…At least 6 al Qaeda leaders have been captured—one of them a key aide to Abu Ayyub al-Masri (successor to the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi, last seen imitating a construction dumpster after significant military tonnage invaded his bucolic farmhouse hideaway)—and dozens more jihadists likely killed, all in the last 48 hours, and all as part of a surge strategy that isn’t being widely reported on by the mainstream press except to note that, as a plan for bringing stability to parts of Iraq, many (mostly Democratic) lawmakers so disagree with it that they are willing to push for a non-binding resolution condemning it, the parliamentary equivalent of having their stomping feet committed to paper.
Ace has more. And AJ Strata notes that the trail to al-Masri is a fresh one, given that his aid has admitted to meeting with the terror leader the day before his capture in the Mahmoudiya area.
And on that high note, I think it time the US military high tails it on home. You know—go out with a big W and let momentum and a strong November draft propel them into next season, when they’ll be called upon to fight the war on poverty!
US and Iraqi forces are kicking some serious terrorist butt.
I can’t wait to read about this tomorrow in the NY Times.
Oh….
Wait…..
First Nutter to claim we are loosing in 5…4….3…2…1…. Alpo? Stevexx?
Putting the Bam! to those Tangoes.
Don’t hold your breath if you are looking for beaking news of success in Iraq. Let’s just focus on the negative, shall we?
“Terror”!!! For that MATTER, BARACK Obama’s book, “Marching to Free Root BEER in New Jersey,” should be required reading for Repulsivans!!!! Moron!!!! Donald Rumsfeld is a tool of the Supreme Court. Power to the Canadians!!!!
meanwhile the senate is pondering whether to condemn this victory. Non binding resolution of course.
Success in Iraq means failure for the MSM – why would they report on it?
Normally I’m sympathetic to those arguing that our successs go largely unreported, while our failures are always prominently featured.
In this case, though, I’m glad that big media coverage is scant. I hope our guys kick some ass, and that no one pays much attention until the facts, and results, of their victories are undeniable.
There’s as much reason for worry–this is my amateur speculation; apologies to Major John and others if I’m off-base–about how things are going and where they’re headed in Afghanistan. But since our effort there remains widely supported, there isn’t the same media scrutiny, and our guys are freer to pursue victory without critics at home screaming, “That’ll never work! Let’s give it up now!”
Or so it would seem to me.
Well, with four million refugees and $12 billion worth of unaccounted for cash it really isn’t that hard.
Damn, looks like I’m the first nutter to claim we are ‘loosing’.
Damn! That means at least 12 new terrorist created!
Because refugees and shitty accounting mean we’re losing the war.
Will Anna Nicole be one of the 72 waiting for these fellows at Allah’s Celestial Pussy Palace?
Git yer math right, Gray.
Six dead jihadis=six thousand new ones. Don’t slip up again or we’ll have to send a Critical Literature prof (tenured) from the local U to straighten you out.
I know I was going for the laugh with
“I can’t wait to read about this tomorrow in the NY Times.
Oh….
Wait…..”
But…….
Yet another interesting piece:
Blackout of the Press
By NIBRAS KAZIMI
<a href=”http://www.nysun.com/article/48291?page_no=1″ target=”_blank”>
They are just doing the jobs Jordanians won’t.
HK
Like I said….
Jonah Goldberg, February 7-9, 2005 :
“Let’s make a bet. I predict that Iraq won’t have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I’ll bet $1,000…”
If I recall correctly, you offered to pay off that $1000 bet with Dr Juan Cole to the USO. I hope you kept your word, Mr Goldberg. They need the money more than ever.
LMFAO!
Yo, uh, Darryl! Put down the bong a minute, I don’t think this is where you think it is.
Um, should we tell our lil’ special friend Darryl that this is the blog of Jeff Goldstein, an entirely different jooooooo than Jonah Goldberg?
I know, I know, them Hebrew neo-con cabalists all look alike, but still…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17045824/
Yes, stevex, that is what happens when savages use children as shields.
That is why we call them bad guys.
