Second Chances
 

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/second-chances.htm

I don't know what to say - I just sat here stunned reading it. I'm iincapable of comprehending what motivates these people to do this.

One excerpt:
"The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."

A few more. . .

"Al Qaeda: the organization that gleefully bragged about murdering roughly 3,000 people by smashing jets full of civilians into buildings and earth. Al Qaeda in Iraq: who proudly broadcast their penchant for sawing off the heads of living breathing people, and in such a manner as to ensure lots of spurting blood and gurgles of final pain, in some cases with the added flourish of the executioner raising up the severed head and squealing excitedly."

"After years of experience, the terrorists had prepared Baqubah to an extent greater than either Fallujah or Ramadi had been. During one of the briefings Saturday, General Petraeus mentioned that Baqubah was probably the most rigged city of the entire war. Another officer at the briefing said there is so much explosives residue in Baqubah that the bomb dogs get confused."

"The bloggers who demand fairness and truth are auditing what we write, but the market ultimately determines how much of any kind of reporting about this war ever gets placed before consumers."

I wonder how effective this recruiting technique was for them?

100%, I would expect.

I don't understand that. If someone baked my boy, I would fear and hate them. I may join them to keep them from baking more of my children, but I would just be looking for an opportunity to turn the tables on them. I wouldn't be loyal in any way. They would have to be watching their backs.

True. But then again, if they are powerful enough to do that to your child with impunity, you may feel that they are powerful enough to know what you are doing and to whom you are speaking at any time. These people must feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness. After all, who can rescue them? The most powerful nation that ever existed was not able to prevent what is happening to them.

Not quite. They didn't get the kid.

Yabbut Glatt, that's Western thinking: the lone rebel fights the brutal empire, through just the force of his will if that's all he has left, because the most important thing is to assert abstract rights that he is not offered, in order to seek a better, more just way.

(What a wordy SOB I am sometimes. How do you people put up with me.)

In the desert, I imagine the biggest lesson is you don't fight forces stronger than yourself, if you want to live.

But they wanted to convert the families "to their way of thinking." I can imagine fearing a group and going along with it grudgingly but I'd never join their way of thinking. If they asked me to bake somebody else's kid to get them to join too, I don't see how I could do that. It's the obvious next step to see who is loyal. I'd leave in the night instead. I do understand the refugee problem. I'd be one if they baked my boy and I thought they would do it again to another.

sick.........and guess who I blame.

I think I would come off the table and take a body part of someone before I was killed too or pass out from shock. I am shocked just reading it.

And the Democrats want to lose to these people?

It's not that I can't imagine what they're thinking -- I know what they're thinking. That's why I'm sure the national leadership of the Democratic Party is composed of total idiots.

The Democrats want to stop losing to these people.

Glatt, their actions tell us otherwise. The Democrats have no, repeat no, strategy to win this. They never had one, show no interest in getting one, and are therefore wholly incompetent. Don't vote for any, contribute campaign money to their opponents only, remove any and all support for this sorry Party.

Unlike the Republicants who have it all sewn up?

To their infinite credit, the Republicans are convinced America should win her wars. This idea is completely absent from the Democrats, as their actions show.

[neo]All we need do is bomb Iran. That will fix those nondemocracies.[/con]

lol.

This much of your post is true. The rest is false.

When I say the Democrats want to stop losing, what I mean is that the war is already lost, and pulling out now (or at least setting a timetable to pull out) is simply having the guts to admit what is plain for all to see. It's over, and we lost. It's time to stop investing in a losing proposition. Cut our losses. Let bygones be bygones.

I just can't believe it. It's such an outlandish claim and to me it makes no logical sense - it's literally overkill.

If you want to brutalise and terrify people then I can understand kidnapping, maiming, torturing their children. Well, not understand it, but I can see that it would take away people's humanity and replace it with mindless fear and total obedience. But how much more loyalty do you get by cooking them?

Also, I'm interested in how this was done, precisely - if "the luncheon" dish included the stuffed head (for identification purposes) does this mean the whole torso was also cooked? In which case I assume the offal was removed as well as the arms and legs. Quite a lot of work involved as opposed to standing the kid in front of his parents and shooting him in the head.

What did they do with families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking that didn't have eleven year old boys? Or was that the reason they were interested in the first place? I would assume that if al Qaeda sent out buffet invites at any point after the first incident, that people would just drop everything and run anyway. After all if the story has made it this far round the world you'd think people in the same reason would have heard it pretty quickly.

I suppose I could be being hopelessly naive, but I don't feel it. I do believe there are inventive, sadistic and ruthless people out there. I'm aware of reports of torture and killing backed up by evidence from Amnesty International. This just doesn't ring true to me though.

Sundae - I don't think they were trying to recruit anyone - it was done out of pure evil. To make these people become subservient to Al Qaeda. I do not see how we can just withdraw from this. This war cannot be lost - there is just too much at stake. I don't like many things about how this has gone or why or whatever, but the more I read about what we are trying to prevent there, the more resolve I gain. Withdrawl is not an option to me - for many reasons.

