« Trivia Tidbit Of The Day -- College Football's Associated Press Poll. | Main | Sheehan: America Not Worth Dying For »

A New Type Of Jihad

Al Qaeda has a new tactic in their bag. Something they're calling a "media jihad."

Dubai - An al-Qaeda linked-group has launched what it calls a media jihad, or holy war, to "terrorise" United States-led forces in Iraq and their families by bombarding them with e-mails and by posting gruesome photos online.

The group, calling itself the "Brigade of Media Jihad", called on its militants to "post terrifying pictures on the internet in order to terrorise the enemy", said a statement on an Islamist website whose authenticity could not be verified.

"Our objective is to undermine the morale of our enemies, dash their hopes and dreams and reveal the truth of what is happening in Iraq. The media war is an integral part of the war on the ground," said the statement.

Is it just me or does this sound like the exact same tactics being used by the more rabid elements of the anti-war crowd here in America? When those protesters use coffins, grave markers and emotional diatribes from the parents of fallen soldiers what other goal do they have outside of demoralizing this country in its support of spreading freedom to Iraq?

That bit about the jihadi's "objective" being to reveal the "truth" about what is going on in Iraq could have come straight out of the mouth of Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan.

Which isn't to say that all opponents of the war are like this, it just illustrates that many of th loudest anti-war advocates have taken their rhetoric so far over the top that they're now finnding themselves on the same side of the fence as our enemies.

Case in point: the anti-war groups who joined and sponsored a world tribunal which justified the actions of terrorist insurgents against our troops in Iraq.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A New Type Of Jihad:

» Michelle Malkin linked with LINKFEST

» New Media Journal linked with Media terrorism

Comments (42)

Birds of a feather. I've o... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Birds of a feather. I've often said that despite all their retoric, the left has far more in common with the early of Nazism than the right.....down to and including severe anti-Semitism...

AQ are a bunch of pikers at... (Below threshold)
shark:

AQ are a bunch of pikers at this stuff...they can learn from ABC NBC CBS and CNN what a media jihad REALLY means...

All those moonbats that say... (Below threshold)

All those moonbats that say we are being ridiculous when we say they only embolden the terrorists when they do the same thing might be forced to rethink that. I'm sure they'll still claim we're being ridiculous, and al Qaeda is too because it's impossible for the left to be wrong, but it's the rethinking that counts.

It's so nice when we have a... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

It's so nice when we have an actual quote from an jihadi website that demonstrates just how informed our enemy is in this war. They know that being able to manipulate Western media is an important strategical tactic, and they've been positively adept at doing so.

I agree, bullwinkle, the left (in particular, the ACLU) and the MSM absolutely need to consider the consequences of airing more Abu Gharib pictures. More pictures=more bodybags coming home from Iraq. It happened in April 2004 when the A.G. pictures were released here in the U.S,, which in turn fueled the already al-Jeezera fueled jihadists in Fallujah, which in turn lead to the civilian casualties and an aborted invasion of the city in the following weeks.

It will happen again and again and again until our media and people like the ACLU start being held accountable for their near-treasonous behavior.

But, sadly, that day may never come. And it just may be our undoing in this war.

"I agree, bullwinkle, the l... (Below threshold)

"I agree, bullwinkle, the left (in particular, the ACLU) and the MSM absolutely need to consider the consequences of airing more Abu Gharib pictures. More pictures=more bodybags coming home from Iraq."

Except that's what the left seems to want. More body bags so they can thump their chest and go on about how evil Bush is. (Accurate, yet overly colorful description of the left self-censored)

Spreading freedom to Iraq? ... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Spreading freedom to Iraq? Who are we to decide what the Iraqi people want? How ridiculous. Our kid are dying for what? Would you send your kid to Iraq to spread freedom? All wars economic and this is no different. Its about oil and money. Why aren't we spreading freedom in North Korea who actually have a nuclear program and weapons and can actually hurt us? Saadam wasn't a threat..but oh yeah there ain't much oil in North Korea is there? Im not a democratic fyi Im just sick of this criminal Bush. We did over through the PM of Iram back in the 50s for oil. He was elected by the Iranian people and he declared a republic, wasn't disposed to us though so we axed him for the Shah. Friendly to us unnationalized the Iranian National Oil Co tourtured his citizens until he was overthrown, we learning yet?

