All of our objectives? I thought one objective was to get rid of the warlords, so the rule of law was extant in the country. Or so the Afghani women could be free. And the only solid allies in the country is the government which really only has full power over the city of Kabul.

"The fact that warlords exist there doesn't change a thing, as long as they're OUR warlords. As far as the drug trade, well hell, the drug trade is flourishing in California too. Should we freak out about that?"

You're contradicting yourself here, because getting rid of the warlords was always a stated objective. Likewise, stopping the opium production is an explicit objective.

"Clinton is and was a lefty."

That's a laugh! Nobody anywhere near the Left that I knew liked Clinton. But of course, if you're from Bush Country, even Ronald Reagan's going to look 'pink' to you.

"I think you guys really need to examine why it is that you hate and blame the US for everything, whether it makes sense to or not."

A presumption on your part, and typical right-wing rhetoric - if we don't like the way something's being done, we "hate the US". Bullshit. We are citizens and good citizens have a duty to speak up when they see things going the wrong way. You disagree - fine, that's how we come to rational conclusions, by airing different viewpoints. Not by demonizing those with a dissenting view. You want to live where people don't criticize their government, go live in China or Kuwait or 1960's Russia.

Sent,
"there is only one person higher then the President and that is God Himself"

Furthermore..

The recent acts depicted by photographs are just a small portion... what's leaked so far..they are indivodual acts, but not isolated incidents.

For our government to totally disconnect themselves from as they denounce these acts is classic.

This is exactly what happens whenever a military force is put in the position where they must police a region..they are not trained in policing, ill equipped to maintain control over this kind of havoc.
The havoc is a direct symptom of the root of the problem, which our administration is greatly responsible for.

Mo

******************************************

quote:

---

Originally posted by shoprat:
[B
Troops have been abusing Iraqis for a year: Amnesty
Sydney Morning Herald
By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in Washington, and agencies
May 5, 2004

At least four Iraqi detainees have died in British custody in the past year, one as a result of torture, says the human rights group Amnesty International, while the CIA admits it is investigating the death of a prisoner under interrogation.

Amnesty issued a disturbing report on Iraq last month detailing allegations of torture and ill-treatment by US and British forces in Iraq that are remarkably similar to the evidence that has now surfaced. But its report indicates that the abuses began when US-led coalition forces gained control of Iraq in April last year and took place throughout the country.
. . .
A United Nations human rights investigator has called for an independent inquiry into the impact on civilians of the US military's month-long siege of Falluja.
There were credible claims that US-led forces in Iraq "have been guilty of serious breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law in Falluja in recent weeks", the UN special rapporteur Paul Hunt said on Monday.

Amnesty International: we have evidence of 'pattern of torture' by coalition
Canada National Post
JILL LAWLESS
Canadian Press

LONDON (AP) - Amnesty International said it has uncovered a "pattern of torture" of Iraqi prisoners by coalition troops, and called for an independent investigation into the claims of abuse.
. . .
British military police are investigating allegations of abuse by British soldiers after the Daily Mirror newspaper published a front-page picture of a soldier apparently urinating on a hooded prisoner. The newspaper said it had been given the pictures by serving soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.
It quoted unidentified soldiers as saying the unarmed captive in its pictures had been threatened with execution during eight hours of abuse, and was left bleeding and vomiting. They said the captive was then driven away and dumped from the back of a moving vehicle, and his fate was unknown.
. . .
The U.S. Army Reserve general who commanded the military police officers photographed abusing Iraqi prisoners said she was "sickened" by the photos and believes the culprits are "bad people" who deserve punishment.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade told The New York Times that the Abu Ghraib prison cell block where the abuses occurred was controlled by military intelligence officers, who she said may have encouraged the actions.
"The suggestion that this was done with my knowledge and continued with my knowledge is so far from the truth," she was quoted as saying in Sunday's editions. "I wasn't aware of any of this. I'm horrified by this."
On Saturday, The New Yorker magazine said it obtained a U.S. Army report that Iraqi detainees were subjected to "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" at the prison near Baghdad.
The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses," the magazine said in its May 10 issue.
Karpinski was formally admonished in January and suspended from command while being investigated, The New Yorker reported.
Karpinski told The New York Times that she believed military commanders were trying to shift the blame for the abuses from military intelligence officers in Iraq to the reservists.

[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:

Where am I, The late sixties? Every time I find myself Gagging through one of shoprat's slanted and anti-American/Bush cut and paste jobs, I have to ask myself why I do it. It kaint be good for you to try and find reason where there is none.

Take for example the poor sap from Mississippi that escaped his captors. I doubt she thought we didn't know he escaped. Her reason for posting that was to shrewdly and quietly leave her spin that the Iraqis prisoners are all ill treated but are kind and humane to their prisoners. The Italians might have a different point of view.

Nice try!

---

LOL!!! LabRat y'all are an old crank!!!
And very consistent.

Anti-Bush=Anti-American in the LabRat rule book.

I DID juxtapose the stories for comparison, however I'm under no illusion that the
Iraqis treat prisoners more humanely than Americans or British do. There is no ethnic group or nationality free from guilt on that score.

In this particular instance it did seem that the poor saps captors did make an effort to treat him decently, and they didn't seem to be very good guards either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SentByHim:
Ok now that I have seen what they have to say and read their "resolutions" I have to draw the conclusion that this group is a religous group and not a political group. The resolutions were more statements of faith than positions on political issues.

Anyone else bother to read some of this "stuff" on this site???

Sent

---

Sent,

I'm surprised you've never heard of the JBS.
It's an ultra-conservative group founded first and foremost as an anti-communist organization. Bircher's were vilified during the civil rights era, because they are/were so anti-government that the opposed ANY civil rights legislation.
JBS backed Goldwater in 1964. I'll bet LabRat is familiar with the Birchers. (He sure sounds like one circa. 1964 most of the time)

Now-a-days the politicos call such old fashioned conservatives
Paleocons. And many of them are alarmed by the Bush admins. huge budget deficit and the out of control spending (on foreign military adventures among other dubious practices) Also they are freaked by the infringement on individual rights by such legislative monstrosities as the Patriot Act.

You, my dear Sent (whether you know it or not) are a Neocon. The most influential neocon (who's out of the closet) in the Bush admin. is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz..

Sent,
"there is only one person higher then the President and that is God Himself"

Well, now God's a person... interesting concept. But what I really wanted to say is, there is an entity on Earth higher than the President - and that's us, the people of the United States. Unless you have somehow deified the President, which would be awkward for someone with a single god (not to mention the issue of previous Presidents).

I was refering to the military chain of command and that was obvious by context.

And God as a person being an "interesting concept"? Just how little of Christianity do you actually know?? Not that I am asking you to believe it but just though you had an awarness of that basic of a tenet of faith.

Neocon quiz results
Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

Realist
Realists...

* Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
* Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
* Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
* Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
* Weigh the political costs of foreign action
* Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

But I do find myself somewhere inbetween their definiton of a neocon and a realist.

Now lets stop this name calling

Well don't be suprised I never heard of these Birchers before and now I feel I have heard enough.

But I'd be pleased to see you cite a biblical reference for me to the contrary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by danq:
Well Sent, God made man in His image, not as one with Him.

But I'd be pleased to see you cite a biblical reference for me to the contrary.