It al depends on who you get your information from - It is not plain to me at all that this is lost - Gen. Patreus is neither dillusional nor a fool and I'll take his opinion over anyone elses at this point. Maybe we should have a vote in Iraq - a real one - and if they really want us to leave, then so be it. The infighting and dissention here is certainly not helping things abroad.

Attention to detail is important, yesman065. Do you really think we'll be leaving Iran? Ever?

Tell ya something else. Dissent is patriotic.

On the contrary, it is helping a lot.

The more infighting and dissent, the faster the troops will come home. Bush had been on autopilot with this war for 3-4 years before the dissent and infighting made him pay attention. If we had this infighting and dissent earlier, maybe Bush would have tried his surge after two years of a stalemate rather than waiting for four years of stalemate. If we had this infighting and dissent before the war began, maybe we could have avoided the whole mess in the first place.

I think the reasons why they baked the kids have already been mentioned. They want to be the badass kid on the block and are just getting a reputation. The are not looking for loyalty, but respect (in a “don’t mess with us” type of way).

For UG, the problem is that by the way we are fighting the war on terror we are just making more terrorists. Just randomly bombing innocent people does not make them appreciate us any more. Besides that, declaring a war on an ideology is something that can not be won except by using that same ideology. I supported a war in Afghanistan like we did in 2001-2002 since that was very effective because we specified we wanted to take down a specific group in a specific region and the local population more or less supported us. But to say we are going to rid the entire world of terror by bombing and "collateral damage" is about as unrealistic as declaring a war on an inanimate object.

We are not the ones doing random bombing, never have.

Yes, I think we will leave when things settle down, obviously not 100% though. I still think we should try and find out what the majority of Iraqis want - believe me - if they don't want us there then I'm all for every single American to begin leaving right now - period. Also, I'm aware that dissent CAN BE patriotic, but is not always.

How do you suppose these would be bygones, though? I do not suppose our foes would do so, and can't imagine why you'd suppose it. Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know. These wars have been posited as a continent-wide European civil war in two phases, at bottom.

We're after stability enough to permit economic development there, in a place kept from economic development by states unconcerned with it, and in especial Iraq. We don't get that, we're in big and chronic trouble. So why do something to set up a greater and more ruinous war later on? Isn't it just plain stupid to seek a substitute for victory? Successful American foreign policy, especially dealing with countries so little connected with the wealth-producing powers of the global economy as the ones we're currently engaged in, calls for victory, particularly in the making of future grand alliances. If we don't get the victory now, we'll have to get one later -- and for those wringing their hands over the cost, what is the cost later?

I'm unimpressed with the "patriotism" of the dissent also. It is almost entirely based on the gut feeling that "America must lose, especially to non-democracies, because we're democratic and America. Whatever we do, we mustn't ever try and win a fight with a dictatorship, a band of thugs, or really anybody." As you know, I regard this sort of thinking as idiotic in a democrat, and superbly in one's overall interest if one is a fascist.

I also don't buy the idea that one can only use an identical ideology to defeat an ideology, nor that one is in danger of adopting a similar ideology to the one being fought against. Cases in point: the Cold War, World War Two, and the American Civil War, as well as the American Revolution, where George III's Britain failed to see it was engaged in an ideological struggle (not having fought one since about 1649) and never caught up.

How come nobody here but me is spelling "delusional" correctly? It has no connection etymologically with illusions.

I don't have a crystal ball, but my best guess is that if we left Iraq, it would end up being very similar to the situation in Somalia. Lots of warlord type people fighting for dominance. Without the common enemy of the US military, they will turn on each other even more. There will be a resulting refugee crisis, and we must be prepared to help with that. It will be a bad situation, but not significantly worse than it is now. It's already bad today.

Oh, I think it will be much worse. Once the U.S. is gone all that oil power and revenue will be up for grabs. Who do think will end up with that? The fledgling Govt., the terrorists or someone else? If that falls under Al Qaeda, then they will have not only the ability, but also the resources to buy whatever they want. This scenario gets much worse when you consider the autrocities that will certainly escalate after our premature withdrawl also.

So let's play a few chess moves ahead for once.

Madeline Albright took responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under sanctions...

...and most Americans blame Bush, most non-Americans blame all the US for the deaths during the whole current fiasco...

...so who'll be blamed if there's utter carnage after we're gone?