Because the Iraqis were eve... (Below threshold)

Because the Iraqis were ever so much happier when they were being fed feet first into industrial shredders. Riiiiight.

Steve,If it's for ... (Below threshold)
joe:

Steve,

If it's for oil, why is gas so expensive?

North Koreans have it 100x ... (Below threshold)
steve:

North Koreans have it 100x worse than the Iraquis. Oh I forgot Cybrl you think the US is the world police we topple tyranny where ever it is and have no ulterior motive. Please you don't really think BUSH gives a rats ass about the Iraqi people do you? You picking up a gun to to go Iraq? I just came back from Afganistan, was happy to route the Taliban that harbored Bin Laden. Was right thing to do. Iraq? Totally different story, no one need die there. I know I wouldnt go.

Steve:Your black h... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Steve:

Your black helicopter just landed, please board it. And take your red herrings with you, too.

Cybrludite:

Not "overly colorful", just oddly and almost sickly accurate. You're spot on.

Joe,You ever take ... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Joe,

You ever take an economics class? Its called supply and demand. China in particular using a lot more oil than it has in the past and will continue to need more, hence bid for Uocal. Oh in case you've been sleeping, on a inflation adjusted basis oil is dirt cheap over the past 30 years. Might want to deduct half the price of your gas since its taxes going to finance what ever crap your state and fed govt uses the money for. Last I looked gas still half the price it is in Europe.

Open wide Peter, keep swall... (Below threshold)
Joe:

Open wide Peter, keep swallowing the BS your being fed. Better yet quit your job so you can go to Iraq and "spread freedom". ROFL you cultural snob, who are we to decide what is good for Iraq. Yeah lets keep interfering in world governments to increase the world hatred of us. We have no moral ground to stand on. Nor do you. Tell the parents of Iraqi childrend killed by our bombs how we are there to spread freedom.

Non-sequiturs of the world,... (Below threshold)
joe:

Non-sequiturs of the world, unite!

So you think that oil would be $100/barrel if we had NOT invaded Iraq? You said it was a war for oil.

Yeah lets keep interferi... (Below threshold)
joe:

Yeah lets keep interfering in world governments to increase the world hatred of us.

They hate us no matter what. Remember Yugoslavia in the '90s? They hated us when we did nothing (we weren't "showing leadership" and "letting" the Serbs kill with impunity). They hated us when we tried diplomatic efforts ("Who are you to interfere!"). They hated us when we bombed the Serbs. IT DOESN'T MATTER what we do; a large percentage will hate us no matter what!

Tell the parents of Iraqi childrend killed by our bombs how we are there to spread freedom.
Tell the relatives of those moldering in mass graves that we are the bad guys for getting rid of the government that put them there.

Joe,We are securin... (Below threshold)
joe:

Joe,

We are securing a long term oil source in Iraq. Who do you think all the contracts for developing the fields will go to if the US does ever succeed there? The French? LOL you are thick.

Peter,

Last I look there are no less than 15 regimes around the world feeding various citizens to "industrial shredders". At least 5 in Africa, a few in South East Asia, etc. Why aren't we doing anything about that? Have one good reason?

Oh yeah they don't have oil. You so naive as to not see this? Go read some history, CIA and MI6 overthrow of Iranian PM in the 50s, guess who got those oil contracts? The list is endless. You witless spot ons have no substance where is your fact?

Sad fact of humanity is tha... (Below threshold)
Joe:

Sad fact of humanity is that there will always be tyrants and Sadaam's. Unless they threaten me directly I'm not jumping everytime to fix that situation its not my job. But to use a humantarian excuse as a pretext for a desire for oil sources is silly. Again..why aren't we fixing all the problems on the globe? Please its as obvious as the space between your ears. We still searching for Iraq's WMD's but we no North Korea has nukes. Still waiting, someone help me here. Why aren't we there? Why WHY?

