Slashdot Mirror

"Being that Americans don't hardly even get killed anymore when they wage their war ..."

Not to get too far off your point or be an argumentative dick, but I guess this depends upon your definition of "hardly even get killed"

Sorry about that. I'll give the exact link in my sig. It is http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4235

Learn why war is bad for business (both big and small). http://www.antiwar.com/

I went to that site. It's an incredibly busy page with links to zillions of articles. I want to read the one article that tells me why war is bad for business. Help me out?

When was the last time you could challenge the practices of your executive management and still retain your employment?

That's awful if that happens... it's not been my experience, but I tend to seek out employers I don't have major ideological clashes with in the first place.
Do you remember the old 80's sitcom Bosom Buddies? I'm not saying this is always the case, but sometimes I get the impression that these situations where an employee clashes with management are a lot like if the characters from this show complained about being evicted when their secret was uncovered. I'm sure that's not always the case... but I don't have any personal examples to go by.


But the same thing is happening with CNN and other mainstream media. For example, it is very "uncool" to report on the number of deaths in Iraq. That's the for-profit effect of corporatism.

But again, how much practical harm is it really doing? CNN mentions the number of deaths in Iraq quite often despite this prejudice against doing so (and a good chunk of that prejudice comes not from inside the corporation, but rather from the government itself, who imply that the information is 'aiding the enemy'). But even if all the TV news channels colluded in some smoke-filled room and agreed not to report it... the information is out there. You could find it in virtually any newspaper.
And I know what you may be thinking here: but newspapers are corporations too... so lets say this is more of a smoke-filled auditorium, and all the TV stations and all the Newspapers in the entire country somehow got together and agreed not to report casualty numbers for Iraq.
It's an inconvenience, to be sure... but again, a minor one. A person who really wants this information can seek it out any number of places, not the least of which is here. And I think I can personally guarentee, without fear of contradiction from my employer, that we're not going to be involved in any behind-the-scenes deal to hide casualty numbers.

Oh, come on now. I'm sure the Bush administration would never, ever ask a Federal agency to do something explicitly forbidden by law. Nor would they ever use secrets for political gain. To suggest otherwise would be blatantly partisan!

Oh - and as far as the FBI fast-tracking new hires to deal with sensitive information? Two words: Robert Hanssen.

Any links to those videos?

Dude, just Google for a while, read the texts, watch the videos and listen to the audio to get pointers on what to search for next. Go with it for a while. There is a crap load out there and it will come back to haunt GWB one day.

Unidentified crowd of people walking through street in Iraq being bombed.
A dead child is collateral damage?
Torture.
What is wrong with the three pictures at the bottom? Besides the fresh blood, tied person in civilian clothes and people in US soldier uniforms with identities masked as an afterthought?
Rape.
Murder and American pride.
British mercenaries working for Aegis made this video of driving around Baghdad shooting at random cars for fun.
Don't hit the mosque!!! Just kill those that come out, but only once they are well clear of that mosque!!!. (Afghanistan)
Small boy. Arms blown off, torso very badly burned.
Well said.
Another small boy. Badly burned torso also.
Ah, so this is liberation?
Another shocking death of an innocent child.
What could a little girl have done to deserve that?
I can imagine without US ugliness painted on her face, she must have been a pretty young girl.
Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light...
A coffin load of dead children.
The enemy.
Poor sweetheart.
Wouldn't you feel free too?
A US soldier ties a terrorist up.
This all seems reasonable doesn't it? I mean I know how dangerous my own 8 year old niece is.
Good old Yankee respect.
What must those damn parents be putting in their children's heads? Thankfully, unlike the US, not bullets. Just the fear of them.
U S A ! U S A !
Some people say these photos are bullshit, because US does not wear jungle camo in Iraq...
Well what the fuck is this?

Yeah, and everyone soon forgot about asking where that white powder came from, didn't they? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j022202.html ...Terror just to freak people out is amateur stuff. Terror to get someone else in trouble, now that's effective...

