Palestine and Israel | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Palestine and Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Not Good News From Israel

This is about the closest thread of relevance I could find....so if Mods want to move it, that is o.k by me.

But it does show WHY it is important and why the Australian and Coalition forces have been staying in Iraq (and should stay in Iraq) for as long as they are needed.

It is very easy to say 'get the forces out' and 'bring home our troops' but what then for the Iraqi citizens and the children mentioned in the story below?
Whether we should have gone there in the first place is inconsequential...we are there...and we should stay as long as necessary so this country does not slowly fall into the hands of groups like Al-Qaeda or the Iranians right next door, who would jump at the chance to take over an unstable Iraq:


Videos show al-Qaeda child terrorists: US
February 8, 2008

AL-QAEDA in Iraq is training boys as young as 10 to kidnap and kill, US and Iraqi officials claimed, showing propaganda videos seized from suspected insurgent hide-outs that depict masked boys wielding guns and kicking down doors.
"Al-Qaeda in Iraq wants to poison the next generation of Iraqis," Rear-Admiral Gregory Smith, a US military spokesman, told reporters on Wednesday.
The five videos were found during a raid on December 4 in Khan Bani Saad, north of Baghdad, in the insurgent hotbed of Diyala province.
The authenticity of the videos could not independently be verified, nor was it clear where or when the videos were made.
In the videos, boys in black balaclavas and soccer jerseys jump out of a blue van, hop over a mud wall and storm a house where a family is asleep.
In another scene, boys are seen ordering a man out of his car and escorting him away at gunpoint. Adults speaking Arabic with an Iraqi accent are heard giving the boys instructions.
"We believe this video was produced to be used as propaganda to convince youth to join al-Qaeda," Admiral Smith said.
US soldiers, he said, had previously found propaganda material involving children but not in the detail seen in the videos.
In a December 8 operation, also in Diyala province, US troops seized a movie script with scenes of children interrogating and executing victims, Admiral Smith said.
He described two incidents involving teenage suicide bombers, but he said that such cases were not a trend. He could not offer statistics on the number of children who had joined the insurgency.
He added that the children in the videos did not appear to have been kidnapped or forced to act like insurgents. None of the boys was in custody, Admiral Smith said.
"As we watched the videos and watched the reaction with adults in the neighbourhood," he said, "it appears that it is a tribal series of families in which the adults are involved in training and it is their children."
Abu Anwar al-Obaidi, an al-Qaeda in Iraq member in Garma, east of Fallujah in Anbar province, said the videos were authentic but described the boys as orphans and beggars.
Some were the kidnapped children of Iraqi policemen and soldiers, he said.
"They should expect not only kids to be trained," Obaidi said in a telephone interview with a Washington Post correspondent. "We might even put bombs on animals and send them to checkpoints. The American forces will find it impossible to find a solution for this. They will be forced to kill kids, animals, which will bring shame on the American forces."
Major-General Mohammed al-Askari, a spokesman for Iraq's Defence Ministry, told reporters that the videos were a sign that al-Qaeda in Iraq was growing desperate. General Askari also said the group was kidnapping children but provided no further details or figures.
"This is not only to recruit them, but also to demand ransom to fund the operations of al-Qaeda," he said. The US and Iraqi officials also showed a video clip depicting Iraqi security forces rescuing an 11-year-old boy who had been kidnapped by the insurgent group. They said the boy was being held for a $US100,000 ($A112,000) ransom.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/alqaeda-training-children-us/2008/02/07/1202234065074.html

svQAEDA_wideweb__470x376,0.jpg
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Funny that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the invasion - and as predicted by the US Department of State before the war, they now have a big presence. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice (not to mention Howard and Blair) have successfully strengthened terrorism in Iraq, in the region and globally. Good job guys.

I marched against the war and am proud I did so. We were right and the warmongers were wrong, and history is showing that they were wrong about almost everything to do with Iraq. Oh yeah, and by knocking out Saddam and creating an unstable weak Iraq, riven by insurgency and terrorist recruitment, we are now surprised that Iran is making power-plays in the region? FFS, could these guys be any more stupid?

The whole event has been one of the most bone-headed US foreign policy interventions in history and a lot of people will be paying in blood for a very long time.

Now as to the proposition that for whatever reasons the mess has been created so we should stay there to sort it out, that would depend on whether a US/Australian presence does more harm than good in the long run... as to that, who knows... certainly none of us do. in some ways it's academic as Rudd committed to withdrawing our troops and that's what will happen.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

making the wrong decision and then continuing it doesnt help yr case, does it?

Another one for the Howard shame file!
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

antman said:
Funny that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the invasion - and as predicted by the US Department of State before the war, they now have a big presence. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice (not to mention Howard and Blair) have successfully strengthened terrorism in Iraq, in the region and globally. Good job guys.

And out of curiosity, what measures did Hussein take to quell certain 'groups' in Iraq?
Here's a little clue for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

I'm sure if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld carried out similar tactics to control things in Iraq, you would be the first to complain about 'human rights'.

antman said:
I marched against the war and am proud I did so. We were right and the warmongers were wrong, and history is showing that they were wrong about almost everything to do with Iraq. Oh yeah, and by knocking out Saddam and creating an unstable weak Iraq, riven by insurgency and terrorist recruitment, we are now surprised that Iran is making power-plays in the region? FFS, could these guys be any more stupid?