Last I look there are no... (Below threshold)
joe:

Last I look there are no less than 15 regimes around the world feeding various citizens to "industrial shredders". At least 5 in Africa, a few in South East Asia, etc. Why aren't we doing anything about that? Have one good reason?

So, if we can't solve all the world's problems simultaneously, we should do nothing. Is that your point?

Joe, my point is its not ou... (Below threshold)
Joe:

Joe, my point is its not our job to solve the worlds problems and there are many problems that have existed long before Sadaam arrived on the scene. We did nothing because it was not in our "interests". You really think Bush is Superman looking to help whoever is in distress in the world? Or perhaps he is being advised that its in our long term national interests to interfere in IRAQ and install a friendly govt or hope one is created that will look favorably to our corporate interests. Please son stop reading comics.

Joe, my point is its not... (Below threshold)
joe:

Joe, my point is its not our job to solve the worlds problems and there are many problems that have existed long before Sadaam arrived on the scene.

In the past, that was cool. It isn't any longer when technology and bad guys make large-scale attacks much simpler than in the past. Now people like you say "NO WMDs! THEY WERE NEVER THERE!" People who think a little more say "No WMDs. Hmmm. Everyone--even the French and Germans--said he had them. Hmmm. They gassed Iranians and Kurds back in the '80s, and we found an advanced chemical, bio, and nuclear weapons program after Gulf War 1, much more advanced than we guessed then. Hmmm. So where did they go? Over the border to Syria? Did he destroy them himself? Are they really well hidden? Did his underlings lie to him?"

In a world of imperfect information, I'll leave it to you to make simplistic statements like "NO WMDs! IT WAS ALL A LIE!" I'd rather we not take chances when we think someone who means us harm is up to no good. With Kim Jong Il, that means deterrance, which sucks beyond belief for the people starving under him but is pretty much the only option that doesn't end in the incineration of Seoul. With Iraq, led by a man who tried to kill GHWBush and was happy to cooperate with anyone who was anti-US (yes, even Islamic radicals), it meant taking him out. The side effect is to present Arabs with a new way of running their affairs, called democracy. If it works, it will be epochal.

So, when does al-Qaeda get ... (Below threshold)

So, when does al-Qaeda get their own diary at Kos?

RE: Steve's post (August 22... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Steve's post (August 22, 2005 08:15 PM)

Spreading freedom to Iraq? Who are we to decide what the Iraqi people want? How ridiculous.

Do you really believe that the vast majority of Iraqis preferred Hussein's rule over this sliver of freedom to which they have been exposed since their liberation by the coalition? If you do, then that is what is ridiculous. What an insulting position to take. The idea that they lament the good old days of raping, torturing, and mass slaughtering is just stunning to me. I hope you'll clarify your position.


Our kid are dying for what? Would you send your kid to Iraq to spread freedom?

Jiminy Christmas this chickenhawk meme is old! These are NOT kids and they VOLUNTEER! And that disingenuous claim has been debunked, possibly hundreds of times, on this blog alone to the point of silliness. Please change your talking-points. But if I had (grand)children of age to serve (I might, but I'm not disclosing such information), then I would support their decision to serve this country should they see that as a worthy endeavor. I know I would find it worthy.


All wars economic and this is no different. Its about oil and money.

If you mean self-interest is in play, well of course. But your "blood for oil" hypothetical has been applied and refuted extensively. There really is no point in rehashing this fallacy.


Why aren't we spreading freedom in North Korea who actually have a nuclear program and weapons and can actually hurt us? Saadam wasn't a threat..but oh yeah there ain't much oil in North Korea is there?

Um, because they have nukes? Would you prefer a large contingent of American/coalition soldiers on North Korean soil so that they could be nuked? Thank God you aren't one of our generals. The soldiers you would send in harm's way thank you too since that would be a colossal misuse of our best resources/patriots. It's dangerous enough to have a contingent in the south much less an invading force. Hussein was a threat though he did not have nukes sitting on a launching pad ready to go. Bush said such an imminent attack wasn't in the offing. So many on the Left continue to ignore, er lie, about that fact. And again with the oil? So tell me, what was Clinton's impetus for the Bosnian conflict? Or Mogadishu? Or Haiti? No oil there. The point is that this country gets involved in conflicts in numerous places and oil is NOT the motivation.


