Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Americans laugh as the Quran is flushed down the toilet

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:40:31 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm

The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
were used to rattle suspects.

It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
most holy book "down the toilet".
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 10:26:46 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>
> The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
> were used to rattle suspects.
>
> It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
> most holy book "down the toilet".

Anybody ever seen the movie Das Experiment?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:37:06 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wouldn't that clog the toilet?

Thank God we all take Newsweek as gospel. It's never been wrong, you know.

<eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>
> The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
> were used to rattle suspects.
>
> It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
> most holy book "down the toilet".
>
Related resources
May 13, 2005 12:37:35 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It just amazes me that the whole world looks at this as pure sin , Oh how
bad to flush a book down a toilet, what about the NO uprising when a group
cut off heads of people that was alive, I did not see any bad uprising over
that.
We must not forget that those people do not thank like we do, and we can't
ever change them to our thanking.
The whole middle east people are eat up with their belief and will die for
it. They like one leader goverement.






"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:Sb1he.3$Ww3.2@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
> Wouldn't that clog the toilet?
>
> Thank God we all take Newsweek as gospel. It's never been wrong, you know.
>
> <eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>>
>> The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
>> were used to rattle suspects.
>>
>> It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
>> most holy book "down the toilet".
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TAFKAB wrote:
> Wouldn't that clog the toilet?
>
> Thank God we all take Newsweek as gospel. It's never been wrong, you know.
>
> <eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>>
>>The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
>>were used to rattle suspects.
>>
>>It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
>>most holy book "down the toilet".
>>
>
>
>
Well, of course, if it says something BAD about the US, or our troops,
it MUST be true. I find it hard to believe a copy of a book like that
would FIT down a toilet... Call a plumber!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 13, 2005 9:14:58 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Sb1he.3$Ww3.2@bos-service2.ext.ray.com>,
TAFKAB <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:

>Wouldn't that clog the toilet?

You're picturing a nice Kohler, or maybe an American Standard? With
running water, plumbing pipes, a proper sewer?

I'm picturing a trench dug with an auger, and a row of plywood seats
over it, and if the prisoners are lucky, coffee cans with shitpaper and
bags of lime.
May 14, 2005 1:24:08 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d631gp$a83$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>,
Keith W <keithnospam@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Since the 1970's some 3000 people have died in Northern Ireland as a
>result in belonging to a different version of the Christian religion.

You really do enjoy changing the subject from one irrelevant point to
another.

>There's an old saying that involves People , Glass Houses and Stones

"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones?"

Okay, but I'm quite sure my house is made of stone. There is a
rationale behind the idea that prisoners of war are best treated with
respect and dignity -- it certainly is an approach that is known to get
better results, and doing otherwise puts your mission in jeopardy and
can engender harm for your comrades.

Not only that, there are rules within our own system, which are aimed at
preventing actions such as this Koran/Toilet incident. A soldier who
acts in any way other than the rules constraining his command structure,
is insubordinate and has derelicted his duty as a soldier. The
consequences for doing that are usually regarded as dire, often
incurring as much as a penalty of death.

By the way, there is a lot more involved in Irish politics than mere
religion.
May 14, 2005 2:12:23 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Tz9he.17441$ye1.11987@okepread06>,
RazorBack <hogsrule@lycos.com> wrote:

>Go watch the "Exorcist" sometime.

Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality means you don't get to play.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 2:12:24 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bD9he.32213$fI.30828@fed1read05>,
<fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

> In article <Tz9he.17441$ye1.11987@okepread06>,
> RazorBack <hogsrule@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >Go watch the "Exorcist" sometime.
>
> Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality means you don't get to
> play.

Mutters about having to live in the Georgetown district of DC when "The
Exorcist" was being filmed. Damned wind machine blew junk everywhere,
including dust into eyes. Parking was already horrible before they
blocked streets for the production.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:43:57 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>
> The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
> were used to rattle suspects.
>
> It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
> most holy book "down the toilet".
>
Hmmm which is worst, an American hostage taken captive, then
decapitated....or a Muslim terrorist taken captive and made to
view the Quran being flushed down a toilet?

From the press and comments, I guess flushing the Quran
is the worst of the 2.

You folks on the left need a reality check.

Mark
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:43:58 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Test wrote:
> <eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>>
>>The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
>>were used to rattle suspects.
>>
>>It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
>>most holy book "down the toilet".
>>
>
> Hmmm which is worst, an American hostage taken captive, then
> decapitated....or a Muslim terrorist taken captive and made to
> view the Quran being flushed down a toilet?
>
> From the press and comments, I guess flushing the Quran
> is the worst of the 2.
>
> You folks on the left need a reality check.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
They will NOT answer that question!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 14, 2005 11:37:56 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1uehe.294$uR4.25@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Mark Test <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>Hmmm which is worst, an American hostage taken captive, then
>decapitated....or a Muslim terrorist taken captive and made to
>view the Quran being flushed down a toilet?