That is why it would be wrong to leave and let them take over the whole fucking country instead of a few villages.
B Moe
Can any civilian killed in Iraq be blamed on the U.S.?
Probably, but not the one in your link, as far as I am concerned. There have been soldiers brought up on charges, and some convicted, for murder and rape. When was the last time one of the insurgents tried one of their own for murdering or raping a civilian? Your bullshit is getting no traction here, dude. Go get your AlQaada buddies to start treating civilians with respect and then come talk to me.
B Moe,
Oops, my bad. Reading too many blogs on the same subject.
Apologies to Jeff.
In other words, dropping bombs on homes with women and children is okay as long as the Pentagon claims that there are evil people in Al Qaeda who might also be in them?
Also, do you think that the U.S. should be following the Geneva Conventions in Iraq?
Or dropping bombs on AlQaada is our objective, if they happen to be hiding among women and children, that is their problem.
That’s it, I am out of here. If anyone else wants to beat this festering pile of hair and maggots that used to be a horse, have at it.
For clarification, you mean it is the problem of the women and children if we drop bombs on them because there might be Al Qaeda there? So, if a dangerous serial killer was possibly hiding out in your neighborhood, it would be your problem if your house was bombed by the police, killing your family, while allegedly trying to get the serial killer?
Darryl,
A bet is a reciprocal obligation. What was Juan Cole’s reply again?
Steve, wanna put some meat on your vague insinuations? Or is incoherent slander the best you can do?
Final tip, stevex: don’t say “For clarification” when you are about to try obfuscation on literate people. It telegraphs that you are a disingenuous prick incapable of honest debate.
Good Bye.
sx2 – I don’t think the Geneva Conventions are in full effect since we have transferred sovereignty with the blessing of the UN Security Council. If the Geneva Conventions did apply, I think they would provide a basis for arguing that the surge is not only tactically a good idea, but is in line with the responsibilities of an occupying power under the conventions.
I’ve just sort of inferred that more from things I haven’t read than from anything affirmative I have seen. Also – I remain unclear as to whether the US is an actual party to every provision of the conventions or if we have only ratified them in part. When this was in the news, I found that the particulars were either not discussed with much clarity or discussed in a tedious surfeit of detail. Would be happy to check out any link you might have that discusses the conventions cogently and succinctly.
No problem, Darryl. I know what it’s like to get lost amid a number of open windows.
Hell, I know what it’s like to get lost trying to eat a donut. But that I blame on the ketamine.
What’s that?
tap. tap. This thing on?
There’s something happening in Iraq? Why haven’t I been told? I watch the news: there’s a love triangle with some woman in diapers; a dead large-busted blond; a couple of Edwardian constructs being refurbished; a buried upstate New York; and the trial of a lawyer who can’t recall when he told someone about something that wasn’t known to anyone except everyone in DC – I don’t see anything well, … important … like an offensive in that QUAGMIRE.
Damn. You’d think someone would let us know.
B Moe,
I’m still asking for clarification of whether you meant the women and children or Al Qaeda when you said “their problem.” I don’t think it’s clear from what you wrote, though it appears that you are referring to the women and children.
Still getting back at your “Country Club Republican” parents, huh?
Still calling us soldiers baby-killers, huh?
Grow up you spoiled shit!
TW: because87 I said so!
Happyfeet,
Does that mean that you don’t think the U.S. is under any obligation to follow the Geneva Conventions in Iraq? And if you don’t think they are under a legal obligation, do you think that they are morally obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions?
What the hell is the point? You’ve always considered us baby-killers. You’ve never considered us anything else.
You’ve never stopped rebelling against your “Country Club Republican Daddy” and you associated him with the Bush administration.
Stop being a pussy and insinuating we are baby-killers and just call us baby-killers, pussy.
Gray,
I’m not seeing a correlation between my alleged desire to get back at my “country club Republican” parents and the U.S. dropping bombs on civilians in Iraq.
Gray,
I have no evidence that you have ever killed a baby, so I don’t know why I would call you a baby killer.
