Al Qeada (in Iraq) training children as militants...

[Clint]

Jester;772467 wrote: I would hope the source is acceptable and neutral enough for the mainstream (associated press).





Video:

http://player.clipsyndicate.com/view/402/510236

What do you think of a group that would train ten (estimate) year olds to carry out armed raids on thier fellow citizens? How far into evil does this ideology extend?


Just freedom fighters...right?:rolleyes: Spineless animals:-5

[LilacDragon]

Somehow, I don't think this is really that new - just newly documented.

I am very sure that many, many American soldiers that have served in Iraq can tell of at least one instance where children were used to lure American vehicles into range of IEDs.

[Clint]

A soldier told me about seeing a bomb go off killing several people. People rushed to the scene to help, once a crowd of good people had gathered an ambulance rolled up and blew up killing those who came to help.

[drumbunny1]

Jesus!!! Its just so messed up! ANYONE who uses children for these acts is twisted! My Brother In law was in Iraq for about a year...and he says the same thing, there are kids there that would run up to the tanks and hummers, just to get a look because they are kids and they're curious, but the soldiers would have to be very stern and steer them away because of the suicide bomb threat!

[drumbunny1]

fuzzy butt;772518 wrote: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le7486.htm



http://www.military-school.org/Elementa ... ry_School/ ..........

ANd how do you recruit them????? With this



http://www.military-school.org/blog/



You tell me this line makes sense when already they indoctrinate at the age of seven...........



Btw that video was aquired by the US military all information is vetted by the US military .........................really are we supposed to believe it?
But we're not kidnapping them and strapping bombs to their backs!

[spot]

drumbunny1;772538 wrote: But we're not kidnapping them and strapping bombs to their backs!


I don't think Jester's article suggested that was happening. It suggested the video was for recruiting purposes. Either you recruit or you kidnap, it seems odd to do both. The Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari claimed kidnapping but "he could not offer details or numbers" and he does have good reason to lie about these things.

I can remember our school cadet force mounting an "apparent training operation with black-masked boys - some of whom appeared to be about 10 years old - storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents" - it's an exact description. It was recorded for the annual school film too. And before anyone says it's not the same, some of those went from school into the British Armed Forces as a result - the cadets were trained for a reason. The house was part of a small village just east of Houghton On The Hill which had been taken by the Army for training purposes, for all I know it's still there. I wasn't much older than that when I notoriously got a sheath knife to the throat of a teacher on a night exercise when he stepped back against a tree I was hiding in and told him he was dead.

Jester, if the US were under foreign military occupation supporting a Quisling government of traitors would you be clandestinely training teenage Americans in insurgency methods or not.

There are two propaganda lies about Iraq coming out of US official circles. One is that the majority of the insurgents are foreign instead of Iraqi. The reason for saying that is to remove any appearance of patriotism from the people fighting against "liberation". It's why the label "al Qaeda" is applied so often despite al Qaeda's presence there, to whatever extent it actually exists as a fighting force in Iraq, being minimal.

[spot]

What puzzles me is that we both genuinely think Ron Paul is the best hope the US has for the next presidency. Isn't that odd.

As for demonstrating in Baghdad - that's the city where all those mercenaries have carte blanche impunity to kill any Arab they want to and frequently do, and none of them have ever even once been taken to court in consequence? What a perfect place to hold a demonstration.

Do you remember Ann Coulter writing in the National Review that "We should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"? That's the current White House administration in a nutshell and they lied about Iraq in order to invade in the first place. They claimed Iraq had WMD while US and other Western intelligence agencies knew the evidence being presented by the White House was false. That's what underlies the non-cooperation in Iraq, the continued intifada of the powerless there - the fact that the US had no business invading to begin with, that they lied in order to do it. Maybe Iraqis in general see Americans the way I see Ann Coulter.

I'm trying to work out how to get this across to you. You remember Colin Powell presenting the proofs to the UN Security Council with that hour-long overhead presentation? I would love to admire Colin Powell. Everything else in his life may well have been admirable before and since, but the man is a prostitute because of what he did that day. The presentation he made was a deliberate hoax based on lies which he personally guaranteed to be irrefutable solid intelligence. He gave up, he caved in to Cheney, he sold his soul to Satan. He lied and he knew he was lying. He knew he'd kept out the advisers who would have confirmed to him that the materials were a lie.

