Is the 'War' actually over... - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · **Is the 'War' actually over... -** 04-18-03

Interesting article I found,.. I suggest reading the entire piece as a whole.
Anyway, part of the article raises the question as to 'Is the Iraqi war actually over ?, as the 'information war has now been won by the pentegaon, so perhaps it has used this to present an 'earlier' finish of the war, by claiming "clean up operations" as the "military conflict" still taking place...

Quote:

I couldn't help noticing that American war correspondents, just like American soldiers, never die from hostile fire. Sometimes they drown. And sometimes they just drop dead from pulmonary embolisms. And sometimes they do that in rapid succession when they are working in the same area of operations.

A funny thing happened a couple of weeks ago. On Thursday night, a reporter 'embedded' with the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division near Baghdad's international airport, Michael Kelly, reportedly drowned when the Humvee he was riding in took a detour into a river. Two nights later, another reporter 'embedded' with the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division near Baghdad's international airport, David Bloom, reportedly died suddenly from a blood clot.

Now that's a really good story and all, but I'm not necessarily buying it.

Strangely enough, just two days after Bloom's death, two 'embedded' European journalists, working in roughly the same area of operations, were killed when an Iraqi missile slammed into a command center. Unlike with Bloom and Kelly, the deaths of the two were acknowledged to have been attributable to hostile fire. However, since they weren't 'our' journalists, and no one here noticed their absence, the incident was all but ignored by the U.S. media.

Doesn't anyone in the American media establishment find it unusual that four 'embedded' western reporters were killed in a four-day-period while traveling with 'coalition' forces "on the outskirts of Baghdad'? Why has no one questioned Kelly's drowning, or Bloom's bizarrely timed embolism?

At the time that the four journalists died, the U.S. was claiming that the airport and surrounding areas were firmly in coalition hands. Iraq's Minister of Information, however, amidst guffaws of laughter, was claiming that Iraqi forces were engaged in heated battle with U.S. forces. Some independent reporters agreed.

It occurs to me that, while it is relatively easy to cover up U.S. military casualties, at least in the short term, it isn't so easy to cover up the death of someone who suddenly stops delivering reports from the field. Such deaths have to be acknowledged, though the causes can be misrepresented.

There are reportedly about 600 journalists 'embedded' with 'coalition' troops in Iraq, and approximately 120,000 troops deployed in the country, producing a ratio of approximately 200 soldiers to each journalist. Therefore, if four journalists in the same general theater of operations were killed in action within a four day period, it would tend to indicate that the 'coalition' troops fighting in that area were taking heavy casualties.

In order to cover up that fact, it would be necessary to misrepresent the nature of deaths that cannot be denied.

the following section contains heaps of links (definetly refer the original article here !!) because I didnt include any !

Quote:

Even before April 8, when the Pentagon decided to expand the 'War on Terrorism' into the 'War on Terrorism and Journalism,' Iraq was a decidedly hostile environment for independent reporters to work in. According to a BBC correspondent, before the war even started, the Pentagon threatened to kill independent reporters.

After the war began, stories surfaced of independent reporters being illegally detained, beaten and starved.
* * insert many links * *
As for the non-independent, 'embedded' reporters, they are firmly under the Pentagon's control. and as an interesting side-note, a Florida appeals court ruled, just a few weeks before the war began, that there was nothing illegal about major news organizations flagrantly lying. The cable news channels seem to have taken that ruling to heart.

At least 11 journalists were killed in the first three weeks of this war. That tally does not, as near as I can tell, include Bloom, since his death is claimed to have been due to natural causes. It also does not include two journalists who have been missing since their vehicles came under fire by 'coalition' forces near Basra in the first week of the war. There were then as many as 14 journalists killed in just three weeks.

Some commentators have tried to explain this away by noting that journalists have always died covering wars. A CNN analyst, for example, attempted to equate this war with Vietnam, where he claimed that 65 journalists lost their lives. Unfortunately, his commentary failed to explain how 65 deaths in a war that spanned a decade is comparable to 11-14 deaths in just 21 days.

Source: The Centre for an Informed America - NEWSLETTER #36 April 14, 2003 (War Briefs)

Uncletiggs · 04-20-03

on meet the press today, they were discussing the whole war thing.. it was stated that the long term adgenda of the bush administration included us being in iraq for at least 5(FIVE) years..
Something Bushy-Boy forgot to mention to the poor peons(US resisdents/taxpayers) when he created this whole conspiracy to begin with... But they figure with re-election coming up soon, the public opinion will be to get us out of there at that time..
We'll see if he doesn't come up with something new for us to spend tax dollars on by then.. Hmmm, Syria IS just right there, and they DID support su-damn...