We are following it not just to the letter, but far and beyond what it calls for. You’re not familiar with it, you’ve never read it and you know fuck-all about The Law of Land Warfare.
–No uniform? No ID? You’re not a legal combatant under the GC. Bang!
“–No uniform? No ID? You’re not a legal combatant under the GC. Bang!”
Gray,
Does that apply to civilians as well?
Except that we don’t target civilians. EVER!
But you’d like to believe we do to satisfy your previously admitted desire to “overcome your unfortunate raising by Country Club Republicans who used racist language.”
I’m in the military. You’ve insinuated that we purposely kill babies in your posts on this thread.
C’mon, call me a baby-killer instead of weaseling around.
Steve. I’m going to take a risk. Two risks. One is feeding the troll, and the other is telling you what you already know but hope we don’t.
According to the GC, when a force takes up positions among protected parties (civilians), casualties among the protected parties as a result of combat are the responsibility of the force which chose to fight from among the protected parties. Not the force which is fighting against the assholes who depend on US morality to protect them. The other side wouldn’t hesitate a minute, which is why they don’t use human shields in fighting with each other. In fact, in Iraq the primary targets of the assholes are civilians Only western armies are inclined to give civilians a break (see ROE), which is useful to the assholes.
The assholes know that getting civilians killed in contradiction the GC on the matter is good. Because guys like you eat it up and think it’s great fodder. You demand dead civilians for use in your political games. The assholes provide them.
You ever think that making civilians killed by the US because they were used as human shields worth their weight in gold INCREASES the number of such casualties? Well, you may not admit it, but normal people know exactly what’s going on.
As Saddaam discovered during the sanctions, dead babies were valuable, so dead babies were provided. The more, the merrier, for a certain kind of western “thinker”.
I recall being in El Salvador in 1987 with a bunch of peace activists. We discovered that the death squads had given up their nasty work. The professionally incredibly wonderful among us were devastated.
Now this, and you. Some things never change.
Of fucking course not you shit! You have to be a combatant (as stated in my answer, you shit!) in order to determine your status as a legal or illegal combatant under the Geneva Convention.
However, we actually don’t execute illegal combatants in this war, we arrest them and turn them over to the IP, or send them to GITMO.
The Iraqi Army were legal combatants under the GC and as you recall, you shit, we took them in as POW’s fed them and then repatriated them.
Now c’mon, call me a baby-killer, puss.
Steve x^2,
You’ve obviously got something in mind, so just spring it.
As you know the subject of Geneva conventions is complicated and the basis of numerous recent court cases as to just how to interpret 50 year old treaties with a variety of parties, some signatories, others not; and all about war with uniformed state actors.
Modern interpretation (Jeff’s realm here : ) of intent of the conventions when applied to non-state actors and non-uniformed combatants is very far from clear.
As such, you have to be a bit more specific because what you might mean, others might reasonably not infer from the phrase: “follow the Geneva conventions.”
If you are referencing the deaths of civilians, surely you know U.S. policy and practice is to avoid with all reasonable efforts the deaths of civilians in combat zones. That does not mean let the enemy get away, or not to target suspected enemy strongholds.
Gray,
Whether or not civilians are targeted, they are going to be killed when bombs are dropped on villages. Apparently you are asking me to blame the bomber pilots for this instead of the Bush Administration, but generally I think that those under orders are not the ones responsible for the aftermath of what they had to do under orders.
So you don’t support the major finding of the Nuremburg Trials that “just following orders” is no excuse.
But of course you blame Bush, you associated him with your admitted “Country Club Republican Father” whom you are still rebelling against.
I’d like to meet your ol’ man, I’ll bet I’d like him…. I’d like to meet you too and see if you fit the fur-faced sandal wearing image I have in my head….
Got, that is really sick….
It is drummed into the head of every soldier, from Private to General Officer that it is your individual duty to disobey an order illegal under the Laws of Land Warfare. We have classes in that and JAG lawyers advising commanders.
Every Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman knows he can be held individually accountable for obeying an illegal order, you shit!