In any relevant ethos, the killing is the worse act. But there isn't
any basis on which to draw this comparison, since none of the
individuals involved in either incident are connected in any way.

So the question of which is worse, is nothing but an ethical
abstraction, and contributes nothing to the argument.

>From the press and comments, I guess flushing the Quran
>is the worst of the 2.

No, they are entirely separate incidents, which happened with totally
different people involved, in parts of the world that could not be
further apart from each other. And both engendered enormous levels of
outrage and are very frequently discussed.

So even if you had a point to make by bringing up a specific killing, it
would not be relevant to the other incident. Just because one incident
was worse than another, doesn't make the other one okay.

If someone steals your neighbor's car, and someone else kills your dog,
does one of you no longer have the right to be upset? Which one, and
why?

>You folks on the left need a reality check.

You haven't convinced me I'm on "the left". "The left" seems to be
anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all. That's not very
useful, as labels go.
May 14, 2005 11:40:23 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Hdhhe.12272$sV7.942@fe02.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>They will NOT answer that question!

The question has an easy answer. Of course the killing is the worse of
the the two crimes. The problem is, it contributes nothing to either
side of the argument to bring that up. It's called a Red Herring in
persuasive reasoning parlance.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 2:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:
> In article <1uehe.294$uR4.25@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Mark Test <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm which is worst, an American hostage taken captive, then
>>decapitated....or a Muslim terrorist taken captive and made to
>>view the Quran being flushed down a toilet?
>
>
> In any relevant ethos, the killing is the worse act. But there isn't
> any basis on which to draw this comparison, since none of the
> individuals involved in either incident are connected in any way.
>

So you can't compare one act with another unless the same people are
involved in each? I will keep that novel idea in mine.


> So the question of which is worse, is nothing but an ethical
> abstraction, and contributes nothing to the argument.
>
>>From the press and comments, I guess flushing the Quran
>
>>is the worst of the 2.
>
>
> No, they are entirely separate incidents, which happened with totally
> different people involved, in parts of the world that could not be
> further apart from each other. And both engendered enormous levels of
> outrage and are very frequently discussed.
>
> So even if you had a point to make by bringing up a specific killing, it
> would not be relevant to the other incident. Just because one incident
> was worse than another, doesn't make the other one okay.
>
> If someone steals your neighbor's car, and someone else kills your dog,
> does one of you no longer have the right to be upset? Which one, and
> why?
>
>
>>You folks on the left need a reality check.
>
>
> You haven't convinced me I'm on "the left". "The left" seems to be
> anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all. That's not very
> useful, as labels go.
>
NO, liberals (I didn't use the term 'leftists'), have a different life
view from conservatives. Those who exhibit that life view, I take to be
liberals.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 2:52:56 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:
> In article <Hdhhe.12272$sV7.942@fe02.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>They will NOT answer that question!
>
>
> The question has an easy answer. Of course the killing is the worse of
> the the two crimes. The problem is, it contributes nothing to either
> side of the argument to bring that up. It's called a Red Herring in
> persuasive reasoning parlance.
>
>
>
You say, because YOU want the Koran swirly to be worse, and want to
ignore the crimes of your Islamic extremist brothers.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 14, 2005 3:12:27 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-3A14AE.20403213052005@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <bD9he.32213$fI.30828@fed1read05>,
> <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Tz9he.17441$ye1.11987@okepread06>,
>> RazorBack <hogsrule@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Go watch the "Exorcist" sometime.
>>
>> Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality means you don't get to
>> play.
>
> Mutters about having to live in the Georgetown district of DC when "The
> Exorcist" was being filmed. Damned wind machine blew junk everywhere,
> including dust into eyes. Parking was already horrible before they
> blocked streets for the production.
I can see it now. Splattered green pea soup all over the cars parked nearby.
Snotty little Linda Blair stunt doubles wandering around
in flannel nighties with ghastly makeup.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 5:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1uehe.294$uR4.25@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> <eq@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1115955631.064301.149520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4525941.stm
>>
>> The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics
>> were used to rattle suspects.
>>
>> It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's
>> most holy book "down the toilet".
>>
> Hmmm which is worst, an American hostage taken captive, then
> decapitated....or a Muslim terrorist taken captive and made to
> view the Quran being flushed down a toilet?
>
> From the press and comments, I guess flushing the Quran
> is the worst of the 2.
>
> You folks on the left need a reality check.
>
> Mark
>
>
I think the bit that upset them is that only a half flush was used!!!
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 5:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

William Black wrote:
>
>
> Nobody ever died because Scientologists called their meeting place a
> 'church'.