Corporate Pig · 04-20-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Darktiggr
on meet the press today, they were discussing the whole war thing.. it was stated that the long term adgenda of the bush administration included us being in iraq for at least 5(FIVE) years..
Something Bushy-Boy forgot to mention to the poor peons(US resisdents/taxpayers) when he created this whole conspiracy to begin with... But they figure with re-election coming up soon, the public opinion will be to get us out of there at that time..
We'll see if he doesn't come up with something new for us to spend tax dollars on by then.. Hmmm, Syria IS just right there, and they DID support su-damn...

Actually, the bush administration always stated that it was going to be a long 'occupation' of Iraq. Its just the media networks ignored this little detail, in the rush to try and muster support for the war in the first place.

When the next federal election comes up in the US, it will be interesting... what will bush do ? Further erode the rights of civilians by dropping another several thousand names of the electoral role ? Or be even more daring, and remove the right of citizens to vote in the first place ?
Either way,.. the latest in "national emergencies" being an 'imment attack from Syria' - will most likely be the basis of his platform. Or otherwise an imment attack from Nth Korea.
Also consider,.. that becuase all the US citizens are under the likelihood of an attck, from either of these "rogue nations", the US will once again go to war - another preemptive war, with no reason given.

They were told that Iraq was about to launch WMD's against the United States...
They then discover that Sadam dosent even have WMD's - thus a preemptive war, with no smoking gun, and no reason.

Uncletiggs · 04-22-03

And to top all of this.. He's(bushy-boy) is trying to get tax breaks for us... Oh, Wait... I don't have an income of over $1,000,000 a year, so my taxes might go up!!!!

temmpest · **PNAC -** 05-20-03

This PNAC goes back to the Iran-Iraq war. Rumsfeld
was the head of a diplomatic convoy to the middle east and at that time meet with Saddam face-to-face and closed a deal
with Saddam for a 2million$ contract to build an oil pipeline and Iraq received a 480,000 dollar advance on the loan from
the U.S-Import -Export Bank of America. At that time Iran and Iraq were at war over the Shatt-al- Arab waterway,essential for oil-transports to the Persian Gulf. In order to secure U.S interest for the oil-pipeline, the Shatt-al-Arab waterway was essential to this deal. So in order to help Iraq secure the waterway we CREATED their biological-chemical weapons programs. We are now securing that same pipeline's future by putting it with the "oil for food prgram".
Yes, Iraq already has oil-pipelines-but other countries own
those pipeline contracts. This pipeline will put BILLIONS of dollars into the U.S Economy and in the pockets of our administration years after they are gone. The history of the U.S involvement with Iraq in the 80's was contained in documents and in a 1994 Senate Commitee Report, during
the first week of this war while the Americans were consumed
by the war, Bush signed to have these documents reclassified, and passed laws that infringed on our rights
under the"patriot act" as well as appointing a religious Freak
to head womens reproductive right's of the Food and Drug Administration. What we are seeing is faschism on a scale
Hitler could only have dreamed and wish for. I am a American who loves her country and grew up in a military town under
the colors of the red-white and blue waving on every corner
and every mail box and on the caskets of those I have loved and lost. I love and will marry my soldier who carried that flaq onto a battlefield and watched his friends die for the honor of that flag-This is our America how dare someone make it their "project" to change our values that make us Ameicans.
Yet, THEY ARE DOING IT AND THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT! If we can get someone in office that can bring this to
light, I don't care who he gets a blow-job from! Hell'
I might just give him one myself!(j'k)
-Temmpest

Uncletiggs · 05-20-03

The billoins of dollars they speak of will be for the rich to get richer program... I, IF i'm EXTREMELY lucky, will see maybe $0.02 of that in maybe 5 years....
Bushy-boy is playing it off well.. Wonder whats landing in His pockets...

Corporate Pig · **Re: PNAC -** 05-21-03

Quote:

Originally posted by temmpest
This PNAC goes back to the Iran-Iraq war.

Wow temmpest... youve suprised me.
Outside of myself, your the first (Ive noticed) who has recognised PNAC (Project for the New Amerikan Century)
for the "evil" that it trully is.

Sixgun_Symphony · 05-24-03

The USA won the war in Iraq, so get over it.

temmpest · 05-24-03

If that is all you can say you must be some punk with no thoughts of your own. If you think the war is over you can call the family I know who will be laying their son to rest at Arlington Cemetary tommorow and give them your "official"
announcement. Leave this forum for people who wish to
use their intilect and punks like you who are nothing more than pseudo-intellictuals can go pick up a copy of teen mag.
Oh, good joke I bet you ripped that off of somebody else,
god knows you would have blown one of the only two braincells you have to have come up with that line on your own. Get back to me when you and your one braincell can make a case on why the war is over.

-Temmpest

Corporate Pig · 05-24-03

Tempest,..
If you 'enjoyed' reading PNAC, I suggest you then start reading about 'A Clean Break'.
This organisation, was established years previous to PNAC, but coincidently was co-written by Richard Pearle in 1992

Quote:

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

...Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

...Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Refer: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

I wonder if the "land for peace" directly relates to Israel occupying Palestine for more than 20yrs ?