There is nothing that is ever going to return honour to the United States after that. The Bush-43 administration set an objective of deploying into the Middle East and lied to achieve it. There is no act big enough that the US can ever perform that will bring it back its honour. The US is morally dead for the rest of history. We're five years into a world where the US no longer exists, it ended in February 2003.

[drumbunny1]

Jester;772843 wrote: That both of us want Ron Paul in isnt so puzzling to me when you consider that I'm doing it as a protest to the rest of the world since Im tired of helping and then getting slapped in the face for it, I'm moving in the isolationist direction out of spite. Your wanting Ron Paul in so it limits US intervention abroad. Makes sense why we agree on that one.

As to the rest of your sentiment that sort of reinforces my thoughtline regarding how folks think of the US and our irrecoverable honor as you so put it.

Since thats the mainline thought from europe, then its time to pull in and use whats left of our money to strengthen our economy and our defense system, and no longer help anyone outside the country but ourselves. And when we do decide to help ourselves **** on any type of careful restriction of collateral damage.

We might as well embrace what we are accused of and take whatever advantage we can of it.

When the flood of jihad extends into the immediate of europe (which it will long before it gets to the US simply because of financial logistics) You can deal with it however you want with one less force in coalition.

Oh how I wish so much that I had the power and the will to enact my idea, and Im sure you do as well Spot. Then you can sit back and be glad in the rest of your lifetime that the US will no longer use force abroad, I just hope there's enough of non-muslim europe left for your chidlren to be able to embrace your traditional form of christianity.

Ann Coultier, despite her so called 'christian' views does not speak for me.:yh_clap I agree!

[spot]

Maybe you don't remember the naked ambition of these dreadful people?

"The War on Terror Won't End in Baghdad", By MICHAEL LEDEEN, September 4, 2002:Now that we are set to have our great debate on the war against terrorism, it seems it will be the wrong debate.

By all indications, the discussion will be about using our irresistible military might against a single country in order to bring down its leader. We should instead be talking about using all our political, moral and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny. That is our real mission, the essence of the war in which we are engaged, and the proper subject of our national debate.And all America cheered.

It's time to go home, seal the borders, invite the 12 million cheap labourers to go back home, make sure there's nobody left without proper permission to stay, and lock the gates. If any American suggests sending so much as a dollar abroad in aid, lock him up. Somehow whatever it takes you have to learn that you're not the solution, you're the problem. The rest of us are very good at negotiating and compromise, we don't insist on winning just because we think we can win.

[drumbunny1]

I'm pretty sure if we just wanted to win to win....that country would be a crater right now, and we would've won!

But ofcourse ALL other countries in this world are so much better than the US! How are we the problem? Like I've said before, my brother in law served over there in Iraq and the people loved Americans, even naming streets after our Presidents! Now ofcourse not everyone is going to love Americans over there, but he was over there for a year and a half and saw the majority loved US.

I'm gonna have to agree with Jester, if I had if my way your country (spot) and not ours would be over there and when you guys come running and crying for help like you (country) have done before...I wish we would just say sorry! No can do this time!

[spot]

Jester;772872 wrote: Well kiss my ass, I am not helping you any more. My vote is isolation and when the time comes, because we dont have any ties with the non muslims in that part of the world, to nuke'em, will be much easier. Hows that for collateral damage?


By all means if any country attacks your homeland territory then respond against that country as heavily as you feel necessary, nobody denies you that right.

If people in Europe decide to convert to Islam in such numbers as to make a majority here then by all means let them amend the legal constitution as they see fit, I don't see that happening here any more than you think the Nation of Islam will do the same to you. We are essentially a secular society and in my opinion we'll remain one. I know lots of immigrants to England and it's fun watching them absorb Englishness whatever religion they profess.

The difference between us appears to be that America's scared of Islam for some reason and Europe isn't. The bets are down, the wheel's spinning, we'll just have to watch. Cut off the aid, level the pitch, stop destabilizing the planet and we'll find out.

[spot]

Jester;772878 wrote: Very well put, if we did not care about collateral damage as I hope one day we wont, then Iraq would be nothing more than a glass parking lot. What better way than to deny Iran the use of Iraq? If, of course we did not care.What, just so I know, did Iraq do to upset America to this extent? They stockpiled WMD perhaps?