By the way, my tongue is bigger than yours.

Dan

---

Danq Thats why he sent his son buddy so we can fellowship with him as his children removing the sins.

Your saying just what the sandhedrian accused Jesus of. Man stating that he is equal with God. Whereas that IS what Jesus was saying, that is not what Christianity says about christians.

But all this because you chose to mis-quote me and cut and past half of one of my sentances. When all I was trying to do was point out that the president was the commander in chief of the military at all times and only an "order from God" is considered a higher source in the chain of command. Hence the consience (will not even pretent to have spelled this right) objector clause.

I must add I don't like the source IMHO Christian Scientist are neither.

Dig the tongues

sent

I'm one of THEM!

librrrrrrrrruuuuuuls (make obligatory sneer when word is spoken out loud)

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy.

Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.

Believe political solutions are inherently
superior to military solutions.

Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises.

Oppose American imperialism.

Support international law, alliances, and agreements.

Encourage US participation in the UN.

Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor.

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

And Sent,

The CSM is a very good newpaper. Although it's owned by the Church it's not a religious publication. Read about it here

If it has any type of bias or orientation, I've only noticed that humanitarian concerns are given special attention.

It's like the Washington Times is owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

You guys ought to run for Congress.

You would definitely fit in with the current establishment!

DMC

MOST of us realise that this is NOT and should NOT be personal attacks, even though we hold our beliefs dear to us.

SO jump on in and speak your mind, just bring a thick skin and your reading glassed.

Sent

PS so far I have won the longest tongue portion of this thread. LOL

**"...All the real evidence has shown rather to the contrary. Now WMD's, no capability to deliver them even if they existed; no nuclear program; a military that just about wasn't there; no ties to AlKaeda... Iraq was rather well-contained before the invasion..."**

*sigh*. We know Saddam had WMDs. Even Clinton, whom you probably consider a right-wing extremist, and his administration remarked upon that fact. Where are they now? Nobody knows (cough*Syria*cough). I think you've missed most of the point of the WOT - our enemies attack us by unconventional, low-tech means, such as hijacking airplanes, rather than building missiles with GPS. I haven't seen you object to Afghanistan, if I recall correctly, although you seem to take perverse pleasure in the erroneous belief that it was a miserable failure for the Americans, so I will guess that you are aware that we attacked that country not for the military it held, but for its support of those same low-tech tactics (terrorism). In that case, you will understand that Saddam's Iraq was a similar threat, only magnified a hundred-fold because it had far superior resources and technology. No one thinks the Republican Guard was poised to invade the US. Instead, it is known that Saddam was very much in the business of financing, harboring, and training terrorists. That is why his WMDs were such a threat, not from a missile, but from a radical with 10 canisters of VX and a crop duster.

**"All of our objectives [in Afghanistan]? I thought one objective was to get rid of the warlords, so the rule of law was extant in the country. Or so the Afghani women could be free."**

Our operational objectives never included either of these things. We may want to accomplish them, because thats how we are, but our purpose for sending in troops was not so women could be unveiled. We never wanted to get rid of all the warlords. Heck, a good number of them were and are our buddies (ever heard of the Northern Alliance?). In the same way, stopping the opium trade was not one of our military objectives.

What you're doing is backtracking away from each accomplishment in order to be able to continue to accuse the US of failure in spite of all its successes. Here's how it works (and the leftist media is right with you on this, or you're right with them): 1) Before we go in, everyone says "Americans will be slaughtered", 2) the US kicks ass, takes control of all controllable parts of the country in weeks, leftists say "We're still there? Quagmire! Quagmire!", 3) US gets a Afghani provisional government in place, schools are opened, much infrastructure restored, leftists say "There are some Afghanis who say the US is bad? Failure! Widespread resistance! Imperial occupation!" and on and on and on. Each time the US oversomes an obstacle, the leftists find a new item to latch onto and bemoan.

And I honestly don't know where you get your info, but the Taliban did not try to crush the drug trade - as puppets of Al-Qaeda, they actively protected it, since that money directly went to fund training camps, equipment etc.

**"We are citizens and good citizens have a duty to speak up when they see things going the wrong way."**

The problem is that you are not speaking up in support of any logical direction, you are simply condemning and ridiculing US efforts wholesale, quite often without any evidence to support a conclusion one way or the other. A patriotic citizen, if he can't give his own country the benefit of the doubt in any situation, should at least reserve judgement until all the evidence is clear. You guys, however, condemn and ridicule every action the US has taken so far and try to make victories seem like defeats, and you have no more evidence to back up those positions than weblogs, narrow media reports, and talking heads. That is, by definition, unpatriotic. If the reports from the field were not conclusive one way or the other as to the level of success the US is having, then a good citizen would either support his country, or remain neutral, but you guys remain hostile regardless of what you see. There is no reason for that kind of reaction other than ideological indoctrination.

What will happen to history once all the old farts die off and there is no one left from that time frame of history. History will be left to the hate America first professors and film makers.

You have to give credit where it's due. It was a stroke of genius the way the communist went after our collage kids and their professors. It paid dividends almost at once even though our enemies were totally defeated on the battlefield. What they set in motion has out lived their way of life, they are now the new west!

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmcbrayer:
WOW!

You guys ought to run for Congress.

You would definitely fit in with the current establishment!

DMC
PS: Are you sure you guys aren't from the House of Representitives, or the Senate?
If not, I'll give you guys a good reference to CNN's Cross-fire.

---

DMC, (is that RUN DMC?)

We SHOULD be senators and congressmen, then all the problems of the world would be solved!!

Instead, it is known that Saddam was very much in the business of financing, harboring, and training terrorists.

SR:
Just out and out WRONG.
Read: Richard Clarke's' Against all Enemies, Re: Saddam's terrorist connections--not much of a threat according to Clarke. And counter terrorism was his field of expertise; he was the guy that the Bush people went to after 9/11/01 when they were taken totally off guard by the al-Qaeda attacks.
This man is on a holy mission to make it clear to the public that Iraq was NOT a threat which reqired immediate military action, that the lion's share of military action and attention should have gone to Afghanistan instead, and that the invasion of Iraq was/is a dangerous distraction--for many reasons which I won't get into now.

Also, in Bob Woodward's' new book, Plan of Attack, he reveals that $700,000,000 which was targeted specifically for Afghanistan was used to prepare for the invasion of Iraq (WITHOUT congressional approval, btw--which is modus operandi for this thuggish admin. The less the legislative branch knows, the better.)

As for WMD, read the Kay report. It shows that Saddams weapons programs had been out of commission for 10 years or so--at least. So it is very unlikely that there were any huge stockpiles to secretly transport to Syria. Since no one in the administration is even suggesting this, I doubt that there is any credible evidence for your theory.

RG:
US gets a Afghani provisional government in place, schools are opened, much infrastructure restored,

SR:
A provisional government that rules only the capital city, schools only in the capital etc.--infrastructure ditto--only in Kabul.
That is a success,I guess, but a very small one, and NOT the way the mission is spun by administration officials who like to paint a false picture of a free and prosperous Afghanistan.