Im not a democratic fyi Im just sick of this criminal Bush.

Your second comment belies your first, but I guess I cannot know your veracity. But criminal? Jeez, you'd think that we were in some third world country and you were referring to a tin-pot dictator. Your "criminal" comment is just plain silly too. But keep using it. It'll spare most people the trouble of reading your subsequent positions.

I'll refrain from revisiting the Shah. I am not enough of an expert or historian to debate that point and to try would be a bit of a disservice. Did we want a government non-hostile to our own? Of course, but which country doesn't? I figure that's a prerequisite for everyone working at the State Department... try to make nice with neighbors and encourage those leaders who would try not to wage a war against you or ally themselves with other enemies. Don't you think our concerns at the time were more about minimizing the influence of the Communists in the region rather than the region's natural resources?

No war for oil? Then no oil... (Below threshold)
joel:

No war for oil? Then no oil for liberals. Only the biggest fucking hypocrites can sit there and whine about oil while they use literally barrels of it every day.

When they heat their homes in winter. When they send mail across the country on trucks and planes. When they use electricity that is generated via gasoline. When they go to the supermarket and buy all manner of fresh meats and produce that had to be trucked/flown in from all over.

No war for oil? Motherfucker, you don't get to make that argument unless you go live in a shack in the woods and live an oil-free existance.

Too many joes.... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Too many joes.

It wouldn't matter to the m... (Below threshold)

It wouldn't matter to the moonbats flapping around in this thread where we went, they'd have been against it. They can pretend they wanted to us to go somewhere else but the truth is they don't want a republican administration to succeed at anything, and the hate the idea that one can so badly that they'd gladly sacrifice the lives of our service men and women to stop it from happening. Being so driven by hatred, envy and dishonesty has got to suck and suck hard. Just like them.

Exactly, bullwinkle. They a... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Exactly, bullwinkle. They are never satisfied, unless one of their own is in power.

Let me list the possible Bush scenarios on Iraq and show everyone how it's always a childish "heads I win, tails you lose" game with these people.

1. Bush waits for United Nations permission to go into Iraq.

The U.N. would have talked, talked, talked, talked and accomplished absolutely nothing.

Saddam would have kept financing terror and harboring terrorists with money from France, Germany, and Russia. He would also have kept murdering his own people, and would rebuild as much of his military and terror infrastucture as he could.

An Iraqi-backed terror attack would have probably been made on Americans by now.

Leftist response: Yell at Bush to remove sanctions and stop starving poor little Iraqi children.


2. Bush attacks Iraq after U.N. delays, but only from the air in order to avoid American casualties. Does not engage in nation-building.

Lots more innocent Iraqis would have died, maybe even approaching the currently bogus 100,000 mark. Even so, air war would have been completely ineffective at eliminating Saddam and his sons. More money would have been spent for less results.

Leftist response: Yell at Bush for killing innocent Iraqis, call him a murderer. Harangue him for not getting Saddam, his sons, or WMD. Accuse him of being racist for not helping them rebuild their country.


3. Same as 2, except pay money to rebuild Iraq (I guess to the U.N.)

Leftist response: Same as 2 above, except exchange racist charge with accusations of stealing Iraqi oil by purchasing it with "blood money," which in turn was stolen from hardworking poor Americans.

4. Bush uses limited air strikes to try and "decapitate" Iraqi regime, then invades in order to get bad guys with as little collateral damage as possible. As soon as regime ousted, begin work on rebuilding infrastructure and government.

Fewer innocent Iraqis killed, but we take some casualties. We take more casualties as rebuilding goes forward, but this keeps us from killing innocent Iraqis with indiscriminate bombing. We build good will with Iraq.

Leftist response: See every damned leftist talking-point post on every damned thread remotely mentioning the Iraq war.

5. Bush calls down the wrath of God, and God smites every terrorist and terrorist supporter on Earth.

Perfect scenario. No innocent lives lost.