Iran were already making power-plays and developing nuclear devices well before Hussein got overthrown.
With Iraq crippled militarily from the Deesert Shield and Desert Storm wars of the early 90's....and with sanctions against them, they would be no opposition to Iran if the Iranians decided to move on Iraq.
And we couldn't well give Iraq help militarily to defend themselves or, heaven forbid, give them nuclear power as well to develop a weapon of their own....so the 'easiest' way to keep Iran in Iran and to protect Western interests (oil), was to move into Iraq.
Being already in Afganistan, Iran was then surrounded and could be kept under close check on their nuclear innovations.
It is all a big game of chess....so are these guys stupid?
Not at all....least you're getting petrol for $1.40 per litre instead of $5 per litre if Iran had gone into Iraq and/or terrorists had made a stronghold in the oilfields over there.

antman said:
Now as to the proposition that for whatever reasons the mess has been created so we should stay there to sort it out, that would depend on whether a US/Australian presence does more harm than good in the long run... as to that, who knows... certainly none of us do. in some ways it's academic as Rudd committed to withdrawing our troops and that's what will happen.

Rudd is only withdrawing ground troops from Iraq.
He's still keeping support people there as well as ships....and ground troops in Afghanistan.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Ah ok, a typical Liverpool bait and switch. Losing the argument, shift the goalposts.

We all know what Saddam Hussein did. It still does not change the fact that even if the US won the war, they have buggered the peace (such as it is) totally. So now we have a weak and fragmented Iraq as a new breeding ground for terrorists, and a bullish Iran. I have read all about Saddam and his evil family and their destruction is about the only good thing the US has done.

Newsflash - if the US had not gone into Iraq, Iran would not have gone into Iraq. To speculate otherwise is totally fanciful. Iran and Iraq fought a bloody 10 year or so war with no gains for either side - all the rest is posturing and sabre-rattling.

I remember pre-war some US commentators were claiming the price of oil would fall dramatically after a successful invasion. Guess what? It rose! And rose. It's now around $100 USD per barrel. Some were predicting $20 per barrel. More incompetence. And yet war mongers like yourself now claim that if the war hadn't happened we would be paying $5 per litre. Source?

To claim that petrol would be $5 per litre without the war is frankly ridiculous. But hey, you like to post all sorts of fanciful nonsense about what Iran would have done and what the price of oil would be..... keep it up, it's amazing how even though the whole adventure has gone totally pear shaped it's amusing to read your way-out predictions of what things would be like if the war hadn't happened.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

antman said:
Newsflash - if the US had not gone into Iraq, Iran would not have gone into Iraq. To speculate otherwise is totally fanciful. Iran and Iraq fought a bloody 10 year or so war with no gains for either side - all the rest is posturing and sabre-rattling.

You jest at my 'speculation' yet go on to say that Iran would not have gone into Iraq....sources for this Antman? or is this just speculation from yourself? ;)

Like you said, they had been at war previously.

You have one side (Iraq) left impotent from fighting against the Coalition in the early 90s.

On the other side you have a country that has strengthened themselves militarily and are developing nuclear technology and have made it clear they intend to use such technology to wipe Israel off the map.
They have a hatred of anything American or Westernised and by going into an impotent Iraq, would have leverage in the economy which runs western civilisation....this being the oil fields of Iraq.

If you were the Americans, would you sit back and gamble your economy and that of the whole western world (including Australia) on relying on Iran just 'posturing and sabre-rattling'? or would you act and move into Iraq yourself, protecting the assets which drive your country?
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Liverpool said:
You jest at my 'speculation' yet go on to say that Iran would not have gone into Iraq....sources for this Antman? or is this just speculation from yourself? ;)

Only in your crazy world is it considered "speculation" to challenge an assertion that something might have happened if history were different. If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

Interesting that not one military analyst, not one speech by Bush or anyone else, not one opinion piece by anyone anywhere in the world asserted that Iraq was invaded to prevent Iran from invading.

You pulled it out your backside mate, like so much else you consider yourself to be an expert on.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

antman said:
Only in your crazy world is it considered "speculation" to challenge an assertion that something might have happened if history were different. If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
Interesting that not one military analyst, not one speech by Bush or anyone else, not one opinion piece by anyone anywhere in the world asserted that Iraq was invaded to prevent Iran from invading.
You pulled it out your backside mate, like so much else you consider yourself to be an expert on.

The same backside you pulled the "if the US had not gone into Iraq, Iran would not have gone into Iraq" line from.... ;)
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Liverpool said:
The same backside you pulled the "if the US had not gone into Iraq, Iran would not have gone into Iraq" line from.... ;)

Actually, no. Find me one reference that Iran was going to invade Iraq before 2001. Go on. You can't. Because you made it up, plain and simple. No one even mentions it. Ever.