Just what WAS accomplished in Afghanistan militarily?
The Taliban was routed, and Usama and minions ran away and hid--their headquarters in Afghanistan were destroyed.
Kabul was secured and a president with no power outside of the capital is in place.
In elections to be held this coming September 99% of voters will live in the city of Kabul. The rest of the country operates under some type of medieval tribal law.
That's it! You can't come up with anything else. The initial success has been undermined by lack of follow up--allowing the Taliban (they used to be our allies, remember?) to return--allowing other warlords--NOT NECESSARILY FRIENDLY to western powers to rule by brute force. And allowing Islamic militant groups safe haven--again. So most of the good has been undone.

RG:
And I honestly don't know where you get your info, but the Taliban did not try to crush the drug trade - as puppets of Al-Qaeda, they actively protected it, since that money directly went to fund training camps, equipment etc.

SR:
This should answer your question, as in this case we are both correct!!! Imagine that!

Opium flourishes once more
Under the Taliban opium production was severely curtailed, but now the country is the source of three-fourths of the world's supply of the drug.

Afghanistan's opium production peaked under the Taliban, who partly financed their movement from the profits. But in July 2000 the Taliban banned opium cultivation, to the distress of many farmers, and the price soared.

So, the Taliban had banned opium poppy cultivation in 2000. But now, since the U.S. moved in, it has skyrocketed, and labs processing heroin have sprung up all over the country.
In fact a new drug economy has sprung up, an entire nation devoted to growing poppies and making heroin to sell on the international market--and much of the profit goes right back to. . .you guessed it. . . Usama and al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.
I don't see how you can put a positive spin on that.
The moral of the story is--instead of running off to Iraq--the U.S. should have put much more effort into securing the entire country of Afghanistan--providing the temporary police and security force so that the country would not dissipate into clan wars and drug trafficking. But that didn't happen.

The truth of the Iraq debacle is coming out in bits and pieces. More and more former officials are coming forward to say the plan for invading Iraq was in the works by September 12, 2001, and that the attacks against our country were used falsely as an excuse to enact a long established program to re-align the middle east.
Iraq was not involved with al-Qaeda;
Iraq did not harbor or train Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
Saddam was not part of that holy mission, but he was a threat to Israel, and he controlled a significant amount of the world's oil.
These are the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq--plus he tried to kill Duhbya's Daddy.
THAT kind of terrorism --terrorism against the Bush clan--we can't stand for! (Clinton wiped out the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in response--as well as killing several innocents in a near by hotel.)

The rest of your stuff is just a paranoid rant. The ``left'' hasn't had a voice in the media--(if it ever did) since the late 60's early 70's. Since then the media has become a huge joke--it's entertainment and gossip oriented. We don't get news on tv--that's for sure. Some of the print media is still doing it's job though.
Fox news is actually a wing of the Republican party, but that's OK--at least we know where they are coming from--the fair and balanced means just the opposite.
I just wish the Democrats could get THEIR own network too.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, R.G., you ought to read outside of your own prejudices and preconceptions, this is invaluable in boradening one's perspective.
I read all sorts of stuff with a political or ideological viewpoint that doesn't mesh with mine.
I actually learn quite a bit, if the work is well written and reasonably argued. (ain't I the smarty pants??)

I can't stand hateful hachet jobs that have the sole purpose of destroying the political opposition, though.

Most of that hateful stuff comes from right-wing talk radio now, and I'd be disappointed to see a liberal/left version of hate mongering, but maybe that's what it will take to even things up a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:

You have to give credit where it's due. It was a stroke of genius the way the communist went after our collage kids and their professors. It paid dividends almost at once even though our enemies were totally defeated on the battlefield. What they set in motion has out lived their way of life, they are now the new west!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shoprat:

If I may be so bold as to suggest, R.G., you ought to read outside of your own prejudices and preconceptions, this is invaluable in boradening one's perspective.
I read all sorts of stuff with a political or ideological viewpoint that doesn't mesh with mine.
I actually learn quite a bit, if the work is well written and reasonably argued. (ain't I the smarty pants??)

I can't stand hateful hachet jobs that have the sole purpose of destroying the political opposition, though.

Most of that hateful stuff comes from right-wing talk radio now, and I'd be disappointed to see a liberal/left version of hate mongering, but maybe that's what it will take to even things up a bit.

[/B]

---

Well, well. You make an awful lot of assumptions here Shoprat. It is a typical left-wing technique to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you must either be stupid or ignorant. In this case, you assume that the reason I don't hold your views is that I must not have ever been exposed to them, and if only I would just stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching the 700 Club, I would see the "truth". So you suggest to me that I "read outside of your own prejudices and preconceptions." If that isn't the height of arrogance, I don't know what is.

As a matter of fact, I am extremely well-read, and that includes a lot of information and opinion that comes from the political left. And need I remind you that I live in California, the state that INVENTED left-wing fanaticism? You can't walk to the mailbox around here without tripping over some hippie protestor. I am very well aware of the Left's positions and arguments. Furthermore, it is precisely because I am aware of the reasoning of the Left that I am on the Right. The Left's arguments are baseless and illogical, their reasoning flawed, their attitude instinctively hostile to anything that favors the USA or its interests, and that attitude, that instilled hatred, colors everything they say, do think, or feel.

As it happens, I used to hold a good number of leftward positions, back when I was too young to put any real thought into the issues at hand. It was the accumulation of information and the logical conclusions derived from it that brought me to my current philosophy. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, lady.

I made the assumption based on your calling Bill Clinton a hero of the left. I assumed you were confusing the left with the Democratic party.
There are a few lefties in the Dem. party; i.e. the late Paul Wellstone, and most of the Congressional Black Caucus. Or simply look to those who supported the candidacy of Howard Dean. The Dean who ran for prez was left leaning; the Dean who was Gov. of Vermont was a moderate.
He came to decry his party's overall move rightward only during his recent campaign.
Or check out Ralph Nader--you should be overjoyed that he's trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states for Novembers' presidential election, as he takes 5-7 percentage points away from centrist Kerry.

The Real Left

TheNation.com

From The Nation
Face the Iraq Fiasco, Senator (Kerry)

CounterPunch.org

From Counter Punch
Kerry. A lost cause for Progressives?

Or if you want an example of the rude and angry left there's always:

BARTCOP.COM

(These were listed in order of respectability)

OH!. Can't forget Noam Chomsky,
and Z Net He is in a league of his own.

These lefties and their publications have little influence over the majority of Democrats in congress.

I am also well aware of the rightie propaganda technique of calling the left elitist and condescending to ordinary folks. I didn't accuse you of being not well read, but you haven't demonstrated that you are up to date on who's who of the left.
It seems your vision of the left comes from David Horowitz
There may be a few old white guy hippie types left over from the hey day of left radicalism--THE SIXTIES but they are toothless and neutered old men now. The right is in ascendancy at this moment in time.
It is interesting that many of the current neocons who have such a powerful influence in the Bush administration were former Trotskites. This goes far to explain their rigid authoritarianism and lust to invade other countries.

Posts: 371
From:
Registered: Aug 2004 posted 07 December 2004 11:42 ��� ���� �� ��
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting and hopeful commentary on Terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copyright � 2004 The American Conservative

Weaker Than We Think

Al-Qaeda may have already fired its best shot.

By Russell Seitz

On Oct. 18, President Bush asked if today we are still living in the '90s, ``in the mirage of safety that was actually a time of gathering threats.''