You want to reduce Iraq and all its inhabitants to a dead sterile parking lot to protect its people from a tyrant?

Then you'll do the same to Iran, perhaps, just to make sure there's no regional power capable of deploying a few nukes locally except for you-know-who?

And you call this freedom? This is what liberty and democracy's all about?

Really, what did Iraq do to upset America to this extent, it might help if I had an answer to that, some reason why 50 million dead Iraqis on a glass cinder is the American solution to all its problems. Each Iraqi is as important a life as each American, let's start with the basics.

[spot]

Jester;772895 wrote: I think you missed the point entirely, I said "if" we did not care about collateral damage... we would have completely destroyed Iraq to stamp out Jihad.

But we do,What I commented on was "if we did not care about collateral damage as I hope one day we wont" - my italics to contrast with your italicized did not.



Jester;772895 wrote: Ive told you before, Iraq harbored jihadists in mass. And as I have said before as well , no I cannot prove it.Perhaps there were fewer before you stirred the hive with your stick.

Here, I found you two more contrasting quotes from the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. One's from Brent Scowcroft - remember him? - and the other's from Richard Perle.The National Journal, March 8, 2003, "Fractured Alliances": James Kitfield

Brent Scowcroft, a retired Air Force general and former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, was a prime architect of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He is wary of the current Bush administration's approach. "I'm puzzled as to where President Bush stands on the issue of our traditional alliances such as NATO, because during the campaign he made some strong statements about putting more stock in them. Clearly, that hasn't happened," Scowcroft told National Journal. "Part of the Bush administration clearly believes that as a superpower, we must take advantage of this opportunity to change the world for the better, and we don't need to go out of our way to accommodate alliances, partnerships, or friends in the process, because that would be too constraining."

But, Scowcroft continued, this doctrine of continually letting each mission define the coalition, and relying almost solely on ad hoc "coalitions of the willing, is fundamentally, fatally flawed. As we've seen in the debate about Iraq, it's already given us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we're paying a very high price for that image. If we get to the point where everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye because we're so obnoxious, then we'll be totally hamstrung in the war on terror. We'll be like Gulliver with the Lilliputians."Compare that - the traditional US line - with the crowing triumphalists you ended up following:Richard Perle, explained. "(There will be) no stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there ... If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."How you can have given men like Richard Perle control of your political process is baffling, but you did it. And if you get to the point where everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye because you're so obnoxious, then you'll be totally hamstrung in the war on terror? That was said before the invasion and nobody listened.

[drumbunny1]

Making the country a glass parking lot is not the way I would want to go about it...but like Jester said....we would do that if we didn't care. The US is the Superpower of the world and there is a whole lot of hurt we could inflict on it if we really wanted to!

Why did US attack Iraq? To get Hussein out of power....evil man and a threat not just to our country but to the rest of the world as well! I think the US did quite a favor of getting that SOB out of power! God only knows what he could've done, we are all aware of what he was capable of! Before you say, well Hussein is dead, get out now....it doesn't just work like that! We are trying to stablize the country and its getting harder and harder because of organizations like Al-Queida who want nothing more that American blood and to spread destruction and violence...all in the name of their god.

[spot]

Firstly, I don't regard him as an evil man at all, I think he was a Head of State of a Middle Eastern country and to be honest he'd done more good in it than bad. I'd support his record. I agree that's a matter of opinion and interpretation but we can go there if you like.

What totally throws me is this insistence that he was in any way a threat to the USA. In what possible way could that be true? How was pre-liberation Iraq more of a danger to the US than any other country? I ask and I never get an answer to that. Your only recognized justification in International Law for invading was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US Homeland and it clearly wasn't. What you actually did was to discard International Law on the basis that nobody could enforce it against the US and your administration committed the war crime of waging aggressive war, the main charge against the German leadership at the Nuremberg Trials.

[Galbally]

Firstly, and lets be clear here Spot doesn't speak for "Europe" any more than anyone here speaks for "America". This is a public internet forum where people state their opinions, so unless someone here is Mr Bush or Mr Solana then lets put that one to rest. I think there are a lot of foolish comments being made to be honest, and they go both ways. I would have to say that wishing you could shut the doors and stop the world is an old cry and a meaningless one, we have the world we live in, no county is immune from the consequences of what goes on in the world, and that's becoming more, rather than less true, and everyone needs a big fat reality check about that.