Leftist response: Very limited, because 99.5% of them have been smited. The ones who are somehow left alive complain about separation of church and state.

So joe's happy with the UN'... (Below threshold)
ChrisW:

So joe's happy with the UN's response in the Sudan then. The Janjiweed aren't threatening him, so they can exterminate as many black men as they want, rape the women, burn the villages, ignore UN Security Council resolutions and sell their oil to France, Germany and China, and he's perfectly cool with that.

"called on its militants... (Below threshold)
Ring:

"called on its militants to "post terrifying pictures on the internet in order to terrorise the enemy"

Great, so they are spam emailing Tubgirl and goats3x to the Marines?

I think I found one of their pictures here (work safe)

Don't Al Queda already have a media division? CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT etc??

I see the left are trotting out the usual sorry points. Nice to see some things never change.

World Tribunal on Iraq : <b... (Below threshold)

World Tribunal on Iraq :

Hussein, Bush, Blair : How ... (Below threshold)

Hussein, Bush, Blair : How many civilians have they killed ?

RE: Declaration of the Jury... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Declaration of the Jury of Conscience's spam link (August 23, 2005 05:42 AM)
World Tribunal on Iraq

Moonbat Central - Professional League

Don't forget to wear your highest wading boots. So many varmints, you don't even need a net. Visit for the curiosity, stay for the insanity.

Posted by: Declaration o... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Posted by: Declaration of the Jury of Conscience at August 23, 2005 05:42 AM
Posted by: DARE TO COMPARE ? at August 23, 2005 06:57 AM


Same cave of moonbats folks. Apparently honest disclosure just isn't its forté. Or it hasn't mastered hyperlinking. Or it fears disclosing the name of the site and needs to follow spam-like tactics to draw interest.

FYI for the links: Socialist site; Bellaciao.org - "To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary"


ADriveler - doing some dirty work so you won't have to.

How many civilians did Sadd... (Below threshold)

How many civilians did Saddam kill?

http://massgraves.info/

Re:Drivel's PostDo... (Below threshold)
Joe:

Re:Drivel's Post

Do you really believe that the vast majority of Iraqis preferred Hussein's rule over this sliver of freedom to which they have been exposed since their liberation by the coalition?

This is completely beside the point. Who are we to decide what is good for the Iraqi people? If you think we are there to help the Iraqui people you are quite naive. I'm sure Bush is losing sleep at night worrying about freedom for Iraq. His motivations are economic and personal not selfless.

These are NOT kids and they VOLUNTEER!

If 18 is not a kid well find but my point is clear. They volunteer you IDIOT??. People volunteering for the National Guard are expecting to go to IRAQ and die. What planet are you living on? They volunteer a few days a month. They are not expecting to go to war I have 25 friends in the Guard I know what they want and expect. Your arguement is stupid...They volunteer so therefore we can send them anywhere to do anything? Um no wrong doesn't work like that.

Um, because they have nukes? Would you prefer a large contingent of American/coalition soldiers on North Korean soil so that they could be nuked?

Thank you for unwittingly supporting my arguement. We aren't in North Korea for fear of their nukes? ha ha bwahahahahah. Please..we aren't there because they have no oil.

Hussein was a threat though he did not have nukes sitting on a launching pad ready to go.

A threat to who? The US? I think not. If that is your litmus test then there are 20 countries who have similar capabilites with nothing on the pad to launch. Please Iraq has oil we are they for that.

I'll refrain from revisiting the Shah

Refrain from having an uninformed opinion. Our continued meddling in other people's affairs will continue to cause us to be the object of all's hatred. We prop up the House of Saud and other ridiculous gov'ts in the Middle East whose people hate them and us for supporting them. Its right in front of your face to see are you blind?


Joe-1. We won the w... (Below threshold)
Spider:

Joe-
1. We won the war a long time ago. GW made it clear when he said mission accomplished. If you don't accept that, what about the capture of Saddam and the death of his sons. Last time I checked they were almost completely out of cards. You know the guys we said we were going to get. That is an alternative date to say the war is over. Another date could be the establishment of a free democratic government in Iraq. Still another could be the creation of their constitution. Somewhere in there the war ended and we became a peace keeping force. We turned authority over to the Iraqi government.