The Weekly Standard takes this to mean ``a need to fundamentally change the political culture of the Middle East'' lest, as Bush declared, ``anger and resentment grow for more decades ... feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to kill without limit.''

This is Cold War rhetoric warmed over. No longer do we face an Evil Empire bristling with ICBMs behind its Iron Curtain but a region without strategic weapons and already twice invaded. Salafist fanaticism is a worthy successor to Marxist zeal when it comes to malevolence, but policy must consider the capacity for action, not intent alone. To judge by action, terrorism indeed took advantage of our at best sporadic vigilance and summoned its resources in the '90s much as the president's speech observed. But how does its actual capacity for evildoing compare with the sum of our fears?

In a War on Terror, knowing the enemy's numbers is vital. London's International Institute for Strategic Studies reckons Osama bin Laden has recruited 18,000 since 9/11, while some DOD officials think he's down to his last 3,000 men. Others say that numbers do not matter: it took only 25 to fill the Trojan Horse, and a few thousand National Socialists and Bolsheviks gave lie to Lenin's dictated identity of quantity and quality.

Today, we have seen the enemy and he has, at most, one division under arms, making it hard to believe a replay of the Thirty Years War is in the offing. Many horrors of the 20th century stemmed from the metastasis of small cadres, but the exponential growth of totalitarian movements remains an historical rarity. Few last long enough to outgrow their infamy. At the margin, 9/11 could join the Trojan Horse and Pearl Harbor among stratagems so uniquely surprising that their very success precludes their repetition.

It takes singular ingenuity to achieve stunning surprise. The ruse that broke a ten-year stalemate and burned the topless towers of Ilium came from Odysseus' cunning mind, not Agamemnon's planning staff. After the failed 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Mohammad Atta applied himself to calculating the energy ten tons of blazing jet fuel could deliver to the towers' hearts. He chose the moment of his death as wisely as his target and his impact velocity, for the dead man Osama bin Laden now styles ``Commander-General'' made us forget what he was not: a weapons expert. His inspired effort at grand theft aero transcended the failure of al-Qaeda to acquire the weapons of mass destruction that have obsessed us ever since. The fear one morning engendered dominates our political culture.

However tall bin Laden may loom as a scourge of civilizations, it is increasingly clear that his arsenal is as phony as his army is small--its shelves are bare of expertise and materiel alike. But the War on Terror is anything but phony, and al-Qaeda is under withering attack by every means a hyperpower and its allies can devise. The cancer remains, but intrusive therapy is clearly taking its toll. As the attrition continues, the focus on what remains is intensifying. This concentration of fire to accelerate the enemy's demise coincides with the contraction of the safe haven available to him to hide. A feedback loop has arisen from the intelligence that flexibility has gained. It is becoming a noose around Osama's neck, and he has only himself to blame for the crumbling platform on which he stands.

Al-Qaeda means ``foundation'' in the sense of a base of operations rather than a Brookings Institution. In 2001, its host, Afghanistan's Taliban, was on a war footing with the Northern Alliance, an American ally against the Soviet occupation. With the Twin Towers still standing, bin Laden ordered the assassination of the Alliance's leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud. The blood feud this ignited bought al-Qaeda's leadership breathing space, but eventually forced it to flee not just into the Pashtun no-man's-land along the Pakistani border but beyond it, into Pakistan's Northern Areas. It is a region whose lower passes are higher than the Rockies and whose winters make Tora Bora look like Palm Springs--a fine place to hide, but a ludicrous launch pad for a global revolution. On the lam and preoccupied with security and survival, not strategy, al-Qaeda is no longer a magnet for the best and brightest young jihadis. The average al-Qaeda grunt is no Atta, but a high-school dropout who lives at home.

However much the world changed on 9/11, the thousand days before and after it remain identical in one respect--Islamic terrorists killed no one on American soil. Whatever our future fears, in the here and now, al-Qaeda remains boxed. They can spike truck bombs with as much concentrated radwaste as they can steal or buy, but a frontier of plausibility still separates analytical pessimism from the hinterland of paranoia. Those who imprudently equate the modern ubiquity of high technology with terrorists becoming omniscient or infallible risk a rendezvous with cognitive dissonance.

Practitioners of urban terrorism, like those of strategic bombing on both sides in World War II, may find the psychological as well as the physical damage done disappointing. London's civil society endured the Blitz, and cities of millions coexist with violent death today as well. On 9/11, 1 in 3,000 New Yorkers perished, but in the same year, over 1 in 1,000 urbanites were murdered in three major cities in the Western hemisphere alone.

Sept. 11 reigns supreme among media events, but that bespeaks the semiotic power of television, not the strategic impact of hijacked planes. What happened in New York and Washington pales in comparison to the bombing of London, Dresden, or Tokyo, all orders of magnitude more lethal but equally ineffectual in altering the outcome of the Second World War. Instead of roaring back to reinfest Germany's body politic, the Nazi diaspora died out in the wilderness of Bolivia and Brazil. The Khmer Rouge escaped hanging and remains objectively as capable of entering the WMD sweepstakes as al-Qaeda. But their will is gone. The remnants of their genocidal cadres sit in forest clearings under the brow of the Dalgrek Escarpment, like troops of sullen baboons awaiting a peanut handout.

Information about weapons of mass destruction is ubiquitous in the postmodern world, but functional expertise remains rare. Bioterror is easy on paper, but the learning curve is lethally steep in practice. Likewise, the infrastructure of nuclear escalation remains difficult for nations--let alone cults of no fixed address--to acquire and operate. Especially when everyone expects them to try.

Past assessments of nuclear ambition that assume fixed R&D facilities lead to a more acute view of proliferation risks than the case of a perpetrator on the run. The standard objection is that even if al-Qaeda fails to get an atomic bomb, the fallout from one radwaste-spiked fertilizer bomb would be catastrophic. The answer is guarded: it is not easy to convert the fears of the nuclear freeze movement into reality. Building a bomb in the absence of sanctions entails a cadre of hundreds of PhDs directing a small army. Bin Laden's skilled technocrats are manacled by sanctions and mercifully few. The ratio of ranting to rocket science among today's jihadis does not point to any replay of the Manhattan Project. The fact is that Salafist Islam's categorical rejection of science not only creates intellectual arthritis but also makes it impossible to integrate technology into the curriculum of a madrassa that would look askance at notions of the earth revolving around the sun.

The largest al-Qaeda explosives cache thus far found (in Jordan in 1999) equaled 16 tons of TNT. That's some truck bomb but three orders of magnitude short of what struck but failed to kill the still living city of Hiroshima, where a thriving financial district abuts the well touristed memorial.

In the recent debates, President Bush asserted that al-Qaeda had lost 75 percent of its top people, but Vice President Cheney reminded us that the remainder ``is bent on our destruction.'' Now, 18,000 is a formidable force of homicidal fanatics to unleash on any nation, but we are not alone. Al-Qaeda has enemies by the score, and its local concerns are a drain on its capacity for global action. What fraction of his resources can bin Laden sustainably devote to force projection on the far side of the world?

Three decades ago, al-Qaeda was a sort of multinational PLO, an IRA with a worldview refracted through the dark glass of Salafist Islam rather than Marxism. What do we do if it reverts to type? The question may not be academic. The world is far from cured of the paroxysmal metastasis of bin Laden's cult, but this malignant growth on the body of Islam has shrunk in response to intervention both surgical and strategic.