I wouldn't agree that Europe isn't afraid of Islam, in fact Europe has been fighting Islam since it first arrived in Spain, and Anatolia, about 1,200 years ago, and visa versa. We just forgot about it, and its not fashionable to tell things like they are because it sounds unpleasant. There may not be a war going on, but there is certainly a war of ideas and culture going on, so there is a clash of civilizations happening, that is the truth. There is also an extremely serious problem with islamic terrorist cells in all the major European countries, and wishing it wasn't so, or keeping quiet about it because you are afraid are not wise. If Europeans don't wake up to what is happening within their own societies, through naked religious sedition by an alien culture and a conspiracy of silence about it from those who should know better, they are going to find that they will have societies that they do not recognize or like very much before too long.

Alternately, America isn't immune from the consequences of its foreign policy and unless the U.S. government gets a lot smarter about what its doing in the world, a lot quicker, the situation is not going to improve. If you want to pretend you can exist by yourselves, cease all external trade, seal the 3 thousand-mile long border with Canada, and the thousand mile long border with Mexico, exist without importing anything, recall the military, the merchant marine, all US corporate interests worldwide, close all international airports, stop all air and sea traffic coming into the country, exclude all foreign tourists, and also take the drop in incomes and living standards back to 19th century levels that would result from such a ridiculous pipe dream then try it. There is a country already that has applied such policies with complete sucess, its called North Korea.

The world is interconnected, we all have one small planet that we have to live on, and we have to work out a way to share it between its major civilizations, any other course will lead to eventual nuclear holocaust. That's the reality, deal with it. In Europe we don't have the luxury of such fantasies, so we have to deal with the world of reality and sometimes not on our own terms. We all also, may I remind you, face an environmental disaster of apocalyptic proportions that is going to make all of this stuff look a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, and we need to get real about it, because its happening, and the consequences are truly horrendous. And we will not be able to talk or bomb our way out of it.

[spot]

Galbally;772923 wrote: Firstly, and lets be clear here Spot doesn't speak for "Europe" I'll have you know that I'm a lot higher on the line of succession to the British crown than you, sunshine, don't get too confident. I outrank you.

[drumbunny1]

Galbally;772923 wrote: Firstly, and lets be clear here Spot doesn't speak for "Europe" any more than anyone here speaks for "America". This is a public internet forum where people state their opinions, so unless someone here is Mr Bush or Mr Solana then lets put that one to rest. I think there are a lot of foolish comments being made to be honest, and they go both ways. I would have to say that wishing you could shut the doors and stop the world is an old cry and a meaningless one, we have the world we live in, no county is immune from the consequences of what goes on in the world, and that's becoming more, rather than less true, and everyone needs a big fat reality check about that.

I wouldn't agree that Europe isn't afraid of Islam, in fact Europe has been fighting Islam since it first arrived in Spain, and Anatolia, about 1,200 years ago, and visa versa. We just forgot about it, and its not fashionable to tell things like they are because it sounds unpleasant. There may not be a war going on, but there is certainly a war of ideas and culture going on, so there is a clash of civilizations happening, that is the truth. There is also an extremely serious problem with islamic terrorist cells in all the major European countries, and wishing it wasn't so, or keeping quiet about it because you are afraid are not wise. If Europeans don't wake up to what is happening within their own societies, through naked religious sedition by an alien culture and a conspiracy of silence about it from those who should know better, they are going to find that they will have societies that they do not recognize or like very much before too long.