Let me add my two cents on this issue. I am no die hard Chavez supporter, being that I am a libertarian and he is a socialist, but my suspicians are raised when we are sold this battle on false premises. We are supposed to believe that he is a dictator who is reversing democratic trends in the hemisphere, yet this is just plain not true. He has been democraticaly elected, and he has survived a recall election (by a large margain) and a military coup. He may blow claims of US interference out of proportion, but that doesn't mean there is no interference going on. It's easy to be paranoid when the most powerful people in the world really are out to get you.

It's always interesting to hear how stories are covered in different parts of the world. I mean, my job has me reading the websites of the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph on a daily basis, but I find that the stories covered on news websites and the stories covered on TV and print news (even if its they're both run by the same people) are often markedly different.

The whole deal with the UN's "peacekeepers" being portrayed as a good thing does seem to be quite common on the television news (its true here in the US, and in Canada, and apparently its true in the UK as well). The stories of UN peacekeepers, however, intentionally killing civilians in Congo, or complicity in similar actions in Haiti, or (and this one is actually from the BBC) sexual abuse of women and underage girls are things that can't just be ignored, even if a big deal is not generally made of them by the broadcast media.

In fact, Refugees International just recently released a report on the culture within UN peacekeeping forces showing that these are no isolated incidents, but rather endemic.

I guess the argument could be made that recent US aggression is liable to lead to an increase in attempts to control the internet, but personally I tend to see it as the exact opposite case: that they're too busy trying to conquer the world and reshape the middle east in their own image to really tackle any serious curbs on the internet. Indeed, I think that the seperate nature of the UN might make it appealing for the US to pursue an agenda of censorship of the internet that runs afoul of their own laws since its done under the auspices of "global control". I'm also concerned that an organization that has nothing better to do than make Smurf-bombing fanfics is liable to be more proactive.

If I had my way, I'd keep both of them and every other government entirely out of the internet.

The place where I work has some kind of filtering software installed to prevent "unauthorized" web browsing. Some of it is for security reasons (Hotmail is banned, "The page you have requested is categorized as "Web Mail" which is not permitted"), some to prevent wasting time (Playboy.com gives "The page you have requested is categorized as "Pornography" which is not permitted").

I do wonder who exactly distibutes the list of banned domains. For example, from this story I can access the "one of the most hopeful signs" link, but the "turns out to be a hoax" link is labeled as pornography.

As far as Iran, yes they are despotic. Do they have a right to be pissed with Israel? Perhaps seeing the way the Palestinians have been treated. Does either excuse our meddling in their internal affairs beforehand? No.

Regarding Mecca, this link
"Saudi Arabia has Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Many Muslims oppose the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. They say non-Muslims should not be welcome in land that is holy to Muslims."

And yes, Empire

Some choice reading

"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence"

"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"

"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas"

read the thing yourself.

I'd say when the chief strategists go around saying "Pax Americana" (mentioned four times in the document above) yeah thats playing empire

and as it is turning out, we had all the tools necessary before 9/11 to stop all the terrorists before the events happened

Invading Iraq was Bush's genius stroke in the G-WOT? Now we're fighting them "over there", so we won't have to fight them over here, because terrorists can't hijack planes and slam them into buildings. Everyone agrees that these Patriotic efforts are making us safer. Don't you feel safer, knowing that the FBI will outsource to China the grunt work of monitoring these backdoors? Then they'll swing into action, and save us all.

As I've looked at how geopolitics have changed over the last three decades, it looks less and less likely that we'll ever have another all-out conflict between large nation states where production capacity is an issue. Conflicts of the future will be between people groups and ideologies that cut across geographical and political boundaries, and technology and military hardware will not decide them. Many military writers have been working this out, calling it 4th-Generation Warfare. You'll notice that politicians and upper-level military leaders still put their faith in industrial might and technology, but that's because that's where the power centers are, not because those things will keep a nation safe.