But what of the claim that he is a power to be reckoned with within the world of Islam? Volumes have been written about Wahhabi evangelism and Osama's charismatic power, yet scarcely one Muslim in 100,000 has actually signed up for his jihad--good news, considering that we have over 1.3 billion Muslim contemporaries. If Osama were the culture hero he aspires to be, he would have a horde on horseback behind him that would put Saladin to shame. Instead, no more Islamists answered his call to arms than Marxists did Che Guevara's. If the Church Militant had found so little European zeal at the turn of the 12th century, the crusades would have gone down in history as a 20-platoon fiasco.

All faiths have their crosses to bear, and one bloody-minded zealot per 100,000 is, alas, the norm. Buddhism shudders at Aum Shinrikyo's adoption of nerve gas as a Tantric sacramental, just as Christianity does at the Ku Klux Klan and the Reverend Jim Jones. It did not take a Thirty Years War to put them out of business.

Islamic militants may drool over weapons-show catalogs and dream of acquiring what they see in them, but they are looking through a window into the rapidly receding past. The technology-fed arsenals that provided harness for the WWIII that was never fought between the superpowers have moved on. The most modern weapons Saddam's billions could buy ended up turning Iraq's late Republican Guard into multispectral eye candy for artillery spotters when America's JSTARS crews materialized like time travelers with equipment from the next millennium. What justifies the breathtaking cost of America's high-tech military procurement is that it buys a lease on the future, where we so own the battlefield that no one wants to face us in pitched battle on it.

Yet there is more to conflict than hardware. Even in the WMD era, a Clash of Civilizations requires the dispersion of compelling beliefs more than the concentration of mere zeal. For faith to manifest itself in the redirection of history often requires a vacuum into which ideas can expand into consequences. Unless, as seems unlikely, Islam implodes before our eyes into a perfervid militancy unseen since the 7th century, al-Qaeda may remain unable fill its half of the Plain of Armageddon--or the Superbowl, for that matter. The sum of all thugs falls 3,000 short of the number of airliners available, and newly minted airport guards outnumber al-Qaeda's minions 2.5 to 1.

What about weapons of mass destruction? To those who have agonized about them for decades, an epidemic seems as improbable as a few cases of devastation seem inevitable. Despite the continuity of motive and opportunity, just a handful of targets have drawn fire, and only the Lebanon Marine barracks truck bombing, the Cole, and the attack on the Pentagon have been militarily significant

Stealing hydrogen bombs, like breaking into Fort Knox, is hard work; the score is still zero despite half a century of trying. So attention turns to the relatively portable and unguarded. Al-Qaeda is always looking for a ship full of hazardous cargo to hijack, simply because one small ship out-carries a fleet of 747s. A kiloton of the least explosive cargo imaginable still dwarfs the destructive potential of airliners in collision. But merchant ship piracy is as much a fact of life now as in the days of letters of marque and reprisal, and the ongoing megaton trade in explosive ammonium nitrate makes ship detonations, as at Port Texas, inevitable disasters of peace like the Kobe earthquake but not the end of the world. Terror is to a degree self-limiting because risks rise as weapons increase in complexity and size. As societal vigilance grows, that risk is multiplied until failure becomes the norm.

Being hunted across the world may have improved the tenor of al-Qaeda. If the 18,000 postulated recruits are all as smart, organized, lucky, and effective as Atta & Co., each might claim 146 victims. But that would leave all of them dead and 99 out of 100 Americans alive and very angry.

The difference WMD would make in al-Qaeda's hands is not between societal survival or extinction, but America facing the lethal norm Europe and Japan experienced in World War II--a war with terror that has not yet begun because the enemy lacks the means to fight it. Unlike the Axis, the amply evil bin Laden doesn't have an army--or an aircraft carrier. Pearl Harbor was never in danger of becoming a collective noun. The indifference that led to Dec. 7, 1941 gave rise to its antithesis--vigilance as a policy so universally evangelized that it took a generation to relax into the torpor that made Sept. 11, 2001 possible. Osama bin Laden at large sustains our attention in ways that preclude 9/11's repetition.

This brings us to something hard to face: some things end at their beginning, and al-Qaeda's best shot may have been exactly that. Something perhaps a hundred times worse still hangs over us, but not the Damoclean existential threat the real zealots want. When civilizations clash for ages, their roughest edges dull first, and the risk of their mutual destruction grows less assured. Once the rhetoric of extinction threatened to cow us into abandoning all thought of confrontation with an Evil Empire. Now it serves to inflate into satanic stature a merely evil man.

Late this winter comes the day the War on Terror will have lasted longer than WWII. It will be a time to ask if, in the frozen moment, one side may still be too bruised to consider victory and the other too proud to contemplate defeat. Osama once called America a ``weak horse,'' but as al-Qaeda's forces wane, the shadow this pale rider casts upon the earth is looking ever less caliphal and more quixotic.�
________________________
Guess this article is relevant to this topic and some of you may not have read it before, so thought it worth the review.

The conservative viewpoint and the White House blanket statements leave out allot of important points..extreme "left" exxagerates points..the truth lies somewhere in between..

Yes, AlQaeda as we knew it before 911 has been effectively dismantled, but it is so much more complicated than that, and there is a definitavely growing threat posed by a vast network of Islamic extremist Terror, AlQaeda in part and other groups.. as America continues on the course of unilateral War and occupation in the Middle East..Terrorist groups forming and growing in response to US action under a very small administrative clique.

The New Face of Al Qaeda
By Douglas Frantz, Josh Meyer,
Sebastian Rotella and Megan K. Stack.
The Los Angeles Times

Sunday 26 September 2004

Al Qaeda seen as wider threat. The network has evolved into a looser, ideological movement that may no longer report to Bin Laden. Critics say the White House focus is misdirected.

RABAT, Morocco - Authorities have made little progress worldwide in defeating Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda despite thwarting attacks and arresting high-profile figures, according to interviews with intelligence and law enforcement officials and outside experts.

On the contrary, officials warn that the Bush administration's upbeat assessment of its successes is overly optimistic and masks its strategic failure to understand and combat Al Qaeda's evolution.

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda was a loosely organized network, but core leaders exercised considerable control over its operations. Since the loss of its base in Afghanistan and many of those leaders, the organization has dispersed its operatives and reemerged as a lethal ideological movement.

Osama bin Laden may now serve more as an inspirational figure than a CEO, and the war in Iraq is helping focus militants' anger, according to dozens of interviews in recent weeks on several continents. European and moderate Islamic countries have become targets. And instead of undergoing lengthy training at camps in Afghanistan, recruits have been quickly indoctrinated at home and deployed on attacks.

The United States remains a target, but counter-terrorism officials and experts are alarmed by Al Qaeda's switch from spectacular attacks that require years of planning to smaller, more numerous strikes on softer targets that can be carried out swiftly with little money or outside help.

The impact of these smaller attacks can be enormous. Bombings in Casablanca in May 2003 shook Morocco's budding democracy, leading to mass arrests and claims of abuse. The bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid in March contributed to the ouster of Spain's government and the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq.

Officials say the terrorist movement has benefited from the rapid spread of radical Islam's message among potential recruits worldwide who are motivated by Al Qaeda's anti- Western doctrine, the continuing Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the insurgency in Iraq.