TW: We are trained to disobey an illegal order76!
Guys,
I am really just trying to get you to say or not say whether the U.S. is obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. The reason that I am doing this is that I would like you to be on record with it, for future generations when blogs like this can be searched by your offspring and they will know what their mother or father believed at the time. In my opinion, history will not look kindly upon anyone who tries to say that we are not bound or morally obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions. I imagine that, deep down, most of you have some sense of this. If not, why not just go on record for posterity? There is no trap. No quoting of the Geneva Conventions waiting after you say this. I’ll let the statement stand by itself. I promise. In fact, I’ll make this post my last on this thread and won’t even look at your replies. We can leave that to the search engines of the future.
Of course we are obligated!
WE ARE, IN FACT OF LAW, FOLLOWING, AND HAVE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS IN IRAQ!
Dumbass!
I’m the dumbass. Why did I even bother to reply?
I should have known he would just scamper off like the pussy he is….
Gray,
Sometimes trolls get under the skin. It happens. A good disinfectant can cure that persistent itch.
sx2 – I thought I was clear that I’m not clear as to the extent to which the conventions govern US forces in Iraq. John is I think a helpful voice in this discussion, raising the issue of non-uniformed combatants. Moreover, the sovereignty that Iraq has assumed makes it unclear whether or not the the US is still operating in the capacity the conventions govern. I’m kind of looking into that, but it looks to be taking more time than I am willing to spend on it in my one God-given life.
To answer your other question about the “moral obligation” of the US to follow the Geneva Conventions. Do you really think moral obligations can be codified in a way that they could adequately encompass the situation in Iraq? That seems naive. I would think that if you are seeking to make a case that the US is not fulfilling its mission in Iraq in a moral way, you would be better served making your case in such a way that its persuasive force was not dependent on a legalistic appeal to a piece of text.
Yeah. I’m like Charlie Brown with Lucy holding the football.
I think “This time the ball won’t get yanked away!”
Goddamnit. Americans a damned sight better than Steve the Shit are getting killed trying to protect civilians and follow the restrictive ROE!
Are you going to let your offspring read this thread so they will know their old man is either a dishonest sack of shit or an illiterate idiot?
You don’t want them to loathe you, do you?
Come on steve, break the cycle.
Yep.
And that Arkin fellow writes that our guys “ought to be thankful” and to shut-up about their opinions on the progress and support. Damn mercenaries.
While everyone has an opinion, and some voice theirs; it doesn’t stop me from getting pretty damn ticked. If only I was a good a fascist as they make us -wingers out to be. Problem is, I believe in this stuff, ‘specially that legalistic piece of text, ya know – the Constitution. They don’t write ‘em like that any more.
sx2 – according to UN Res. 1546, the Multinational Forces remain committed to the obligations addressed by the Geneva Conventions:
Let posterity record that it is so, and that we who have collected here concur with the signer, one Colin L. Powell, in all intents and purposes, and that we find such happy circumstance to be Right and Just.
Hear Hear!
So, … How’re those Edwards womyn doing?
Time to retire.
Shorter version of an earlier post that didn’t take.
Steve. Here’s something you know but are clearly hoping the rest of us don’t.
The GC states that when a force takes up positions among civilians, the resulting casualties are their responsibility. Not that of the opposing force.
The assholes are deliberately drawing fire onto civilians to make our people hesitate and to give you dead civilians for political use. You both–you and the assholes–know how the dance goes.
Not only are we obligated, we are following the provisions of the Geneva Convention, stevexxp.
Now two questions for you:
Are you asking this question of Al Quaeda, JAM, and other terrorist groups in Iraq?
If not, why are you giving those responsible for the civilian deaths a free pass?
For the record, folks, I do not expect the weasel known as “steve ex-ex-pat” to answer. He is an arrogant, obtuse, willfully stupid asshole with delusions of logic with no interest in honest discourse.
In the meantime, more terrorists are dying. This is good news, even if our misplaced New Zealand tourist is too busy trying to fling poo in his attempt to sound intelligent.