2. Once the war ended and the legitimate government of Iraq was formed, the guys shooting at us became the unpopular insurgents. If they would stop shooting and play nice we can all go home. Except for the humanitarian aid that we have brought to Iraq. People forget about the good things we do.

I agree war is bad but we are not in a war any more. Consider our troops to be a social program along the lines of the Peace Corp or Volunteer America and maybe your knee will stop jerking.

Finally, when the neighbor kid comes over to my house and makes a mess I expect them to clean up along side my kids. I expect the same thing from my kids when they visit the neighbors. We owe it to the Iraqi people to tidy up a bit before we leave. And don't start with the "I didn't mess it up! Why do I have to clean it?" crap. I expect that from the kids but we are all adults here.

Joe,I am a Nationa... (Below threshold)
SGT Dave:

Joe,

I am a National Guardsman. I am mobilizing in nine days. I am a volunteer; I have many friends trying to volunteer.

Shut up - we don't want you talking for us. The tree suit is the equalizer; you put it on, chances are you are going to use a rifle for something other than target practice.

I have done this for 15 years (ten active); I joined just before the first Desert Storm - I wanted to go but ended up in CentAm. You don't/won't/can't understand the military; we live, work, and sometimes die TOGETHER. The sum is greater than its parts.

"All good men do for evil to triumph is nothing."

Always Out Front,
SGT Dave

joel, I totally ag... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

joel,

I totally agree! I have to laugh at the SUV's I see with Kerry stickers, Code Pinko stickers along with the everpopular "no blood for oil" ones. The LLL's are some of the biggest users of energy and petroleum around. You think they will ever practice what they preach? Oh hell no! They want OTHERS to give us things while they don't, they want OTHERS to die for them while they sit at Starbucks "debriefing". Iowahawk hit the nail on the head with his "Stop Comparing Me to American Moonbats" by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/07/stop_comparing_.html


ChrisW,

The French and Chinese don't want anyone messing around in Sudan because they hold the oil contracts there. Just like the French held exclusive oil contracts with Saddam. For them it IS all about oil. Of course the LLL's LOVE the French and Chinese because they are corrupt, they torture people (Note to LLL's: ask your local jihadihero if he wants to be arrested in France next time you see him.) and most importantly they hate America, just like our LLL's do.


Nahanni-China is bas... (Below threshold)
spider:

Nahanni-
China is basically on our side at this point. We caved on Hong Kong and Taiwan. They appreciated that. I think we had their assurances they were dropping the red in favor of the green. We should be encouraging them instead of criticizing. They are not commies any more they are capitalists who want a slice of the global economy. They are willing to work for it unlike the French. Change is hard. I get tired of "students" getting in the way of government progress anyway. I don't care whether they are American students, Iranian Students or Chinese Students. They should go to class and stop changing the world. Maybe they will learn something. If they get in the way of tanks maybe they need to be taught a lesson. We need to be careful not to judge the Chinese too harshly. If Carter had come down harder on the Iranian students we might not be in this mess today.

I suppose this is a waste o... (Below threshold)
Lokki:

I suppose this is a waste of time (for our "Progressive"(sic) friends (sic), but I'd like to talk about the reasons why we haven't taken military action on North Korea. South Korea, China, and Japan don't want us to. Japan, of course, is being held hostage by the nuclear threat (NK fired a missle over Japan a few years ago). South Korea and China are afraid that any war with North Korea would result in millions of starving people fleeing into their countries. Neither can afford that kind of influx. Their solution? Regime change from within.

RE Shut up - we don't want ... (Below threshold)
Joe:

RE Shut up - we don't want you talking for us

There are two sides in this debate if not more. Plenty of my guard friends didn't ask for what they are going through. Go volunteer all you want I support you there no doubt I will never detraact from the people fighting God bless you. I disagree with the reason we are there to begin with. I have no beef with you.