Gee, I'll bite - US the U.S

Then it was posited wrongly. WW I & WW II in Europe were both wars between fascist states for the control of the rest of the world.Why? Why would we be in big trouble there? The only reason to be in big trouble there is to be there, uninvited. Only if you're so blind as to think we must conquer the whole world. That's neither a necessity not a reasonable goal. Do you really think the Arabs will ever be organized enough to be a threat to the west? Terrorists, maybe, but an organized threat? No way. And as we've seen, democracy does not guarantee no terrorists... we have plenty of them here, in Japan, England and everywhere else in the world. terrorists are just a half assed excuse for pushing your style of fascism. Of course your unimpressed, your military style blinders prevent you from seeing anything but, my country, right or wrong, my orders, right or wrong, my opinion, right or wrong. That fer me or agin me attitude, won't permit you to see any path except forcing everyone to fall in step. That's the exact same way Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao, felt. What we must not do is not, "not lose fights with dictators", but not start fights with dictators. If they start it, by all means destroy them, but no wars based on bullshit preemptive excuses.
Now that's just silly. If the ideologies are the same, why fight?
Maybe it's because you're the only delusional one here... but that said, show me where I've spelled it wrong.

If we want to win the war in Iraq there is only one way I can see it happening. First, we do what xoxoxoBruce has suggested and start working with the insurgent nationalists to get rid of Al Qaeda. The second we defeat Al Qaeda, we get the fuck out because those nationalists will turn against us (watch the end of the first video). If we are not going to work with the nationalists or not give full effort, we might as well leave because are doing nothing but hurting the Iraqis.

Too bad you guys learned that lesson so recently, we could've avoided the whole engagement.

Nobody gets away, my friend, least of all the disengagers; if we don't sign Kyoto who will be blamed?

People with a brain?

Let me clarify, this is not my suggestion. I am merely passing along what Michael Yon tells me started in April, with excellent results.

I suggest we LEAVE!
Without stealing any oil or natural gas, of course.

I have been leaving for a while but the 1920 Revolution Brigade is really the only good news I've heard in a while. Too bad the little boy has already cried wolf a few times already....

We will still have to stay for a while so we might as well see how it goes. If that goes well then we should keep on that track, if it fails, gets our asses out of there. I would really like to see good Iraqi-US relations after this conflict but unfortunately with the guys in charge, I don't have high hopes.

Not to worry - if we withdraw anytime soon - they'll all be dead anyway.

I think the last four years proves we can't do it. That said, I think if the 1920s can rally the support of the majority, they can do it fairly quickly. Not put an end to all dissension, but make the Iraqi government strong enough to handle it on their own. I've got my fingers crossed.

But she still has not taken responsibility for the 800,000 killed in 4 months in Rawanda. They ignored it.

They don't have many chances left to do it. The pressure is really on. Iran is rubbing their hands and enjoying the show as they throw their own healthy dose of fuel on the fire. The next 6 months will be very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/wo...ewanted=1&_r=1
Yes, the pressure is on and it is a real hit or miss.

Iran doesn't have as much influence as you think. Most of the violence comes from Saudi Arabia.

Yes, very.

Our best hope is the word has/will spread among the Iraqis that the areas where al Qaeda has been in control, even for a short period, has been very unpleasant for the people. Even the ones that haven't been killed or maimed.

And perhaps that the places where al Queda has been removed is far better now and that word spreads as well. If the insurgents learn that we are "helping" perhaps some will take up arms against al Queda as well - those occurences, although few as far as I have heard, have been invaluable.

They are still going to hate us, the foreign infidels. But if they back a nationalist movement, and just use the infidels to win back their country then kick us out.... hey, works for me.

I don't believe the Saudi government is supplying arms that are killing the US troops.

There was something on the news tonight about about more than half the insurgents coming into the country are from Saudi Arabia. Maybe they are bored kids from well off families that can pack up and leave for adventure?

That's entirely possible. Disaffected university kids fighting for a cause.

I have no doubt about that. It is the source for much of the Wahhabist movement and hence an undercurrent of extremism.

Yet, the vast majority of American deaths are from arms that come from Saudi Arabia. The number of deaths resulting from Iranian arms are extremely small and most are most likely just coming from Iranian civilians.

Really? Got something to back that statement up?

Could be... I have a feeling in the poorer countries, when the kid starts talking about going off to fight, Pop will slap him up side the head and tell him to worry about putting food on the family table.

These days Rami gets most of his supplies from the new American-equipped Iraqi army. "We buy ammunition from officers in charge of warehouses, a small box of AK-47 bullets is $450 (£230). If the guy sells a thousand boxes he can become rich and leave the country." But as the security situation deteriorates, Rami finds it increasingly difficult to travel across Baghdad. "Now I have to pay a Shia taxi driver to bring the ammo to me. He gets $50 for each shipment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1989397,00.html

Pierce, this article supports your statements:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...s-sunnis_x.htm

But note my comments above. This is about support by extremists, monetary support, not really governmental material support.

Yes, I have posted this article about three times already.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...cy/index1.html

Do you even read my source Merc?

The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war. Of course they will supply arms to Iraq because that is their response to Saudi support. Over 90% of the deaths are a result from Sunni attacks, not Shiite. You can list all the media sources you want but that doesn't mean anything. If you want to argue, show me how the media sources are not overblowing the conflict.