I am really just trying to get you to say or not say whether the U.S. is obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions in Iraq.
I’m not entirely convinced that our forces are under any obligation to follow the Conventions, as the enemy is not a signatory power.
That said, it’s clear that from the top down, our forces are conducting themselves pretty damn well, even to the point of extending to illegal combattants rights not demanded by the Conventions. Were I in command, I would not have gone so far towards lenience.
So, blow it out your ass, S-x-x.
I think you’re right, Gray.
This would also help explain why trolls change their blog handles so often. Because they’re ashamed of the lies they write here.
steve the ghoul wrote
Odd how you were the one who started invoking the Geneva Conventions… and never provided a single quote. Not even an oh-so-clever out-of-context one.
The US is abiding by the Geneva Conventions. The jihadis aren’t. The left, by claiming the US is violating the Conventions while ignoring the constant violations committed by the jihadis, is aiding and abetting war criminals.
Among the war crimes committed by the jihadis:
o Hiding and housing combatants and arms among protected persons and sites.
o False surrender.
o Purposefully targeting civilians.
o Failure to wear distinguishing uniforms or insignia.
o Failure to openly carry arms.
o Abuse and murder of prisoners as policy, with no punishment for those involved.
o Use of ambulances as military transport.
o Making false claims of war crimes.
How much effort has the left put into exposing and punishing these crimes? None, as far as I can see. Far from it—the left has excused or assisted every one of these crimes.
And, frankly, if my children someday read these words, I hope I’ve raised them with enough sense to dig into the Geneva Conventions and the news reports and find out for themselves that what I’ve listed is true.
Stupidest. Fucking. Question.
Ever.
And the reactionary leftist runs off like the pussy she is.
JPS – Afghanistan will pull itself together. Their troubles come from Pakistan. AQ and Talib (not my old friends in the HIG – they aren’t around much anymore) cross over the border… the Afghans are pretty much tired of killing each other.
Eventually the ANA will be in shape to hold the border and that will be that for a large NATO involvement. I must admit a small amount of glee watching the Germans, et al squirm and evade their NATO comitments for real. But then I think about the Brits and Canadians and get serious again.
Might get a chance to go back, probably next year, late – I’ll let you know, on scene, if I do.
SXXP wants to fly this blog into a skyscraper. He’d have less success if people here would stop responding to his trolling.
Major John–Thanks for responding, sir. It’s interesting to read your perspective, and your optimism is heartening.
THREAD WINNER!
The arguement that we are targeting civilians is bullshit on it’s face.
All the terrorists are, by definition, civilians. They aren’t in a militaty, don’t have uniforms, and live with the population.
How can anyone even know that “innocent” civilians were killed in any US airstrike? Even if ten women, and six kids were killed, who’s to say they are innocent? The kids could be lookouts/scouts for the operators. The women could be spys/material suppliers for the operators. Any of them could be future suicide bombers, as kids and women have been in the past.
In past wars (WWII being the prime example), whole cities have been leveled, with tens of thousands of “real” civilian deaths, not to kill combatants, but to stop the production of enemy war material. Things like ball bearing plants and refineries.
To say the US is acting immorally in our actions in Iraq is so stunningly ignorant it’s implausable. The real reason for the charge is simply enemy propaganda.
Brought to us by someone that adds a few “ex’s” to patriot in his handle.
JPS – I wouldn’t say “optimism”. It’s going to take a while, but they will manage. Lot of blood and struggle in the meantime.
Afghans have better material to work with than the Iraqis, as far as troops go. But in the end, the IA may end up tougher than the ANA…bigger budget, heh heh.
Major John:
Yes, sir, and I didn’t mean to mischaracterize your comment. I sadly assume lots of blood and struggle no matter what the outcome proves to be. I hope that at the very least the outcome is some decent order over there. In that context I find your comments encouraging.
[This may be neither here nor there, but as it is just possible that I’ll be headed over there myself, perhaps around the time you mention, I have been receiving many articles from concerned family and friends, whose reaction is, roughly: “Wow–things there are shakier than I realized.”]