Um, no. The Shah was installed in 1953, after FDR left office. It was the Eisenhower administration that was responsible.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1 .php

Saddam was a US-backed assassin charged with killing the Iraqi prime minister:

http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html

Here's a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of his good buddy Saddam:

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Sa ddam.jpg

During the Iran-Iraq war, the US fully approved of the use of chemical weapons against Iran:

http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=2804

Why were WMD ok back then, but not now? Huh? Does anyone have an answer for me?

And what was the US's interest in the war anyway? They wanted to stop the revolution in Iran, the revolution to overthrow the brutal dictator that they themselves installed! Instead of letting a country's people decide their own destiny and form of government, which might affect the flow or price of oil, the US would rather prop up brutal dictators.

Carter is not at issue here. If the US hadn't planted a dictator there to begin with, we wouldn't be in this situation, and the people in that region would have no reason to be angry with us for interfering in their affairs.

For anyone raised with decent morals and values, it should be plain that all of these actions by the US were downright wrong. The fact that the US acted out of self-interest alone, instead of having any concern for the people in those countries, is an act of evil. On a personal level, that's how people who have no conscience, called sociopaths, act: with regard only to their own self-interest. What's interesting is that all the people who claim to be "good christians" and standing for "family values" are the ones who promote this sociopathy on a national level.

Just for clarity: Being a libertarian and being a member of the Libertarian Party are not synonymous. Like any other broad political ethos, there is considerable disagreement within it on various points.

Most libertarians are instinctively antiwar, as it is generally recognized that war is the activity that usually gives the most power to the state. If you've ever seen this site, while they publish opinion from all over the political spectrum, it is run by a libertarian organization (but not the LP).

My libertarianism is one that is against capital punishment, not so much because it's morally wrong, but the state cannot undo it or pay a commensurate price if it executes an innocent person. Others have different views.

To answer your question, "will the LP help me?" In my opinion, not really. I used to be a member, but left about 8 years ago when I figured out that they're just as corrupt as other political parties, except they don't have the power to actually screw with my life. I still consider myself a libertarian, with a decent anarchist streak.

Well, I probably just stirred up a nest of flamethrower wielding hornets, so I'll just leave it at that.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. (p.51)

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century".
A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

Well, you have some incorrect assumptions.

First, who says the detainees are Al-Qaeda? At worst they are just suspected to be so, but never got a fair trial. Some are being held for intelligence gathering, witness the freeing of scores over time. Some may have been fingered by those who hold grudges against them for other reasons.

It is funny that the US Department of "Justice" is publishing this alleged manual. Serves them well to fend off charges of abuse and such. Very self serving.

Oh, and while we are at it, is Abu Ghraib in Iraq a fake claim by Al Qaeda too?

Second, here are quotes on this kind of abuse going back to 2003.

This article says:

Contrary to White House spin, the allegations of religious desecration at Guantanamo published by Newsweek on May 9, 2005, are common among ex-prisoners and have been widely reported outside the United States. Several former detainees at the Guantanamo and Bagram prisons have reported instances of their handlers sitting or standing on the Koran, throwing or kicking it in toilets, and urinating on it. Prior to the Newsweek article, the New York Times reported a Guantanamo insider asserting that the commander of the facility was compelled by prisoner protests to address the problem and issue an apology.

One such incident (during which the Koran was allegedly thrown in a pile and stepped on) prompted a hunger strike among Guantanamo detainees in March 2002. Regarding this, the New York Times in a May 1, 2005, article interviewed a former detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, who said the protest ended with a senior officer delivering an apology to the entire camp. And the Times reports: "A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans." (Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt, "Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay," New York Times, May 1, 2005.)