RE: Sadaam, mass graves, industrial shredders etc etc

How quickly you all forget.
While the United States never supplied full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did provide chemical and biological agents such as anthrax and sarin gas, as well as satelite photographs and battlefield intelligence to Iraq which it knew was to be used in "calibrating" Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Iran (Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years" Washington Post December 15 1986.) Furthermore, the US provided "civilian" helicopters, ostensibly for crop spraying, which intelligence sources believe were used to deploy the chemical weapons in Halabja (Henry Weinstein and William C. Rempel, "Big Help from U.S.; Technology was Sold with Approval and Encouragement from the Commerce Department but Often over Defense Officials' Objections," The Los Angeles Times, 13 February 1991.)

U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. According to an article published in the International Herald Tribune by human rights researcher Joost Hiltermann the US intentionally tried to shift the blame for the gassing of Halabja off of Saddam, and declassified State Department document demonstrate that US diplomats received instructions to press this line with United States allies.

Im not defending Sadaam but we are not blameless.

<a href="http://www.iht.com... (Below threshold)
joe:
This is completely besid... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

This is completely beside the point. Who are we to decide what is good for the Iraqi people? If you think we are there to help the Iraqui people you are quite naive. I'm sure Bush is losing sleep at night worrying about freedom for Iraq. His motivations are economic and personal not selfless.

How many times must this be repeated? We were there for our own self-interest to ensure the safety of Americans first, western ideals second, and the liberation of some of the most brutally oppressed peoples on the planet. There were other reasons but I'm trying to keep this brief. There is that international consortium called the U.N. whose hypothetical goal is to keep the world safer and to promote human rights. Hussein violated countless laws over many years and the U.S. and coalition finally stepped in to provide teeth to all of the international gumming. I think every President loses sleep over their actions many times over. I'm sure Mr. Bush is worrying about innocent Iraqis. It's clear you don't worry about them. As far as the economically-driven argument? Piffle. It would have been much simpler and more economical (short term) to present another resolution condemning Hussein, rescind the no-fly zones and bring the troops home, and buy all of the cheap oil Iraq could extract. Unfortunately, that would have left an odious and dangerous regime in place to terrorize its neighbors for another generation with his two pathological sons not to mention kick-the-can to the next unfortunate Presidency saddled with cleaning up a previous administration's mess. Yes, that's a fine and noble non-plan to defend humanity and bring just a bit more long-term peace to the planet. Gosh, now that you mention it, who were we to intervene in Kosovo? Or Haiti? Or Europe in WWII for that matter?


...They volunteer you IDIOT??. People volunteering for the National Guard are expecting to go to IRAQ and die. What planet are you living on? They volunteer a few days a month. They are not expecting to go to war I have 25 friends in the Guard I know what they want and expect. Your arguement is stupid...They volunteer so therefore we can send them anywhere to do anything? Um no wrong doesn't work like that.

Um, yes it does. Calling my reminder of the volunteer component of the National Guard service "stupid" does not make it untrue. Perhaps you should ask one of your 25 friends to clarify the point. The National Guardsmen I've known are fully aware of the contract, the obligation, and the sacrifice required of their service. They do it willingly. To say they aren't and don't is an insult to their intelligence and commitment.


Thank you for unwittingly supporting my arguement. We aren't in North Korea for fear of their nukes? ha ha bwahahahahah. Please..we aren't there because they have no oil.

I've commented on this blood-for-oil meme here before. We are not as dependent on Iraqi oil as the perpetuators of this myth continue to bleat. But to take things a bit further, if our desires are for oil, why are we not invading Iran right now? They have an abundance too, yet we refrain. They don't have nukes, yet still we refrain. Could it be because this country tries to work within the context of international rules to balance security and legitimate trade? Does this not belie the hegemonistic tirade trotted out by kneejerking Lefties? I'll repeat my previous comment. Thank God you aren't one of our generals who would send massive troop contingents into such a clime when other tacts may prove viable.


A threat to who? The US? I think not. If that is your litmus test then there are 20 countries who have similar capabilites with nothing on the pad to launch. Please Iraq has oil we are they for that.

If you haven't yet connected the dots between the threats of Hussein and the safety of the U.S., then your pencil just isn't sharp enough to complete the task. Maybe you should return to crayons before someone gets hurt.