So...?

> So far nine are dead in Afghanistan...
>
> How many more would you like to die?

None, if possible.

> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
> Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
> I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
> All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
> Time for tea
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 5:54:06 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:
>
>
> You mean *President* Bush? What does he have to do with it?
>
> You keep bringing up the President; first you implied that you
> thought I was somehow opposed to the President, now you imply
> that he has some role in this Gitmo incident.

Sure he does. The torture memos are coming from his administration.
Etc.

> But the President is
> irrelevant. The next few chiefs are going to have to deal with the
> consequences of this war, and Bush is already at the beginning of his
> end.

Indeed...I really didn't think Iraq is salvageable, and a Kerry
Presidency would have scapegoated the democrats...!

> Scientologists, now? What? You're all over the map with irrelevant
> things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject.

Sigh...I'm not conducting a class in Aristotelian syllogisms here...I'm
explaining why folks don't care about the Quaran being stuffed down the
toilet, for all your practical strategic/political/moral concerns, by
way of analogy.

> Except for you, nobody mentioned the President, the Scientologists,
or
> the importance of one religion's scripture to a person of another
> religion, and it's all beside the point.

Sorry you're not following me.

> A soldier acted improperly in a sensitive situation, and there should
be
> consequences for such actions.

Well, yeah, sensitivity training and such, okay, sure.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:HXhhe.32344$fI.23056@fed1read05...
> In article <Hdhhe.12272$sV7.942@fe02.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >They will NOT answer that question!
>
> The question has an easy answer. Of course the killing is the worse of
> the the two crimes. The problem is, it contributes nothing to either
> side of the argument to bring that up. It's called a Red Herring in
> persuasive reasoning parlance.

I disagree, it's relevent in the fact that we're comparing the
treatment of prisoners by both sides in this conflict. You seem to
only want to discuss the treatment of Islamic terrorists, and ignore
the very relevent treatment of allied captives.

Mark
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:44:19 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:o Vhhe.32343$fI.30774@fed1read05...
> In article <1uehe.294$uR4.25@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Mark Test <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> No, they are entirely separate incidents, which happened with totally
> different people involved, in parts of the world that could not be
> further apart from each other. And both engendered enormous levels of
> outrage and are very frequently discussed.
>
They're related incidents, the US is at war with Islamic terrorists.
Islamic terrorists are in many regions of the World. I can't follow
your line of thinking on this at all. The treatment of prisoners
on both sides is relevent, and of course, the US should treat all it's
prisoners in a humane way.

> So even if you had a point to make by bringing up a specific killing, it
> would not be relevant to the other incident. Just because one incident
> was worse than another, doesn't make the other one okay.

But it sure is a mitigating point to why certain US soldiers may enjoy
flushing the Quran down a toilet. Which by the way has not been
collaborated in any way, yet Newsweek reports it, and 11 Afghans
have died do to this story. Killed by Islamic extremists, not Americans.

> You haven't convinced me I'm on "the left". "The left" seems to be
> anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all. That's not very
> useful, as labels go.
>
Hmmm if you oppose the war, hate the sitting President, want to see
America fail.....you're on the "left". I could care less if you agree
with me or not.

Mark
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <DVphe.975$M36.475@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Mark
Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> "james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
> news:o Vhhe.32343$fI.30774@fed1read05...
> > In article <1uehe.294$uR4.25@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Mark Test <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > No, they are entirely separate incidents, which happened with totally
> > different people involved, in parts of the world that could not be
> > further apart from each other. And both engendered enormous levels of
> > outrage and are very frequently discussed.
> >
> They're related incidents, the US is at war with Islamic terrorists.
> Islamic terrorists are in many regions of the World. I can't follow
> your line of thinking on this at all. The treatment of prisoners
> on both sides is relevent, and of course, the US should treat all it's
> prisoners in a humane way.
>
> > So even if you had a point to make by bringing up a specific killing, it
> > would not be relevant to the other incident. Just because one incident
> > was worse than another, doesn't make the other one okay.
>
> But it sure is a mitigating point to why certain US soldiers may enjoy
> flushing the Quran down a toilet. Which by the way has not been
> collaborated in any way, yet Newsweek reports it, and 11 Afghans
> have died do to this story. Killed by Islamic extremists, not Americans.
>
> > You haven't convinced me I'm on "the left". "The left" seems to be
> > anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all. That's not very
> > useful, as labels go.
> >
> Hmmm if you oppose the war, hate the sitting President, want to see
> America fail.....you're on the "left". I could care less if you agree
> with me or not.
>

You are making things awfully black and white. For example, I opposed
the specific timing and method of the start of the war, but now that
that it's a reality, there needs to be a successful completion both for
the US and Iraq. While I voted against GWB both times, he seems a
rather likable person -- I certainly don't hate him, and suspect I'd
enjoy dinner with him more than I would with John Kerry.

I certainly don't want to see America fail -- but I also think it's my
duty as a citizen to state opinions before commitments are made. Once
the decision is lawfully made, I will support it -- but that doesn't
mean a blank check for future operations.

For example, I can see no rational reason to invade Iran. I could
imagine some extreme situations where there were air strikes on specific
nuclear facilities, but I see progress, although slow, in getting that
problem under control. If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that
Syria were providing sanctuary to Iraqi insurgents, I could support
limited raids, air or ground, against specific targets.

But do I think GWB or Congress launched the operation against Iraq (as
opposed to Afghanistan) in a rational and responsible manner? No, but
the situation now is reality.
May 15, 2005 3:13:36 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1116104045.992032.207720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
NYC XYZ <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> You keep bringing up the President; first you implied that you
>> thought I was somehow opposed to the President, now you imply
>> that he has some role in this Gitmo incident.
>
>Sure he does. The torture memos are coming from his administration.

The what?

>> Scientologists, now? What? You're all over the map with irrelevant
>> things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject.
>
>Sigh...I'm not conducting a class in Aristotelian syllogisms here...I'm
>explaining why folks don't care about the Quaran being stuffed down the
>toilet, for all your practical strategic/political/moral concerns, by
>way of analogy.

But people *do* care. They're still getting pretty upset about it.
You haven't even done a good job of explaining why YOU don't care. In
fact, I think you care, but for a different reason, since you seem to
advocate it.

>> Except for you, nobody mentioned the President, the Scientologists,
>or
>> the importance of one religion's scripture to a person of another
>> religion, and it's all beside the point.
>
>Sorry you're not following me.

I can't follow you, because you're all over the map!

>> A soldier acted improperly in a sensitive situation, and there should
>be
>> consequences for such actions.
>
>Well, yeah, sensitivity training and such, okay, sure.

A basic awareness that the soldier is sworn to uphold the standards
required by the Geneva Convention, and that doing otherwise amounts
speficially to insubordination, desertion, or treason, is *NOT*
"sensitivity training." It is a bare minimum expectation, and failure
to meet this most basic expectation is grounds for the most severe
punishment possible.

I think we disagree on the very premise that this incident constitutes a
war crime.
May 15, 2005 3:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <s9phe.9911$i03.5038@fe06.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>You say, because YOU want the Koran swirly to be worse, and want to
>ignore the crimes of your Islamic extremist brothers.

I'm Irish. I just want people to take responsibility for their actions.
This Koran thing was, at best, insubordination, and at worst,
treasonous.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:26:23 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

:o kay, but I'm quite sure my house is made of stone. There is a
:rationale behind the idea that prisoners of war are best treated with
:respect and dignity

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the lot in Gitmo?

--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:27:58 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

:In article <Tz9he.17441$ye1.11987@okepread06>,
:RazorBack <hogsrule@lycos.com> wrote:
:
:>Go watch the "Exorcist" sometime.
:
:Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality means you don't get to play.

Well, under that rule I guess there's only one thing left to do with
you.

<plonk>

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:06:42 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <5hMhe.1891$M36.1003@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > "Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
> > news:hcb-47D3BD.14264214052005@newsgrovps.comcast.net...
> > > For example, I can see no rational reason to invade Iran. I covld
> > > imagine some extreme sitvations where there were air strikes on
specific
> > > nvclear facilities, bvt I see progress, althovgh slow, in getting
that
> > > problem vnder control. If it were proven beyond reasonable dovbt
that
> > > Syria were providing sanctvary to Iraqi insvrgents, I covld
svpport
> > > limited raids, air or grovnd, against specific targets.
> > >
> > Hmmmm, so yov svpport policies that in the end will not change the
> > stavs qvo. I mean, if yov are rvling ovt the invasion of any and
all
> > covntries, then yov'll never svcceed at defeating the opposing
> > covntry (well almost never).
>
> No, I'm emphatically NOT rvling ovt invasions, which also inclvde
raids
> and strikes as opposed to holding grovnd. My intention was to say
that
> the most plavsible place for raids wovld be sanctvaries in Syria.
>
> What I do think is insane is trying to invade Iran from Iraq...the
> little matter of the Zagros Movntains. If the concern is specific
> nvclear facilities, and they appear to be ready to vse them, they
don't
> need grovnd troops to take them ovt.
>
> >
> > Invasion is an option, to ovt-of-hand ignore it is a dangerovs
mindset.
> > Also, to ovt-of-hand accept it as yovr only choice is eqvally
dangerovs.
>
> I am definitely not rvling it ovt.
>
> >
> > Iran is an extremely seriovs sitvation, that is being played down
by
> > the media. Think abovt it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
> > Israel, they openly svpport terror, and oh by the way, hate and
want
> > to destroy America. Yov place a covple of nvkes that they control
into
> > that mix, and nothing good can come of it.
>
> They march to their own drvm, and form strange alliances. Think abovt

> their role in Iran/Contra, and what covntry was shipping the TOW
> missiles to them. To confovnd things, they have a mvtval interest
with
> Tvrkey against an independent Kvrdistan.
> >
> > > Bvt do I think GWB or Congress lavnched the operation against
Iraq (as
> > > opposed to Afghanistan) in a rational and responsible manner? No,
bvt
> > > the sitvation now is reality.
> >
> > That's yovr opinion, in my opinion GWB was a wvs cow towing to the
UN,
> > he had the UNSCR he needed to act, and eventvally he did.
> >
> Wasn't svggesting the UN, which I consider almost irreparably flawed,

> mostly becavse the strvctvre was bvilt arovnd a relatively small
nvmber
> of covntries in the world, as well as making the major victors of
WWII
> the leadership.
>
> I do see significant promise in regional alliances. Perhaps
eventvally,
> a new world model may arise in which regions send delegates to the UN

> Mark II.


Is there a lever that wovld move the Kvrds in Iraq svfficiently that
they wovld fvnnel arms into both the Tvrkish Kvrds and the Iranian
Kvrds as means of creating a "free" Kvrdistan? God knows there are
enovgh arms rvnning loose in Iraq after the failvre to seqvester them
two years ago. There seems to a potential fvze lit in Tvrkey now and
spreading the conflagration wovld certainly pvt Iran in a different
postvre the oil money cannot solve. Syrian Kvrds are not a factor, I
wovld gvess.

May 14, 2005
Tvrkish Soldiers Kill 9 Kvrdish Rebels
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:22 p.m. ET

ISTANBUL, Tvrkey (AP) -- Tvrkish soldiers have killed nine Kvrdish
rebels in Tvrkey's predominantly Kvrdish sovtheast, avthorities said
Satvrday, heightening concerns abovt new violence following a Evropean
covrt jvdgment that the rebels' imprisoned leader did not receive a
fair trial.

The rebels -- seven men and two women -- were killed late Friday in
Tvnceli province, 480 miles east of the capital Ankara, local officials
said. Avtomatic weapons, plastic explosives, grenades, and a
rocket-propelled grenade lavncher were seized in the operation,
avthorities said. A Syrian citizen was among those killed, officials
added.

The CNN-Tvrk news channel said some 10,000 Tvrkish soldiers were taking
part in a military operation against the avtonomy-seeking rebels.
Private NTV television showed footage of military trvcks, tanks, and
helicopters.

The military operation comes amid increased militant attacks and
concerns that the rebels covld gain new momentvm from the Evropean
Covrt of Hvman Rights rvling Thvrsday that the imprisoned Kvrdish rebel
chief Abdvllah Ocalan did not receive a fair trial in 1999.

Tvrkey, which is schedvled to start membership talks with the Evropean
Union in October, is vnder pressvre to broaden freedoms and grant
greater rights to Kvrds, who are not recognized as a minority.

Tvrkey has not said if it will retry Ocalan. Jvstice Minister Cemil
Cicek said Satvrday avthorities were still evalvating the covrt
decision.

''There's nothing to be worried abovt, no reason for specvlation that
if we don't do this or that, this will happen tomorrow,'' the
semiofficial Anatolia news agency qvoted Cicek as saying.

Bvt a new retrial is likely to be extremely vnpopvlar, with many Tvrks
blaming Ocalan for an insvrgency that has killed more than 37,000
people since 1984.<more>
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 10:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-47D3BD.14264214052005@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> For example, I can see no rational reason to invade Iran. I could
> imagine some extreme situations where there were air strikes on specific
> nuclear facilities, but I see progress, although slow, in getting that
> problem under control. If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that
> Syria were providing sanctuary to Iraqi insurgents, I could support
> limited raids, air or ground, against specific targets.
>
Hmmmm, so you support policies that in the end will not change the
staus quo. I mean, if you are ruling out the invasion of any and all
countries, then you'll never succeed at defeating the opposing
country (well almost never).

Invasion is an option, to out-of-hand ignore it is a dangerous mindset.
Also, to out-of-hand accept it as your only choice is equally dangerous.

Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
that mix, and nothing good can come of it.

> But do I think GWB or Congress launched the operation against Iraq (as
> opposed to Afghanistan) in a rational and responsible manner? No, but
> the situation now is reality.

That's your opinion, in my opinion GWB was a wus cow towing to the UN,
he had the UNSCR he needed to act, and eventually he did.

Mark
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 10:11:14 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Test wrote:
> "Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
> news:hcb-47D3BD.14264214052005@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
>>For example, I can see no rational reason to invade Iran. I could
>>imagine some extreme situations where there were air strikes on specific
>>nuclear facilities, but I see progress, although slow, in getting that
>>problem under control. If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that
>>Syria were providing sanctuary to Iraqi insurgents, I could support
>>limited raids, air or ground, against specific targets.
>>
>
> Hmmmm, so you support policies that in the end will not change the
> staus quo. I mean, if you are ruling out the invasion of any and all
> countries, then you'll never succeed at defeating the opposing
> country (well almost never).
>
> Invasion is an option, to out-of-hand ignore it is a dangerous mindset.
> Also, to out-of-hand accept it as your only choice is equally dangerous.
>
> Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
> the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
> Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
> to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
> that mix, and nothing good can come of it.
>
>
>>But do I think GWB or Congress launched the operation against Iraq (as
>>opposed to Afghanistan) in a rational and responsible manner? No, but
>>the situation now is reality.
>
>
> That's your opinion, in my opinion GWB was a wus cow towing to the UN,
> he had the UNSCR he needed to act, and eventually he did.
>
> Mark
>
>
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by
opposing, end them....

Who says the Bard wasn't prophetic?


Everything the US had done previously was in reaction to terrorists.
GWB just decided to work from another point of view, proactive
prevention. Always reacting means you are NEVER going to gain an advantage.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 10:11:14 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <5hMhe.1891$M36.1003@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
> news:hcb-47D3BD.14264214052005@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > For example, I can see no rational reason to invade Iran. I could
> > imagine some extreme situations where there were air strikes on specific
> > nuclear facilities, but I see progress, although slow, in getting that
> > problem under control. If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that
> > Syria were providing sanctuary to Iraqi insurgents, I could support
> > limited raids, air or ground, against specific targets.
> >
> Hmmmm, so you support policies that in the end will not change the
> staus quo. I mean, if you are ruling out the invasion of any and all
> countries, then you'll never succeed at defeating the opposing
> country (well almost never).

No, I'm emphatically NOT ruling out invasions, which also include raids
and strikes as opposed to holding ground. My intention was to say that
the most plausible place for raids would be sanctuaries in Syria.

What I do think is insane is trying to invade Iran from Iraq...the
little matter of the Zagros Mountains. If the concern is specific
nuclear facilities, and they appear to be ready to use them, they don't
need ground troops to take them out.

>
> Invasion is an option, to out-of-hand ignore it is a dangerous mindset.
> Also, to out-of-hand accept it as your only choice is equally dangerous.

I am definitely not ruling it out.

>
> Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
> the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
> Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
> to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
> that mix, and nothing good can come of it.

They march to their own drum, and form strange alliances. Think about
their role in Iran/Contra, and what country was shipping the TOW
missiles to them. To confound things, they have a mutual interest with
Turkey against an independent Kurdistan.
>
> > But do I think GWB or Congress launched the operation against Iraq (as
> > opposed to Afghanistan) in a rational and responsible manner? No, but
> > the situation now is reality.
>
> That's your opinion, in my opinion GWB was a wus cow towing to the UN,
> he had the UNSCR he needed to act, and eventually he did.
>
Wasn't suggesting the UN, which I consider almost irreparably flawed,
mostly because the structure was built around a relatively small number
of countries in the world, as well as making the major victors of WWII
the leadership.

I do see significant promise in regional alliances. Perhaps eventually,
a new world model may arise in which regions send delegates to the UN
Mark II.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 10:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:NDvhe.32434$fI.25863@fed1read05...
> In article <s9phe.9911$i03.5038@fe06.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >You say, because YOU want the Koran swirly to be worse, and want to
> >ignore the crimes of your Islamic extremist brothers.
>
> I'm Irish. I just want people to take responsibility for their actions.
> This Koran thing was, at best, insubordination, and at worst,
> treasonous.

Where is the proof James that it EVEN HAPPENED??????

Please, I'll await for you to supply the proof that this event
happened. CBS lies, NYT distorts, and now Newsweek
is printing stories based on no evidence, just allegations.

You should be concerned, not about the military, but about
your beloved press. Soon Newsweek may be making allegations
about you, or me.

Mark
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 12:10:49 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:nnMhe.1894$M36.1095@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
> news:NDvhe.32434$fI.25863@fed1read05...
> > In article <s9phe.9911$i03.5038@fe06.lga>,
> > Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > >You say, because YOU want the Koran swirly to be worse, and want to
> > >ignore the crimes of your Islamic extremist brothers.
> >
> > I'm Irish. I just want people to take responsibility for their actions.
> > This Koran thing was, at best, insubordination, and at worst,
> > treasonous.
>
> Where is the proof James that it EVEN HAPPENED??????

It's starting to look as if it didn't.

The story seems to have originated with a prisoner ripping up his Koran and
pushing it down the pan in an attempt to block the toilet and cause a flood.

Of course that may be the product of a damage limitation exercise, but it
sounds horribly likely to me that it's the truth.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 12:45:40 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <5hMhe.1891$M36.1003@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Mark
Test <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> writes
>"Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:hcb-47D3BD.14264214052005@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> For example, I can see no rational reason to invade Iran. I could
>> imagine some extreme situations where there were air strikes on specific
>> nuclear facilities, but I see progress, although slow, in getting that
>> problem under control. If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that
>> Syria were providing sanctuary to Iraqi insurgents, I could support
>> limited raids, air or ground, against specific targets.
>>
>Hmmmm, so you support policies that in the end will not change the
>staus quo.

Changing the status quo is only useful when the change is an
improvement...

>I mean, if you are ruling out the invasion of any and all
>countries, then you'll never succeed at defeating the opposing
>country (well almost never).

Luckily, that's not what Howard said. He's ruling nothing out, just
inviting an explanation of why invading Iran would be to the advantage
of the US.

>Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
>the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
>Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
>to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
>that mix, and nothing good can come of it.

Sadly, this one's been played before. Remember how Iraq was a sworn
enemy of Israel, openly supported terror, hated and wanted to destroy
the US, and either had or were just about to get nuclear, chemical
and/or biological weapons?

Now, maybe this time there *is* a big, bad wolf snapping at the lambs...
but the villagers may take some persuading before they agree to grab
their torches and pitchforks again.

>> But do I think GWB or Congress launched the operation against Iraq (as
>> opposed to Afghanistan) in a rational and responsible manner? No, but
>> the situation now is reality.
>
>That's your opinion, in my opinion GWB was a wus cow towing to the UN,
>he had the UNSCR he needed to act, and eventually he did.

And as a result it's a US problem that a lot of folks are happy to leave
you struggling with.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:17:05 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1116187602.458235.275830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Is there a lever that would move the Kurds in Iraq sufficiently that
> they would funnel arms into both the Turkish Kurds and the Iranian
> Kurds as means of creating a "free" Kurdistan?

As far as I can make out it's more about the US convincing the Iraqi Kurds
that it would be a really bad idea to form a separate state.

This is because the Turks would probably come over the border to give them a
serious kicking on the grounds that any sort of Kurdish state is a 'bad
thing'.

> Syrian Kurds are not a factor, I
> would guess.

Only if there isn't a Kurdish state.

Once that gets formed, assuming the Turks don't turn it into mashed potato
in a couple of weeks, they'll be stirred up good and proper by Iraqi Kurds
who'll realise that the bigger state, and the more people, the better.

They'll also be struggling with the problem of being land locked, and, as
Serbia found out, that isn't a real good idea either.

They'll be very aggressive and very frightened and will have big aggressive
countries on all sides...

Oh yes, and if the Kurds fall off the top of Iraq it's a reasonable bet
that the Shia will fall off the bottom, taking the oil and the ports with
them...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AUK Registrar wrote:
> In <d686pt$afd$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, "William Black"
<abuse@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> >news:nnMhe.1894$M36.1095@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> "james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
> >> news:NDvhe.32434$fI.25863@fed1read05...
> >> > In article <s9phe.9911$i03.5038@fe06.lga>,
> >> > Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >You say, because YOU want the Koran swirly to be worse, and
want to
> >> > >ignore the crimes of your Islamic extremist brothers.
> >> >
> >> > I'm Irish. I just want people to take responsibility for their
actions.
> >> > This Koran thing was, at best, insubordination, and at worst,
> >> > treasonous.
> >>
> >> Where is the proof James that it EVEN HAPPENED??????
> >
> >It's starting to look as if it didn't.
> >
> >The story seems to have originated with a prisoner ripping up his
Koran and
> >pushing it down the pan in an attempt to block the toilet and cause
a flood.
> >
> >Of course that may be the product of a damage limitation exercise,
but it
> >sounds horribly likely to me that it's the truth.
>
> Newsweek has now retracted the story entirely. Now the folks in the
Middle
> East who were rioting are saying they only retracted it because of
> government pressure. Personally I think the folks over there LIKE
being
> pissed off at someone.


Well, I'm glad someone has realized what the purpose of these news
group is, not understandding and compromise that's for sure. Goes for
the entire process in the USA right now, no surrender! Over there, over
here it's all the same.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In <d686pt$afd$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, "William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:nnMhe.1894$M36.1095@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
>> news:NDvhe.32434$fI.25863@fed1read05...
>> > In article <s9phe.9911$i03.5038@fe06.lga>,
>> > Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >You say, because YOU want the Koran swirly to be worse, and want to
>> > >ignore the crimes of your Islamic extremist brothers.
>> >
>> > I'm Irish. I just want people to take responsibility for their actions.
>> > This Koran thing was, at best, insubordination, and at worst,
>> > treasonous.
>>
>> Where is the proof James that it EVEN HAPPENED??????
>
>It's starting to look as if it didn't.
>
>The story seems to have originated with a prisoner ripping up his Koran and
>pushing it down the pan in an attempt to block the toilet and cause a flood.
>
>Of course that may be the product of a damage limitation exercise, but it
>sounds horribly likely to me that it's the truth.

Newsweek has now retracted the story entirely. Now the folks in the Middle
East who were rioting are saying they only retracted it because of
government pressure. Personally I think the folks over there LIKE being
pissed off at someone.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 4:59:43 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6K+kWzMkb6hCFw8H@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
> >Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
> >the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
> >Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
> >to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
> >that mix, and nothing good can come of it.
>
> Sadly, this one's been played before. Remember how Iraq was a sworn
> enemy of Israel, openly supported terror, hated and wanted to destroy
> the US, and either had or were just about to get nuclear, chemical
> and/or biological weapons?
>
> Now, maybe this time there *is* a big, bad wolf snapping at the lambs...
> but the villagers may take some persuading before they agree to grab
> their torches and pitchforks again.
>
That is a very real possiblity....and unfortunate that the world's intel
communities could
be so wrong. If they were wrong in Iraq, are they wrong in Iran?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:39:03 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3mbie.2768$M36.1821@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6K+kWzMkb6hCFw8H@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > >Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
> > >the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
> > >Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
> > >to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
> > >that mix, and nothing good can come of it.
> >
> > Sadly, this one's been played before. Remember how Iraq was a sworn
> > enemy of Israel, openly supported terror, hated and wanted to destroy
> > the US, and either had or were just about to get nuclear, chemical
> > and/or biological weapons?
> >
> > Now, maybe this time there *is* a big, bad wolf snapping at the lambs...
> > but the villagers may take some persuading before they agree to grab
> > their torches and pitchforks again.
> >
> That is a very real possiblity....and unfortunate that the world's intel
> communities could
> be so wrong. If they were wrong in Iraq, are they wrong in Iran?
>
I certainly am not vouching for intelligence perfection. Indeed, the WMD
commission report spoke not just of poor handling of HUMINT with
Curveball, but inadequate use of OSINT and MASINT.

Especially with respect to MASINT, it is somewhat easier to detect
nuclear activities than chemical or biological -- there is much less of
a dual-use problem.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:39:03 AM

Archived from groups: us.military.army,us.military.national-guard,sci.military.naval,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3mbie.2768$M36.1821@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Mark Test" <MARKT38@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6K+kWzMkb6hCFw8H@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > >Iran is an extremely serious situation, that is being played down by
> > >the media. Think about it, they are sworn enemies of a US ally,
> > >Israel, they openly support terror, and oh by the way, hate and want
> > >to destroy America. You place a couple of nukes that they control into
> > >that mix, and nothing good can come of it.
> >
> > Sadly, this one's been played before. Remember how Iraq was a sworn
> > enemy of Israel, openly supported terror, hated and wanted to destroy
> > the US, and either had or were just about to get nuclear, chemical
> > and/or biological weapons?
> >
> > Now, maybe this time there *is* a big, bad wolf snapping at the lambs...
> > but the villagers may take some persuading before they agree to grab
> > their torches and pitchforks again.
> >
> That is a very real possiblity....and unfortunate that the world's intel
> communities could
> be so wrong. If they were wrong in Iraq, are they wrong in Iran?
>
I certainly am not vouching for intelligence perfection. Indeed, the WMD
commission report spoke not just of poor handling of HUMINT with
Curveball, but inadequate use of OSINT and MASINT.

Especially with respect to MASINT, it is somewhat easier to detect
nuclear activities than chemical or biological -- there is much less of
a dual-use problem.
!