Alternately, America isn't immune from the consequences of its foreign policy and unless the U.S. government gets a lot smarter about what its doing in the world, a lot quicker, the situation is not going to improve. If you want to pretend you can exist by yourselves, cease all external trade, close of your 3 thousand mile long border with Canada, and thousand mile long border with Mexico, and also take the drop in incomes and living standards that would result from such a ridiculous pipe dream then try it. The world is interconnected, we all have one small planet that we have to live on, and we have to work out a way to share it between its major civilizations, any other course will lead to eventual nuclear holocaust. That's the reality, deal with it. We also, may I remind you face an environmental disaster of apocalyptic proportions that is going to make all of this stuff look a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, and we need to get real about it, because its happening, and the consequences are truly horrendous. And we will not be able to talk or bomb our way out of it.
Wow.....your pretty good with words Galbally!:-4

[drumbunny1]

spot;772921 wrote: Firstly, I don't regard him as an evil man at all, I think he was a Head of State of a Middle Eastern country and to be honest he'd done more good in it than bad. I'd support his record. I agree that's a matter of opinion and interpretation but we can go there if you like.


I'd rather not....I feel it could get nasty and I don't want that

[spot]

Fair enough.

What totally throws me is this insistence that he was in any way a threat to the USA. In what possible way could that be true? How was pre-liberation Iraq more of a danger to the US than any other country? I ask and I never get an answer to that.

[drumbunny1]

I actually found a really good article to support my claim...but I've got to run...I'll be back later to continue

[Galbally]

spot;772932 wrote: I'll have you know that I'm a lot higher on the line of succession to the British crown than you, sunshine, don't get too confident. I outrank you.


How do you know that I am not actually the President of France, just taking a break from his girlfriend eh eh?

[Galbally]

drumbunny1;772937 wrote: Wow.....your pretty good with words Galbally!:-4


Don't do the love-heart thing here, this is a serious thread, you're embarrassing me. :wah:

[spot]

Galbally;772953 wrote: How do you know that I am not actually the President of France, just taking a break from his girlfriend eh eh?


Nom d'un nom d'un nom!

[spot]

Jester;772964 wrote: As to your second question, isnt that the point of stirring the hive? To irritate enough to expose the enemy for elimination? Worked quite well didnt it.

Thats unconventional warfare at its finest.You must know there are ten times as many people who've taken up arms against the US now than there were before you deployed to the Middle East, surely. What's this "eliminated"? You've sown, watered, fertilized, tended, the crop's huge and it's all just as capable of germinating new generations as the first bunch. This is all about action and reaction.

It's presumably true that there are elements in the US military who actually want a credible permanent external enemy. I don't see why you should encourage that sort of thing though, there's better things to spend money on than armaments.

[spot]

rjwould;772966 wrote: do you think your definition jivesspot quickly bundles RJ into a carpet, throws him down the nearest set of stairs and locks the cellar door

[Mia]

But of courseyou can brainwash kids, I know I was by the Catholic religion,thinkig Pope was next thing to God, and if I ate meat on a Friday then I was a sinner. Then all of a sudden ,years on no longer a sin ???? At around sixteen I understood That religion was about powerand control.

[Accountable]

rjwould;772966 wrote: Jester, how do you define "our" interests, and do you think your definition jives with our official definition?


spot;772970 wrote: spot quickly bundles RJ into a carpet, throws him down the nearest set of stairs and locks the cellar door:yh_rotfl

rjwould;772988 wrote: You wish you could....but just don't use any passive-aggressive insults and we'll be fine..
It's not you, RJ. You used the 'J' word. :-3 The 'J' word might bring back phantoms and evil spirits.



An allusion to ugly times well past.

[Accountable]

spot;772968 wrote: It's presumably true that there are elements in the US military who actually want a credible permanent external enemy.
Skull & Bones conspiracy theorists & their ilk would agree with you. We had Communism (not the USSR & China, only the idea of communism) as an enemy for years. Now we have Terrorism (not Saudi Arabia et al, you get the idea) to keep us occupied.



Makes sense if you don't think too hard on it.

[Galbally]

Jester;773003 wrote: Gal, I realize the US in too deep in Europe to just pull out all stops and cut to run. As much as I wish I could do it and leave you eurpoeans to trade in only my side of the world I can't. I wish I could belive in the the ecological doom you state, but I don't, so for me, the next huge issue is security. And killing every last Jihadist is the only way to get that.


Jester I agree about the links between the US and Europe, also its important to understand that the business, cultural and political ties between Europe and North America are of huge benefit to both continents. It is in all of our best interests here in the Western world to develop closer understanding and cooperation with each other, on all levels, whatever the differing perspectives are or the disagreements of the day are (there will always be diagreements).

As for the other issues about security, and the environment, I don't have time to get into them here, maybe later.