The hunger strike and apology story is also confirmed by another former detainee, Shafiq Rasul, interviewed by the UK Guardian in 2003 (James Meek, "The People the Law Forgot," Dec. 3, 2003). It was also confirmed by former prisoner Jamal al-Harith in an interview with the Daily Mirror (Rosa Prince and Gary Jones, "My Hell in Camp X-Ray," Daily Mirror, March 12, 2004).

The toilet incident was reported in the Washington Post in a 2003 interview with a former detainee from Afghanistan:

"Ehsannullah, 29, said American soldiers who initially questioned him in Kandahar before shipping him to Guantanamo hit him and taunted him by dumping the Koran in a toilet. 'It was a very bad situation for us,' said Ehsannullah, who comes from the home region of the Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar. 'We cried so much and shouted, "Please do not do that to the Holy Koran."' (Marc Kaufman and April Witt, "Out of Legal Limbo, Some Tell of Mistreatment," Washington Post, March 26, 2003.)

Also citing the toilet incident is testimony by Asif Iqbal, a former Guantanamo detainee who was released to British custody in March 2004 and subsequently freed without charge:

"The behavior of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet, and generally disrespect it." (Center for Constitutional Rights [.pdf], Aug. 4, 2004.)

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

"In 1970, one year after he was hired by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, an FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing classified information with an embassy official, while Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of a U.S. weapons system to an Arab government to an Israeli official via an AIPAC staffer."

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3478

Sharon has done nothing for the US effort in Iraq. Has Israel offered any monetary aid to the US for the effort? The Israeli per capita income, at $17,000 a year, is higher than that of Spain, but the Spanish managed to contribute. Actually what I remember is that when the Israelis heard there was going to be a war, they came trooping to Washington with their hands out, asking for an extra $4 billion. Yes, folks, the US taxpayer was asked to fork over $4 billion to Ariel Sharon. Why? Because US men and women from Nebraska and Missouri and the other states were being put in harm's way in part to protect Israeli interests in the Middle East? We had to tax ourselves for the privilege of contributing to Israeli security?

It seems this neo-conservatism is nothing more than some Fanatical Religious front not unlike the Muslim Fundamentalists

It seems this neo-conservatism is nothing more than some Fanatical Religious front not unlike the Muslim Fundamentalists

As for Mensa 'falling' for the 'official' story on Sept 11th. LOL. uh, maybe it's because that version is the truth. Check your 911 Commission Report for details. And there is nothing wrong with considering the President one of our heroes. ... your politics/mileage may vary.

I will admit that I'm surprised that I haven't heard about certain bloggers being visited by the Men in Black for referring to Bush as the living, breathing personification of evil yet...especially when I consider the number of bloggers who do so. Although I suppose it's extremely possible that such visits have taken place, and we simply haven't heard about them. Still, I would have thought sites like this, would be the target of der neugeboren Fuhrer's jackboots even if no others were.

Why are those questions lowlights, but Helen Thomas' questions are celebrated by antiwar.com and others?

In a November 2002 talk at MIT, Thomas revealed: "I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'"

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080034/ Helen Thomas the Pundit writes a sharply partisan syndicated White House column about what she thinks--as opposed to Helen Thomas the Reporter, who wrote about what she'd learned.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0108-05.htm http://www.antiwar.com/comment/helen.html Helen Thomas Socks it to the White House

HELEN THOMAS: At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.

MS. THOMAS: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

Thus, a "torturous" math test is significantly less laden with horror than "torture" at Abu Ghraib (under US management), which is in turn much less nasty than "torture" at Abu Ghraib (under Saddam's management).

Good point about the meaning of the word being flexible, but your example is very poor.