Refrain from having an uninformed opinion. Our continued meddling in other people's affairs will continue to cause us to be the object of all's hatred. We prop up the House of Saud and other ridiculous gov'ts in the Middle East whose people hate them and us for supporting them. Its right in front of your face to see are you blind?

I'll at least admit when I feel that my argument is weak rather than fling refuse and hope some of it sticks. But you didn't answer my question - "Don't you think our concerns at the time were more about minimizing the influence of the Communists in the region rather than the region's natural resources?". The U.S. as a global entity is not going to become isolationist because someone doesn't like us. If one is powerful, others both resent and desire such power. To that end, some will wage war on any number of planes to further their own. And the idea that "the people" of the ME hate us for the House of Saud is transparently superficial. It makes a fine talking point for the Al Qaeda types in our midst but hardly a strong validation of their complaint. Why is it that those Wahabbists enjoy spreading their carnage to the four corners? Could it be because they want a return of the Caliphate and the continued absolutism so popular amongst "the people" centuries ago? Yes, to heck with the progression and liberation of modern civilization! The evil plundering of oil (a recent resource tapped within the last hundred years) by the West has doomed their very being. Good grief. Some will find pretense for hatred no matter what one does. The local political dynamic will abuse and distort truth to demonize America. What else is new? Get involved? Oh, you're plundering our resources and interjecting foreign ideals. Don't get involved? Why don't you care about our people and pay attention to our struggle? More piffle. However, let's run with your advocacy for a moment. Let's replace the House of Saud with some other Kingdom - maybe one with even more and stronger associations with Wahabbism since it's "the people's" choice. Is that your preference and the nexus of human idealism you would empower in the region? Sheesh. Not only am I thankul you aren't a general, I'm equally thankful you aren't at State.

Joe wrote (and don't ask me... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Joe wrote (and don't ask me which joe because I'm all sorts of confused as to which joe is which):

"Open wide Peter, keep swallowing the BS your being fed. Better yet quit your job so you can go to Iraq and "spread freedom". ROFL you cultural snob, who are we to decide what is good for Iraq. Yeah lets keep interfering in world governments to increase the world hatred of us. We have no moral ground to stand on. Nor do you. Tell the parents of Iraqi childrend killed by our bombs how we are there to spread freedom."

And your proof of this alleged BS of spreading freedom? It's got to be about the oil, right? The $66 a barrel, $3 a gallon oil, right? Is that the oil your talking about.

Hmm, or how about this little tidbit from the 2002 SOTU:

"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom."

So you're right, the whole "spread freedom" thing is just BS.

"Cultural snob?" Because I believe free people, as a historical rule of thumb, generally do not attack other free people, and that I believe it would be a good thing to have freedom amongst all the other dictarships, (real) theocracies and oppressive monarchies in the Middle East, this makes me a snob? I suppose helping a people achieve freedom is an act of imperialism? That's ridiculous beyond reproach and, ultimately, a morally bankrupt position.

We have every moral ground to stand on. No, we're not perfect, not even close and I don't believe that for a second. BUt I also firmly don't believe we are nearly as bad as you think we are—not even close, buddy boy. As the remaining and only free superpower, we have the moral obligation to protect those less fortunate than ourselves. As an analogy: We are the big kid in the playground, and when we see another kid (like Iraq) doing something bad or acting improperly (even more so in Iraq's case) we cannot just "stand by and watch". Because if we don't get involved, no one else will.

And how dare you presume to know what I think or "swallow". Talk about being a snob, that makes you an elitiest. And that's about the most kind thing I can say about you in that regard.

"Tell the parents of Iraqi childrend killed by our bombs how we are there to spread freedom."

A cheap liberal tactic: Bring up the children killed (of which you have no real numbers to back you up). What a tired ass talking point. These parents will, at the very least, have a "reason" why their children died: So that they and their fellow countrymen would be free. Saddam never gave the parents anything in return for the deaths of their children. Hell, in tens of thousands of cases, he never even gave them back their children's bodies. Just dumped/despoited them in mass graves like so much trash.

You have a lot of thinking to do about your own BS, Joe.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy