Is Defeat Now an Option?

[- Femme -]

Can't really be called defeat if they accomplished what they set out to do, can it? It was all about destroying the country, among other things. Anywho, this caught my attention. Interesting veiw:

 

FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION

By: Mohammed A. Hegazi

 

Joseph Biden, a US Zionist senator, said about the US venture in Iraq, “Failure is not an optionâ€. Any smart analyst would point out to those deluded US politicians: Failure is the only option left for them. The only other option would be to wipe out the Iraqi people in an unprecedented act of genocide by carpet bombing all Iraqi cities. So, a wise political decision by US Zionists would be: Pack up, cut your losses and leave.

 

Sifting through the rubbish dished out by US Zionist spin media, we may come out with sound conclusions. The US is getting a good hiding at the hands of the brave fighters of the Iraqi resistance. US propagandists can call them insurgents, Sunni triangulars, thugs, or Saddam loyalists. They do call them anything but nationalist zealots who are determined to free their country from vile foreign occupation by greedy and ruthless invaders.

 

The US is doomed to failure as a result of a brilliant plan by the Iraqi army. It is so simple to comprehend: It would have been stup!d to engage the US/UK invaders in a classical war where the aggressors had air superiority. The brilliant tactic adopted by the Iraqi generals was to bring the invaders down to the ground. So, Iraqi tacticians decided to avoid the total destruction of their cities by handing them over, in what the clumsy Yanks and Brits thought was a quick victory.

 

One year later, the invaders discovered that they were bleeding to death. It was indeed a brilliant Iraqi tactic. Those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fighting on the ground today are mainly soldiers of the Iraqi regular army out of uniform, not remnants of “Saddam Loyalistsâ€, as the spin media wants us to believe. They are making the most out of their modest arms and superior training, against a ‘privatised’ US force composed of private ’security contractors’ and a ragtag regular force of soldiers of fortune, mainly ‘niggers’ and ’spics’ ( Blacks and Latinos forced by economic necessity). Those US soldiers are people who have no genuine cause for which to fight and die. In the heat of battle, they would hide behind one another. On the other hand, Iraqi fighters do have a cause. They are fighting to free their country from foreign aggression. History attests that if a people are so intent on liberating their country, they will.

 

Now, White House thugs can say goodbye to their grand Zionist project. They will never be able to control the world, or even the Middle East. Their war of terror failed dismally. The world owes it to those brave Iraqis fighting for their freedom. Their moment of final victory is approaching.

[Kashafa]

^^ Good anti-dote to the jingoistic crap we hear all day here. Very Refreshing..Source ??

[- Femme -]

^This is a funny man. Half the time I don't know whether to laugh or nod my head in agreement. He reminds me of a couple of SOL characters. In a good way.

 

Mohammed Hegazi

 

....some of his works

 

Palm trees never lie

 

Definitons of terms

 

Enjoy!

[Castro]

Knowing that Bush always gets a spike in his approval ratings after a major policy speech, this CNN article shows just how bad things are going for the neocons. This is CNN, not Al Jazeera. Check it out:

 

Poll: Most doubt plan for Iraq victory

 

(CNN) -- As President Bush launched a new effort Wednesday to gain public support for the Iraq war, a new poll found most Americans do not believe he has a plan that will achieve victory.

 

But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved.

 

Just 35 percent wanted to set a specific timetable for their exit, as some critics of the war have suggested.

 

White House officials unveiled a 35-page plan Wednesday to achieve success in Iraq, and Bush used a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to tout what he said was progress in getting Iraqi security forces in place to protect their own country.

 

Source

 

And in other news, Insurgents have attacked US bases and government offices in Ramadi, in central Iraq, and then dispersed throughout the city, residents say.

 

Scores of heavily-armed insurgents fired mortars and rockets at the buildings and then occupied several main streets.

 

The attack came as local leaders and US military officials were meeting at the al-Anbar provincial governor's office.

 

Ramadi has been a rebel stronghold for many months.

 

Source

 

Indeed, progress is being made in Iraq and in the US. In the former, it is a slow but steady progress towards a humiliating withdrawal and in the latter, a realization that all that glitters is not (black) gold.

 

Most interesting times.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Interesting times, they indeed are.

Perhaps these two parallel progresses is one way to sum up Bush’s changing landscape.

 

Normally I would listen his speech, but this time I confidently ignored talac-talacdiisa as I thought anything short of a known timetable for US withdrawal would not sit well with these angry masses!

 

 

FF, thanks for the article.

 

Kashafa, where do you come down on this? If the insurgents succeed to drive away mighty America, do you not think theirs is worth to be marked?

[Yeniceri]

CNN and their pointless polls. It used to be news - now its capital-earning entertainment.

 

Fact remains that this country, America, is today more divided than ever. George has the whole South on his back. They get their news about Iraq from FOX Cable News. Has anyone listened to FOX lately? They went from calling the Iraqi resistance fighters "terrorists" and "insurgents" to flat-out labelling federal prosecutor Fitzpatrick a "liberal sympathizer." As long as George has the media on his side, his seat in the Oval Office will remain well-secured. CNN polls can show growing public discord all they want, but at the end of the day, we have to remember that George is the same cowboy who landed a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" some years back.

 

Kudos to the Iraqi resistance for giving new meaning to the Somali idiom "ciyaar waa galin danbe."

 

I still stand by my previous comment: That, for George, defeat is not (and has never been) an option. He'll fight till he's the last man standing. The rulers of America don't want another Vietnam legacy to go down in the history books. They've made a mess, true. But they're now more determined than ever to clean up that mess. By any means necessary.

 

White phosphorus found in Fallujah...Anyone? The 21st century, chemical and biological warfare. The science-fiction reality is gradually dawning upon us.

[Castro]

Wow. This thread could become a chronicle of the fall of US hegemony. Read some more:

 

US 'admits' Iraq propaganda drive

 

The US military in Iraq has implicitly admitted that it is running a campaign to plant articles in Iraqi papers aimed at improving its image in the country.

 

The Los Angeles Times said the Pentagon had secretly paid Iraqi newspapers to run articles reflecting well on the US.

 

Many stories are being presented as independent accounts, the paper said.

 

Questioned about the issue, a US spokesman in Baghdad said Iraq's most-wanted militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was also using the media.

 

"He [Zarqawi] is conducting these kidnappings, these beheadings, these explosions, so that he gets international coverage to look like he has more capability than he truly has," Maj Gen Rick Lynch said in Baghdad.

 

 

"He is lying to the Iraqi people. We don't lie - we don't need to lie," he added.

 

"We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction."

 

In a report published on Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times said the articles in question trumpet the work of US and Iraqi troops.

 

It alleged they were written by US soldiers, and translated into Arabic by a defence contractor which helps place them in Baghdad papers.

 

The LA Times said the stories were then presented as unbiased accounts by independent journalists, rather than stemming from the US military.

 

Although many are basically factual, they only present one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the US or Iraqi government, the newspaper added.

 

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the allegations are an embarrassment to the American military at a time when it is trying to promote transparency in Iraq.

 

Source

[Muhammad]

^Lol, does that spokesman remind you of anyone?

 

 

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Muhammadow

, inkastoo aan waqtigii digashada la gaarin haddana bal maxaa ku watay ma is tiri

!

no matter the reason sxb, history has proven the inability of the west to swim in the sea of dunes.

 

why iraq?

why iraq (qa)?

[Castro]

Deja vu? Ah, that damn gulf of Tonkin

 

US Vietnam intelligence 'flawed'

 

Newly-released US documents suggest the US escalated the war in Vietnam based on skewed intelligence.

 

The documents cast doubt on the existence of an attack on a US warship by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin on 4 August 1964.

 

The incident prompted President Lyndon Johnson to ask Congress, in effect, to declare war on Vietnam.

 

The revelations, released by the National Security Agency, were written by its own historian in 2001.

 

Robert Hanyok declares his review of all the intelligence shows beyond doubt that "no attack happened that night". The USS Maddox had been attacked two days earlier.

 

He claims errors were made in the translation of the intercepted signals from the North Vietnamese, and officials gave too much weight to flimsy evidence.

 

But he clears President Johnson and his ministers of any blame. They were only shown intelligence supporting the claim of an attack, not a wealth of contradictory material, he says.

 

Instead, he blames the intelligence-gathers. "They walked alone in their counsels," he wrote.

 

Three days later, President Johnson asked Congress to empower him to take "all necessary steps" in the region, opening the way for a war that resulted in the deaths of 58,000 Americans and three million Vietnamese.

 

The US government is said to have fought the declassification of the documents over fears of comparisons with the handling of Iraq, says the BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson.

[STOIC]

The grim new reality is that Bush has no new game.It has becomed the norm of Washington to articulate every week, a weak views that only adds to the existing slippery slope.The Bush adminstration principles of limiting other nations sovereignity(ie. Iraq) has terribly failed.This is the only time we need some more neoimperial people like Rumsfeld to come forward and tell us how they can deal with the aftermath of unfolding the "unknown people".Today American security is not secured neither is the world safer after september eleven.Violence is at the door step of every "coalition of the willing countries".May be the cowboy mistook the authority he was given after september eleven as a ride behind the equine of Texas. Ala maxeey hauwl sugeysa.

[Muhammad]

The war over the 'V' word continues.

 

 

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

 

^ and BushCo turn to a college professor!

[xiinfaniin]

^^Bal maxaa ku watey . Read what AP reports.

Training of Iraq Forces Suffers 'Setback'

[Castro]

This you should all like. Very funny.

 

The War on the Literal (by Marina Hyde)

 

One of the many minor irritations about the War on Terror is that its architects are having so much more success vanquishing language than they are getting the psychopathic malcontents to put down their weapons.

 

Hindsight it may be, but I can't help thinking the die was cast the second the Bush administration announced we were going to war on an abstract noun. Two weeks after the Pentagon had been attacked and the World Trade Centre destroyed ... and we're picking a fight with grammar? Forget Clinton and his "it depends what your definition of 'is' is" semantic games. These guys meant business. (Interestingly, in line with the new policy on euphemism, business now meant "defence and oil companies from whom we personally profit". In turn, events would later see these redefined as "national security", and therefore no longer a matter for discussion.)

 

You'll recall that the first step in this brave new world of periphrasis was to create the Coalition of the Willing, which these days seems an increasingly sweet way of saying "Us, the Brits, and 160 Mongolian troops. Which, by the way, isn't even a whole horde." No matter. The War on the Literal" was underway.

 

Are we winning yet? Well, the current focus on the CIA policy of flying terror suspects to countries where they can be questioned outside the protection of US law reveals that the latest word to get its *** kicked is "rendition". That, and the more vogueish phrase "extraordinary rendition". Hitherto, for me at least, "rendition" conjured up images of musical actors dressed in brightly coloured clothes crying "hey, let's do a song about it!". In its qualified state, it would indicate someone garnering critical acclaim for said rendering, as in: "That really was an extraordinary rendition of Memory from Cats." Now it turns out the phrase refers to sitting on the tarmac at Glasgow Prestwick airport while your CIA interrogators stock up on fuel before exporting you to some facility that doesn't show up on any Romanian Ordnance Survey maps. Who knew?

 

Certainly, the dictionary has once again been left with egg on its face. "Rendition", it states. "The act of rendering." To render is defined among other things as to present, to give what is owed, to translate into another language and to reduce by heating. Not one word about being cellophaned to a ducking stool in the former eastern bloc.

 

And call me a hopeless old romantic, but it's really ripped the poetic heritage out of the word. "Render unto Egypt that which you can't make stand for 16 straight hours on home soil." Hard to put a finger on it, but it definitely loses something. Admittedly, against all the odds, the CIA's verbal appropriation has softened the blow of one familiar scenario. Next time a builder of questionable scruples squints at your brickwork and assures you the only way to deal with it is rendering, you will be able to think: "Well, it could be worse."

 

Indeed, "rendition" has some way to go before its definition becomes as elastic as that of "freedom" now is. Frankly, the Bush administration's "freedom" knocks the "patriot" of Patriot Act fame into a cocked hat. You can prefix anything with this baby. It can only be days before Fox News starts referring to white phosphorus as "freedom dust". As for the potato chips ... There's a moment in David Rees's brilliant internet cartoon strip Get Your War On when two office workers discuss the US Congress's decision to rename french fries in the wake of France's refusal to support America's stance on Iraq. "Freedom Fries???" one demands. "OK, I have a question - is the War on Terrorism over? Because I sure as hell want to know that ALL THE TERRORISTS IN THE WORLD HAVE BEEN CAPTURED before legislators actually take the time to rename their GODDAMN CAFETERIA FOOD!"

 

In such a milieu, then, it's no surprise to find ourselves talking about "extraordinary renditions". The only question, now that it has been sullied by unsightly explanation in the media, is how long we have to stick with the term. Not too long, hopefully. "Freedom torture" sounds so much more seemly.

 

Elsewhere, it is faintly perplexing to learn that yet another chap described as "al Qaida's number three" has been killed in Pakistan.

 

How many number threes is that now?

 

In May, US authorities announced they had captured "al Qaida number three" Abu Faraj al Libbi, while, three years ago, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was nabbed whilst apparently toiling in this same rank. Now it seems the similarly important Abu Hamza Rabia has been killed in Pakistan.

 

To the untrained eye, it might appear that al Qaida boasts a vast stratum of senior managers - kind of like the BBC of global terrorism. Or, if you prefer, one of those American banks where everyone is vice president of something or other. The more likely explanation, of course, is that each time a number three is captured or killed, another operative steps up to take his place.

 

In which case, you'd have to think whoever is currently number four will today be gripped by a certain reluctance to take on this seemingly accursed promotion. Talk about dead men's shoes. One imagines him approaching number five with exquisite modesty. "Please, you're far more qualified." "Absolutely not - I insist." "I won't hear of it." "You're very kind, but I am withdrawing myself from the internal applications procedure . . ."

 

Source

[Muhammad]

Xiin, did you saw what happaned to the 'strongman' Allawi?

 

AN angry crowd confronted Iraq's former prime minister, Iyad Allawi, at a Shia shrine in Najaf, south of the capital, forcing him to flee in a hail of stones and shoes.

Thanks Castro.

 

How many number threes is that now?

 

In May, US authorities announced they had captured "al Qaida number three" Abu Faraj al Libbi, while, three years ago, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was nabbed whilst apparently toiling in this same rank. Now it seems the similarly important Abu Hamza Rabia has been killed in Pakistan.

Classic!

 

 

-------

 

Al-Arian Not Guilty

[xiinfaniin]

^^^I wonder how Fox News feels about Al-Arian's acquittal!

 

But let me carry on;Questionable Assumptions