The Iraq war, which President Bush says is necessary to build a safer world, has emerged as a new front in the battle against terrorism and a rallying point for a seemingly endless supply of young extremists willing to die in a jihad, or holy war.

Intelligence and counter-terrorism officials said Iraq also was replacing Afghanistan and the Russian republic of Chechnya as the premier location for on-the-job training for the next phase of violence against the West and Arab regimes.

"In Iraq, a problem has been created that didn't exist there before," said Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere of France, dean of Europe's anti-terrorism investigators. "The events in Iraq have had a profound impact on the entirety of the jihad movement."

Officials warn that radical Islam is fanning extremism in moderate Islamic countries such as Morocco, where the threat of terrorism has escalated with unexpected speed and ferocity, and re-energizing adherents in old hot spots such as Kenya and Yemen.

In recent weeks, police thwarted an attack against a U.S. target in Morocco at the last minute, and concerns have increased sharply about the possibility of attacks in Kenya, U.S. and foreign officials say.

The Madrid bombings and arrests in Britain this summer highlight Europe's emergence as a danger zone. Long used by extremists as a haven for recruitment and planning attacks elsewhere, the continent now is believed to be a target itself, especially countries backing the Iraq war.

Al Qaeda's transformation since the destruction of its Afghan training camps nearly three years ago has been chronicled extensively. Arrests and killings of senior leaders and the shutting down of major avenues of financing further fragmented the network.

Bush said at the Republican National Convention this month that more than three-quarters of Al Qaeda's leadership had been killed or captured.

Among those arrested are Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, and Abu Zubeida, who oversaw the global network and helped recruit for the training bases in Afghanistan.

Administration officials contend that information from interrogations helped prevent new attacks and unravel the network, leaving Al Qaeda too diminished to carry out a strike as complex as that of Sept. 11.

Polls indicate that voters trust Bush to handle the fight against terrorism better than his Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry.

A far less reassuring assessment of the condition of Islamic extremism emerged from the interviews with government intelligence officials, religious figures and counter-terrorism experts in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

Although opinions are not unanimous and ambiguities remain, there is a consensus that Al Qaeda's leadership still exerts some control over attacks worldwide. However, veterans of the extremist movement have demonstrated a new autonomy in using the group's ideology and training techniques to launch attacks with little or no direct contact with the leaders.

"Any assessment that the global terror movement has been rolled back or that even one component, Al Qaeda, is on the run is optimistic and most certainly incorrect," said M.J. Gohel, head of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London think tank. "Bin Laden's doctrines are now playing themselves out all over the world. Destroying Al Qaeda will not resolve the problem."

U.S. and foreign intelligence officials said the Bush administration's focus on the "body count" of Al Qaeda leaders and its determination to stop the next attack meant comparatively few resources were devoted to understanding the threat.

Michael Scheuer, a senior CIA official, said in an interview that agents wound up "chasing our tails" to capture suspects and follow up leads at the expense of countering the rapid spread of Al Qaeda and the international jihad.

Scheuer, chief of the CIA's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, now plays a broader role in counter-terrorism at the agency. He is the author of "Imperial Hubris," a recent book that criticized U.S. counter-terrorism policy; the interview with him occurred before the CIA restricted his conversations with reporters.

Another counter-terrorism expert who works as a consultant for the U.S. government and its allies said Scheuer's criticism had been echoed elsewhere.

"I think they're deluged with the immediate stuff and I think their horizons are also very, very short-term," said the consultant, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "One of the biggest complaints I hear when talking to intelligence services around the world is that the Americans are so interested in the short term, preventing attacks and getting credit."

Anti-terrorism experts who fault the administration's strategy and its optimism argue that concentrating on individual plots and operatives obscures the need to address the broader dimensions of Islamic extremism and makes it impossible to mount an effective defense.

The Al Qaeda movement now appears to be more of an ideology than an organization, spreading worldwide among cells inspired by the Sept. 11 attacks.

Adherents generally share a few basic principles: an overarching belief that Muslims must take up arms in a holy war against the Judeo-Christian West, a profound sense of indignation over the deaths of Muslims in Palestinian territories and Iraq, and a conviction that secular rulers should be replaced by Islamic governments.

But beyond that, their concerns often splinter along the lines of geography, local politics and the intricacies of Islamic thought. A Moroccan is unlikely to pursue the same targets or even agree with the strategy of his Saudi counterparts. Saudis, in turn, are fighting bitterly among themselves over whether it's more important to battle the royal family at home or the Americans in Iraq.

The inadequate response to the threat is not unique to Washington.

European officials also see gaps in their policies, particularly when it comes to understanding the complexity of the situation, said Gijs de Vries, the counter-terrorism coordinator for the European Union.

"Al Qaeda is increasingly being invoked as an ideological motivation of Islamic radicals," he said. "There is a type of diffuse jihadism, which on the one hand consists of loosely structured small cells and on the other hand ideology."

Shift to Smaller Strikes

A new cadre of second-generation Al Qaeda commanders has compensated for the damage to the network by stepping up the pace of attacks with smaller strikes on soft targets.

The strategy relies on a limited number of veteran operatives trained in Afghanistan who function with a high degree of autonomy. They recruit foot soldiers through mosques, local groups and the Internet, then provide on-site training in bomb-making and tactics.

Senior counter-terrorism authorities in the U.S. and Europe say they are not certain how much central control is exercised over these independent operators - or even whether they are linked to one another in a formal manner.

But officials said evidence indicated that attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Turkey during the last 16 months were part of a loosely coordinated pattern that could be traced to Bin Laden and his lieutenants.

Based primarily on intercepted communications from Iran to Saudi Arabia by U.S. listening posts, U.S. and European officials said orders for the suicide bombings in the Saudi capital of Riyadh on May 12, 2003, came from an Al Qaeda fugitive in Iran.

The officials said the most likely suspect was Saif Adel, a former Bin Laden bodyguard now believed to be Al Qaeda's military commander. But Western security officials said Adel was only one of numerous Al Qaeda figures granted haven by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Iran denies that.

Extremists behind a string of attacks in Saudi Arabia since then operate with a large degree of independence, but Saudi security officials said the radicals retained links with Al Qaeda leaders in Iran and elsewhere by telephone and courier.

Authorities in Morocco and Europe said the go-ahead for the Casablanca suicide attacks on May 16, four days after the Riyadh bombings, was given at a meeting of Al Qaeda commanders in Istanbul, Turkey, in January 2003. They also said the young men who died carrying out the five nearly simultaneous bombings were recruited and trained by an Al Qaeda veteran.

Turkish extremists who bombed two synagogues, the British Consulate and the headquarters of a London-based bank in Istanbul in November 2003, killing more than 60 people, received money and advice on targets from Al Qaeda and its associates, according to testimony this month in the trial of 69 suspects.

One of the defendants, Adnan Ersoz, testified that he arranged a meeting in August 2001 in Afghanistan between Habib Akdas, the leader of the Turkish cell, and Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs Masri, a top Bin Laden lieutenant later killed in a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan.