Have you even seen the photos and descriptions of what was done at Abu Ghraib by US soldiers and independent contractors? I don't see how it can get any nastier than:

- being beaten and/or humiliated on a daily basis
- being led around naked and filthy in the cold for days at a time
- being hooded with a noose around your neck standing on a chair for hours (days?) at a time
- being literally crushed to death for the amusement of the guards
- being tortured to death in other ways
- being raped by the guards (males and females)
- being purposefully set upon and allowed to be bitten by attack dogs, again for the amusement of the guards
- etc
- etc
- ad infinitum

Please don't ever again try to say that what the Americans have done (and probably continue to do without taking photographs) at Abu Ghraib is somehow not as bad as whatever came before under Saddam's administration. Numbers do not matter. One person is 110% too many. The United States military and everyone who worked at that prison has disgraced and endangered the entire nation by stooping to such amazingly abominable behavior which is no different than what happened under Saddam. No different.

There are rules about the treatment of prisoners of war for practical as well as moral reasons. If the enemy knows he's just going to be tortured (possibly tortured to death), how willing is he going to be to give up and surrender, rather than fight to the death on the field of battle? Every American citizen and soldier in the world has been put in greater danger because of the behaviors witnessed at Abu Ghraib. Now all of our enemies will be motivated to keep fighting, and always fight to the death, because it's better than the alternative of getting captured by the Americans.

I am an American and everything that I have described is documented fact, so I have every right to say what I've said, and if this gets marked as a troll I'm going to be pissed. Reality sucks sometimes but it's still reality.

Now there's definitely not a 1:1 match on any of those, but it makes you think about the "shades of gray" argument....

Its not that simple. Yes Iran is an economic midget sitting on billions of barrels of oil reserves. Much of the poverty is cultrually/structurally induced. And the poverty and illiteracy serve the Iyatollahs quite well so don't look for great leaps forward any time soon. And that is such a shame. Iranians are as smart as anyone. The web presence in question in the article is NOT something being put up by the peasants. MOST college educated Iranians are necessarily expatriates, if only for 4 years. No one with the resources to study abroad would lack $4 a month to put up a modest web site with e-mail service. And trust me, the modest bourgeoisie that grew up around the Shah had a few billions and neither they nor their money were completely liquidated. And if we suppose instead that the "students" are a front for the Imam's? I bet they could pry a few bucks loose from their Nuclear Weapons budget to inform or disinform as they please via the web.

No, money is not the real problem for any of the players here.

Why do I get the feeling as soon as I post any kind of source, neutral (unlikely) or not. It will be declared biased, liberal media (or the British equivalent) and therefor automagically a lie, no investigation necessary...

And I'm still trying to figure out why you act like I'm saying that people aren't being kidnapped and executed. Trying to stick words in my mouth? What, you think I break out the popcorn when I hear someone else got their head sawn off?

And anyway, I was curious about your particular spelling of Fundamentalist Islamists as "Islamunists." So I ran a google search on the term. Ah, freepers and the like. Well, I can comfortably say, you likely yourself are biased to neo-"conservative" media, even ignoring the repeatition of points givin on varius neo-con radio shows in your previous post.

Not exactly a neutral source, but they tie in multiple fragments.

"They sent the dogs toward me. I was scared," Mohammed told investigators. "The first dog bit my leg and injured me there and this was bad luck. The bite from the first dog caused me to have 12 stitches from the doctor of my left leg as a result I lost a lot of blood."

The Shame of Abu Gharib: The 'Good Guys' Who Can Do No Wrong

Evidence for Hersh's claims of child sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib?

Report: 70%-90% held in error in Iraq

I think we got tired of supporting brutal regimes and decided to start our own.

Get that clown Tenet out of the "intelligence community" that is our first line of defense against terror, sabotage, and other national insecurity. He watched, gathered power, and did nothing but hook up his friends, while Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center TWICE, the Pentagon, dragged him willingly into Afghanistan and Iraq...

Wait, he's already out? And we're still at grave risk? Maybe harsher measures are required for this hard case.

Living under the anti-science, anti-reason, faith-based regime of a hyprocritical, warmongering, theocratic jerk puts me in a bad mood, I guess.

Im writing from Vienna, Austria. The censorship doesn't seem to have worked over here, this was my first hit: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 Graphic enough for me...