And that is because you pulled it out of your backside.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

antman said:
Actually, no. Find me one reference that Iran was going to invade Iraq before 2001. Go on. You can't. Because you made it up, plain and simple. No one even mentions it. Ever.
And that is because you pulled it out of your backside.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.
"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro.
During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.


http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html?eref=edition_meast


This is where is becomes important to understand that, on the issue of Iraq's WMDs, Saddam (not Bush) lied. Saddam simply could not afford to let the world know that he no longer possessed WMDs. If the Iranians knew that the cupboard was bare, they might invade Iraq in retaliation for Saddam's invasion of Iran in 1980. That was Saddam's real fear, and that fear was never going to vanish. Neither was the idea that he possessed WMDs.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-if-we-had-never-invaded-iraq.html


Now if Hussein was nervous about a nuclear-powered Iran re-invading an impotent Iraq....don't you think the Americans would have an idea that this would also happen, and therefore decided to move in first?
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Ah, a blog from a nutty professor who describes himself as "I am a professor at a research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of my colleagues."

He doesn't say what his professional research is (I wonder why not?) but I'll wager it's not strategic studies. He's a nut who is trying to justify the war in retrospect - reminds me of someone else here. He also is anti-climate change science and describes Barack Obama as a "left-wing extremist".

Your other source is confirmation of the sabre rattling posture that Saddam engaged in for most of his career when he wasn't actually invading his neighbours - Iraq in the 80s and Kuwait in the early 90s. You still have yet to come up with one shred of evidence that Iran was "going to invade" Iraq. Surely, in all the trillions of words written about the conflict and its causes there would be something... surely?
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

antman said:
Your other source is confirmation of the sabre rattling posture that Saddam engaged in for most of his career when he wasn't actually invading his neighbours - Iraq in the 80s and Kuwait in the early 90s. You still have yet to come up with one shred of evidence that Iran was "going to invade" Iraq. Surely, in all the trillions of words written about the conflict and its causes there would be something... surely?

Antman,
Any evidence I provide you will just class as 'sabre rattling', which is mere speculation from yourself that it is just that.

The question is, why was Hussein 'sabre rattling' for, if Iran was no threat? ;)

Secondly, the Americans are not going to come out and say "we're going to invade Iraq because we think Iran will beat us to it unless we move now"... ::)

In 2004, Bush noted that the greatest threat was "nuclear terrorism".
Now instead of going into Iran, which would have been bloody and messy.....they chose to go into Iraq, which was already weakened, and set up base right next to Iran.
Remember the "axis of evil"?
Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.


It's all part of the master plan of the Americans to take over the Mid-East, not only for oil...but to keep an eye on Russia, who is starting to get a bit stronger under Putin. Also it helps Israel, a long time ally, if the US has military forces between them and Iran.

People like yourself Antman rush in with your peace signs and protest against war before looking at the bigger strategic picture.

I know if I had a choice between Iranians invading Iraq, al-Qaeda taking over the oil-fields, or the Yanks going in there under a "WMD story" and keeping Western economy rather calm....I know which one I'd take. ;)
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Livers, I don't think you should be so dismissive of the people who are involved in anti-war protests. This is a relatively new concept, beginning in the First World War after the increasing knowledge that thousands upon thousand of young men were being slaughtered for no good reason. Not to mentions the countless civillians that were killed and maimed.

The twentieth century has mechanised war, or made it industrial almost and no good thing really comes of it. The politicians continue to send the troops off to war to be canon fodder, and the rest is collateral damage.

You'd think after all this time we would have learned how it goes.

To my mind the only justifiable war that Australia has been involved in was probably World War 2. And I am stridently anti-war and I wish there had been another way.

But you'll carry on and call me soft and weak and question my balls, but sometimes it takes guts to get out on the streets for something you believe in, rather than moaning about it in an internet forum.

So hats off to Antman and all those wonderful people who marched against the war in Iraq.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

And I thought you blokes were just experts on Footy ! Had no idea joining PRE could be so illumnating
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Sixpack,
I think 99.99% of the world is anti-war...but you have to look at a bigger picture before going on about it, thats all.
Think about what would have happened if we didn't go into Iraq?
Maybe Antman was right, maybe Hussein was sabre-rattling.....maybe Antman was right, and Iran would not have gone into Iraq....maybe Antman was right, and al-Qaeda would not have used Iranian-backing to destabilise Iraq.
But what happens if Antman was wrong?

Yes, we may have some dramas in Iraq....but if we didn't go in there first and Antman was wrong....we may have had a MUCH bigger disaster on our hands....and history would have been repeated again, similarly to Chamberlain and Hitler 70 years prior....which ended up in World War 2.

Would you have taken that risk?
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

Cuzzo said:
And I thought you blokes were just experts on Footy ! Had no idea joining PRE could be so illumnating

Cuzzo,
We have to talk about something other than the 500th post on "who has the best new hairstyle at Tigerland" or the same spin from Wallace saying we are 'the fittest we have ever been'... :hihi

Welcome by the way.
 
Re: Not Good News From Israel

War is a shocking waste of human life and no matter how u dress it up and try and justify it most of the time it's unjustifiable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.