He said that Akdas was promised money from Al Qaeda but that after Afghanistan's Taliban regime collapsed, the cell leader turned for financial help to Al Qaeda representatives in Iran and Syria, whom Ersoz did not identify. Akdas fled to Iraq immediately after the Istanbul bombings and participated in the kidnapping of several Turkish workers there, Turkish authorities said.

These smaller strikes cost relatively little, even compared with the modest $500,000 price tag for Sept. 11, indicating that the network has adapted to the clampdown on its financing methods.

Mohammed Bouzoubaa, Morocco's justice minister, said the bombings in Casablanca, which killed 45 people, cost $4,000.

Top suspects in the Madrid bombings have long-standing ties to Al Qaeda cells in Spain, Morocco and elsewhere. Still, six months after the bombings, investigators have no evidence that the planners received instructions or money from outside for the attacks that killed 191 people.

The methods used in Casablanca and Madrid illustrate what a senior European counter-terrorism official described as "the most frightening" scenario: local groups without previous experience, acting with minimal supervision from an interchangeable cast of Al Qaeda veterans.

"By now we have no evidence, not even credible intelligence, that the Madrid group was steered, financed, organized from the outside," he said. "So that might be the biggest success of Bin Laden."

In the past, Al Qaeda militants were mostly educated young men in their mid-20s and older who had strong religious convictions and middle-class backgrounds. They trained extensively at camps in Afghanistan and their missions were planned over months or years.

Recent attackers were drawn from a larger pool of alienated young men, reflecting the wider tug of Al Qaeda's doctrine, Bin Laden's status as a hero to some Muslims and fury at American foreign policy.

Some experts, like Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism chief, publicly blame the war in Iraq for strengthening the motivation of radical Islamic groups globally. Others still in governments around the world make the point privately, saying that the conflict in Iraq has broadened support for extremism.

De Vries, the EU counter-terrorism chief, acknowledged only that there were differences over the impact of Iraq. "Public opinion in many countries has not been convinced that the war in Iraq has helped the war on terror as defined by some," he said.

The bombers in Casablanca were uneducated slum dwellers between the ages of 20 and 24 with little previous involvement in extremism, religious figures and people who knew them say.

The Moroccan immigrants who spearheaded the Madrid attacks were shopkeepers and drug dealers. They embraced a theology that justified their crimes as part of their jihad.

The sense that an angry young man anywhere could become the next suicide bomber, the absence of training camps and only intermittent contact with any central command structure pose tough challenges for law enforcement.

"Terrorist culture has been disseminated," said Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of France's intelligence agency. "Technical knowledge has spread."

Even U.S. officials, most of whom are more optimistic than their foreign counterparts, acknowledged that there were too many blank spots for them to understand the full scope of the threat.

"From what we have seen and learned, particularly in light of the recent arrests, we have made enormous strides in knocking out Al Qaeda," a senior counter-terrorism official in the Bush administration said. "That said, we believe there are operational people who have moved up, with operational expertise, and that there remains some sort of loose command and control structure."

Among the mysteries is whether Bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, still play operational roles. Another question is the extent of coordination between Al Qaeda's leadership and the attacks in Iraq.

The role that Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi plays in Iraq has been cited repeatedly by the administration as evidence of an Al Qaeda-Iraq link, but many counter-terrorism officials said he had long operated independently.

His activities in Iraq have boosted his status among Islamic extremists and led to what investigators suspect is an even greater independence from Bin Laden.

Zarqawi's reach extends beyond the carnage in Iraq and makes his offshoot of Al Qaeda an urgent threat. As the former chief of a training camp in Afghanistan, he has alliances with militant groups from Chechnya to North Africa.

European counter-terrorism officials blame him for several thwarted attacks in Europe and suspect that he helped plan the Casablanca and Istanbul bombings.

Investigators believe that there are ties between suspects in the Madrid attacks and the Zarqawi network. They have turned up evidence of an operational and ideological axis that links fighters traveling to Iraq from Europe and North Africa - and raises the threat that they will bring the mayhem home with them.

In June, Italian police arrested Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, an Egyptian suspected of playing a lead role in the Madrid attacks.

According to transcripts of electronic eavesdropping, police also learned of Ahmed's involvement in a European network sending fighters to Iraq to carry out suicide bombings.

"All my friends are dying, one after another," he said during a conversation in his Milan hide-out May 26. "I know so many who are ready. I tell you there are two groups ready for martyrdom. The first group leaves the 25th or 20th of next month for Iraq via Syria."

French authorities opened an investigation Wednesday into a network involved in recruiting extremists and helping them get to Iraq, but so far the flow of such foreigners does not approach the thousands who went to Afghanistan before 2001.

Still, European investigators are particularly concerned about the increasing movement of North Africans - some from Europe but most from their homelands - to fight in Iraq and what it means for the future.

"Our fear is that they go and become a threat to our countries," said De Bousquet de Florian, the French intelligence chief. "We pay a great deal of attention because once these guys have gone to Iraq to train, they know how to use weapons and explosives. That's the first level: Iraq as a new Afghanistan, a Chechnya."

Determining who is behind the attacks in Iraq is difficult. U.S. military and Iraqi authorities blame much of the violence on foreign fighters, and Saudis, Egyptians and other nationals have been seen saying farewell in videotapes before suicide bombings. A Saudi captured after a botched car bombing in Baghdad recently said he had been slipped across the border, given $200 and keys to a car and told to attack a military convoy.

But some say pinning most of the suicide attacks on Zarqawi's network and foreign fighters in general ignores the insurgency's home-grown aspects and overlooks growing links between Iraqis and radical Islam.

Radical Islam Adapts

The new model of Islamic terrorism was born May 16, 2003, in Sidi Moumen, a shantytown of 200,000 people on the outskirts of Casablanca. That day a band of unemployed young men from the neighborhood, most of whom lived on the same narrow street, carried out five nearly simultaneous attacks.

The targets were in the heart of Casablanca: a Jewish community center, a Spanish restaurant and social club, a hotel, a Jewish cemetery and a Jewish-owned Italian restaurant. The death toll was 45, including 12 of the 14 bombers.

Morocco's role in Islamic extremism previously had been as a way station for jihadis entering and leaving Europe, and investigators said the emergence of Moroccans as front-line operatives demonstrated the ability of radical Islam to adapt.

In unraveling the Casablanca plot, Moroccan and foreign authorities discovered that the bombers had no previous ties to extremism, which meant spotting them in advance would have been almost impossible, even in a country where paid informants lurk in almost every neighborhood.

Moroccan authorities identified Karim Mejatti, a Moroccan veteran of Afghanistan, as the person who recruited them and received a green light for the attacks in the meeting in Istanbul. Unlike his recruits, Mejatti is educated and spent time in the U.S. in the late 1990s. He remains a fugitive.

On camping trips in the dusty hills outside Casablanca, Mejatti indoctrinated the men and taught them to make explosives, authorities said. Al Qaeda videos on making bombs with TATP, the group's trademark explosive, were later discovered in their homes. They rode to the attacks in taxis with homemade explosives stuffed into backpacks.

"They did not need sophisticated equipment or means," said Bouzoubaa, the justice minister. "They made their own explosives."

Mejatti recruited the men in November 2002, and authorities were struck by the speed with which he converted them into suicide bombers.

Moroccan police foiled a number of follow-up attacks in other cities by cells formed by Mejatti and a handful of other graduates of Afghan camps, investigators said.