The second link on a Google search I just did is The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos ... June 11, 2004. The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos. ... May 19. ABC News has obtained two new photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing Spc. ... www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444. The photos are there

Abu Ghraib Photo's

Now, it is odd that their image gallery isn't equally pertinant, but I think it's more of a reflection on google having a poor image search engine or prehaps poorly maintained index....not some grand censorship conspiracy theory.

Pick yourself up, make a difference rather than moping for 4 years and try to make the difference you think Kerry should have done in your place.

You do that, you might find yourself here or here or here or here.

here here, while I'm not happy to hear about this accident, there is little focus or sympathy for the estimated 12-14,000 Iraqis who have been killed by US forces over the past 3 years. That's huge. And while 9/11 was terrible, look at home many more we've taken out, and yes, most of those are civilians. Is there any surprise that we we're greeted as liberators?

Read, and learn, more about what we've done:
http://www.antiwar.com/

And just wait until we hear about what's happened in Gitanamo Bay Cuba...it'll make us long for the Abu Graibe deal. (no I can't spell)
PCB(*(

Thanks for that, Karl Rove. Please back that assertion up with facts. Because it sure seems to anyone who's actually paying attention that there's a huge disparity between Bush and Kerry. Let me list just a few of the differences that I've observed.

Kerry actually mentioned science in his DNC acceptence speech. Kerry actually mentioned his web site in his DNC acceptence speech. Kerry actually saved the lives of several people in Vietnam and afterwards. Kerry is a documented war hero. Everyone who was actually there at the time says so. (Lots of people who weren't there and just happen to be funded by wealthy Republicans from Texas claim otherwise.)

Meanwhile Bush's favorite philosopher is Jesus, which is fair enough. Lots of Christians love Jesus. But Bush can't name anything Jesus ever said, let alone abide by His word. Still, Jesus is a good name-drop sop to the sacreligious right for him, so he'll continue to use that line.

Bush has never saved anyone's life. Bush started a preemptive war that has so far resulted in over 1000 American deaths and at least ten times that number of Iraqi deaths -- including innocent women and children.

Come on, man, pick up the beat. Kerry is much superior to Bush. Don't listen to the right-wing talking heads. Think for yourself.

Antiwar.com is by far and away the best one I've ever read. Written & run by a bunch of Libertarians, these guys have an excellent front page link to major stories of the day related to the Iraq war and other issues. They also provide links to commentary from both Liberals and Conservatives opposing the war (Pat Buchanan is opposed to Dubya & crew!?)

Some current and former members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, privately, have viewed Kerry as a ruthlessly ambitious pol light on personal conviction ? a bit of a phony, in other words.
Kerry has always been an elusive figure, a complex man who rarely opens up to anyone outside a small circle of close advisers, family and friends.
One senior adviser once told me he loved working for Kerry because he would do anything ? whatever it took ? to win.

Too much is at stake to play by Dukakis' rules and lose again. That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up?

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment.

What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

It is so cute to see the fresh meat all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, sucking it up for the man. When the man says "All employees will start wearing latex hoods with the zippers for the mouth in the closed position," these young'ns will try to make sure they get the right size, whereas use older, jaded (you would say, "experienced") workers will start pinging the personal network and to figure out where our next gig is going to be.

Enjoy it while you can! After the hoods comes the ball-gags, then the rear-entry plugs, and finally the Abu Ghraib "telephone"

They may work in smaller matters, but when it comes to "national security" - and somebody's job - then they don't work as well because the "big boys" will make sure of that.

Tenet is gone. You think Mueller wants to follow him? And Ashcroft?

How about Bush - where the buck stops?

Who do you think outed Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's CIA wife?

And you think Republican Senators and Congressmen in an election year want to know that the Bush administration flubbed 9/11? Look at this comment about the 9/11 reports issued by a "bi-partisan" committee after hearing Edmonds' testimony.