"The thing about this kind of operation is that it could be repeated just about anywhere," said an Italian law enforcement official who investigated the European links to Casablanca.

Spanish anti-terrorism police who visited Casablanca after the attacks said they were convinced the tactic could be replicated in Europe. The prediction came true 10 months later in Madrid.

The involvement of Moroccans in the Madrid attack and evidence that it was linked to Casablanca sent shivers through the counter-terrorism community.

Spain's leading anti-terrorism judge, Baltasar Garzon, testified before a government commission investigating the bombings that Morocco was home to as many as 100 cells linked to Al Qaeda. They pose Europe's biggest terrorist threat, he said.

Other counter-terrorism officials said Garzon's figures might be too high, but they estimated that 400 to 500 Al Qaeda veterans returned to Morocco after the Taliban regime's collapse in Afghanistan.

The officials said Moroccan extremists posed a unique danger because they could slip easily in and out of Europe and blend in with the immigrant population. Moroccans are the largest immigrant group in several European countries.

Morocco prides itself on being a moderate country with virtually no history of terrorism, but the Casablanca attacks led to a massive crackdown that has drawn complaints from local and international human rights groups.

More than 100 mosques have been closed and thousands of people rounded up and jailed. Family members and lawyers complained that detainees were abused and tortured.

So far, about 1,000 people have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses; 14 have been sentenced to death, including the two surviving Casablanca bombers.

Washington has provided tens of millions of dollars in aid to Morocco and deeper cooperation in law enforcement.

In July, three FBI agents moved into the U.S. Embassy in Rabat to work with the Moroccans. A Navy officer was assigned to help monitor potential attacks on shipping in the Strait of Gibraltar.

U.S. diplomats are on high alert in Morocco. Two planned attacks in recent months, including one on an American target, were stopped only hours before their execution, authorities in Rabat said.

Police also discovered that a private security guard at the embassy was reporting diplomats' movements to an extremist group.

Morocco's leaders are defensive about their country's new profile in the campaign against Islamic extremism. Senior officials argue that outsiders are trying to destabilize a country that is striving to be a model of moderation for the Arab world.

Moroccans and officials of other Islamic countries agree that anger over U.S. policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides much of the motivation for the attacks.

"If the Palestinian issue were settled, if Iraq were stable, 70% of the threats would disappear," said Bouzoubaa, the justice minister.

But officials say they also recognize that not enough has been done to reach disaffected areas such as Sidi Moumen.

In July, King Mohammed VI ordered new social programs, including the construction of 100 small mosques and 20 large ones to counter the spread of hard-line Islam.

"We are very aware that we must fill the gap between what is good in Islam and the initiatives by outsiders, particularly in the poorer areas," said Ahmed Toufiq, the minister of Islamic affairs. "They were left to themselves too long."

Refuge for Extremists

Even as new trouble spots emerge, eradicating known extremist sanctuaries has proved difficult, particularly in remote places out of the reach of government authority, such as parts of Yemen on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula.

After Al Qaeda bombed the U.S. destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 American sailors, Washington helped train and equip Yemeni security forces and tried to persuade the government to do more to counter extremists.

But diplomats say the country remains primarily a lawless place where forbidding terrain and intricate tribal codes provide an ideal nest for militants.

Saudi and U.S. officials identified Yemen as the primary source of weapons and explosives for the Al Qaeda cells that have launched attacks in neighboring Saudi Arabia.

"Yemen still has to be viewed as largely ungovernable," a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said. "We sunk some money and time and effort into it, but we don't have much to show for it."

Yemeni officials acknowledged in interviews that surface-to-air missiles, grenade launchers and other weapons remain widely available despite a crackdown on open-air arms bazaars.

The mix of radicals and weapons is particularly potent along the Saudi border, which encompasses rugged mountains and remote desert where tribal leaders hold sway.

"If somebody comes, he's going to pay for tribal protection," said Faisal Aburas, a sheik from the impoverished province of Al Jawf on the Saudi border.

"Then it would look bad for a sheik to hand him in, even if he's a criminal, because it shows weakness."

Abubakr al Qerbi, Yemen's foreign minister, denied that the country still harbored Al Qaeda veterans.

"This is old information," he said, saying they were expelled in 1995 and again after the Cole bombing.

But Hamood Abdulhamid Hitar, a Yemeni government official in charge of negotiating with extremists, said he was holding theological debates with hundreds of militants, including 107 suspected Al Qaeda loyalists.

Yemen also links the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. Somalia, where there is virtually no workable central government, is just an hour by boat across waterways that are essentially wide open.

Farther down the coast in Kenya, concerns focus on a group run by Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, an Al Qaeda operative with a $25-million bounty on his head. Mohammed, a native of Comoros off the southeastern coast of Africa, was indicted in the United States on charges of orchestrating the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He also is suspected of organizing the 2002 attacks on Israeli targets in Mombasa, Kenya.

Today, U.S. and other Western security officials say they believe he is planning another round of attacks, possibly on the new U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital.

"Al Qaeda is preparing for another sensational attack against Western targets in Kenya," a Western security official said. "Two attacks planned for Kenya were exposed during the past year."

U.S. officials suspect that the hunt for Mohammed has driven him into a remote part of northern Kenya, but they say he remains in touch with Al Qaeda leaders through courier and computer.

"I consider him to be a high-value target and a real player in the global Al Qaeda operation," said a senior U.S. official in Washington.

U.S. Still a Target

U.S. and foreign intelligence and counter-terrorism officials warned that the United States remained the prime target of radical Islam.

"They have overcome the shock of the Afghanistan war and very likely they are preparing another large-scale attack, possibly on a U.S. target," the senior European counter-terrorism official said. "There are good reasons to be on alert."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Changing Roster

Despite the arrests of several high-profile leaders, anti-terrorism experts believe that Al Qaeda has managed to reemerge as a lethal ideological movement. Dispersed operatives - loosely organized or acting alone - recruit and quickly train local terrorist groups for small but deadly attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Terrorist Evolution

In operations such as the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa and the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda leaders exercised considerable control over operations. Today, Al Qaeda appears to have become more ideology than network, spreading globally among cells inspired by Sept. 11.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marking Terror's Changes

'In Iraq, a problem has been created that didn't exist there before. The events in Iraq have had a profound impact on the entirety of the jihad movement.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Jean-Louis Brugulere, French anti-terrorism investigator.

'Any assessment that the global terror movement has been rolled back or that even one component, Al Qaeda, is on the run is optimistic and most certainly incorrect. Bin Laden's doctrines are now playing themselves out all over the world. Destroying Al Qaeda will not resolve the problem.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.J. Gohel, head of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London think tank.

'Once these guys have gone to Iraq to train, they know how to use weapons and explosives. That's the first level: Iraq as a new Afghanistan, a Chechnya.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of Frances intelligence agency.

'Al Qaeda is increasingly being invoked as an ideological motivation of Islamic radicals.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gijs de Vries, counter-terrorism coordinator for the European Union.

'By now we have no evidence, not even credible intelligence, that the Madrid group was steered, financed, organized from the outside. So that might be the biggest success of Bin Laden.' A senior European counter-terrorism official.

-------

Frantz reported from Morocco and Istanbul; Meyer from Washington; Rotella from Paris; and Stack from Sana, Yemen.