Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 221 To 230 Of 246 Comments
KARBALA ATTACK: "A VERY DISTURBING DAY"
"Why continue to try and enrich uranium when they know they’re going to get hit? "
Well, either because they want to generate power with it (you must surely admit that they are allowed to do so), or as a national prestige within the boundaries of international law thing, or because they want go to a threshold nuclear status.
Possibly. Or not. Either way there is zero evidence that they are trying to do anything that doesn't match with their stated goal of generating power.
"If not by us then certainly by Israel. "
I think that they might be hoping that if Israel does it then Iraq would fall to them. I think they are in for a nasty surprise if they think that but hey, everyone has their delusions. To be honest I think they’ve got themselves stuck up a tree with their nuclear program where they can’t back down but they are not really sure why they are bothering anymore. I suspect that if the right offer came on the table they’d back down in a heartbeat with great sighs of relief, but they can’t do that unless they can point to the deal and say “We have come out of this unbowedâ€.
"For instance, how did the group penetrate security? That’s something the US doesn’t want out there but my guess would be that their English was very, very good or our guys were very, very lax."
Good English is pretty common out there, as it is everywhere. I would imagine this goes double for ex Army spec forces types given their two big enemies (Iran and US). And, given the way things seem to be over there I'd say the security from Iraqi guards is pretty lax. They have probably got used to waving US patrols through without looking too closely. I doubt the GIs would react very well to, say, an Iraqi patrol pointing guns at them and demanding to see their papers. I equally doubt that GIs are slowing down and showing their papers to every Iraqi who has managed to get hold of an army uniform and a gun. That would be suicidal.
How they penetrated security in terms of kit? Plenty of US surplus in the world, lots of poor Iraqis with access, plenty of moles in the Iraqi Army / Police. That strikes me as the easy bit.
I admit that the brazenness is pretty shocking, but they'd probably tried the op without the bang (Just drive around dressed as US forces) beforehand and knew that it had a good chance of working.
"As for your theory about insurgent special forces, it is an intruiging possibility but doesn’t explain their making for the Iranian border."
I am not privy to sources, of course, but Karbala is bang in the middle of the country isn't it? I mean Babil is to the right of it so they would have been heading towards Iran, but they could also have been heading for Bagdhad via the Southern route or just about any other little dusty hellhole to hide out in. It seems a stretch to say they were headed for Iran when they hadn't even crossed the Tigris. Not that I'm saying they weren't, it just seems very little to make an accusation on.
"And I don’t buy the Iranians being put off by Bush bombing them. They think the US and Iran have been at war since 1979. The fact that we don’t recognize that fact is immaterial to them."
Well, maybe, I'll grant, but I am always concerned by the "They're mad and they don't care about themselves" idea. Nation-states usually have at least a strategic goal when they do things this dangerous, even if that goal is nuts. I just can’t see what the goal would be. A few dead GIs unattributed seems pretty worthless, kidnap would result in a lot of flat Iranian sites (Bush ain’t Carter, you have to say that for him). It just seems pointless. As an Iranian, what would you do with 4 kidnapped GIs and a US administration that is just itching for an excuse to bomb you to bits?
"Also, they could be reading the Washington Post or New York Times in Tehran where it has been reported that Congressional leaders have warned Bush not to take action against Iran without coming through them first."
Well, if it were my country I'd like to see some democratic oversight about committing the nation to war myself, but it isn't, and my lot don't have to either so I can't talk.
"Or, they could simply care less about the bombing. After all, the leadership will be safe. If the people suffer, well that’s just the cost of war."
Again, maybe, but it strikes me that, at least Mr Ahmadenijhad would be concerned for his neck. I mean, he couldn't be loopy enough to think that blatantly starting a war with the US will improve his popularity can he? I suspect that he thinks that if the US attacks and he can cry "What did we do? the monsters are just trying to invade another innocent nation. Death to the Imperialist aggressors!" he will get more grassroot support, but if he kicks it all off in such a direct manner, that won't wash with either the people or the senior clerics.
"The Qods Force is extremely well organized and well trained. I have no way of knowing but I agree with Roggio – an Iranian operation."
I can't persuade you into a more agnostic "I don't know and won't draw any conclusions at this stage with the negligible evidence to hand" stance then?
This sort of thing goes from guesswork to established fact awfully fast these days with little more than people sticking to their original position. Without evidence it just seems a very dangerous conclusion to make that could have grave effects on the lives of many thousands of people. At the moment the evidence seems to be “They were heading vaguely in the direction of the Iranian border and it looked very well organisedâ€.
Sure, when there is some reliable evidence, shift ground as it dictates, but for now surely we should be reserving judgement.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.01.2007 @ 11:09
"My sources agreed this is far to sophisticated an operation for the Mahdi Army or Badr Corps, while al-Qaeda in Iraq would have a difficult time mounting such an operation in the Shia south."
How hard would it have been for Former Iraqi army special forces members, acting as part of the nationalist insurgency, to have carried out?
For them this would have been a bit of a coup, for the Iranians it would be entirely insane. After all, if it failed and you were left with Iranian special forces in custody, the bombs would start falling on Iran in short order wouldn't they? I somehow doubt that the Iranians are willing to risk that as part of some quirky hostage scheme to recover their diplomats, particularly when they would know that Mr.Bush would never give in to such demands.
On the other hand, ex-Iraqi army special forces member would be easily capable of doing something like this with just a little logistical support and they would consider it a very successful operation, since their plan is to make the US forces feel isolated and volnerable.
So, I propose an alternative theory. It was Ex-Iraqi army special forces engaged in a bit of very well done subterfuge. The reports of Iranian influence from anonymous sources can be explained by the obvious ramping up of war rhetoric towards Iran.
Your alternative requires an explaination for why the Iranians would want to risk the US bombing the hell out of their country for a few strategically meaningless captives.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.01.2007 @ 09:15
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: OPPOSE THE BIDEN RESOLUTION
"The anti-war people are spoiled brats who cannot face reality. Whether you like the way we entered the war or not is of no consequence."
Neither are protestations of "We have to win" or "Losing will be a disaster, so we must fight on".
Al that maters is the US military's ability to impose stability on Iraq. The evidence seems to show that they have almost no ability to achieve stability, and that any operations to improve stability result in the opposite.
Sorry to say it but this surge is a pointless gesture.
What is more the "Support the generals" thing is getting a little old. The generals were saying "No surge please" until they were fired and replaced by someone who would say "Sir, yes sir".
Comment Posted By Drongo On 26.01.2007 @ 02:25
WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND
"We have to know the extent of Iranian participation in the Iraqi insurgency. And we have to get proof of it, if it exists. A consulate raid is likely to reveal that proof. Yes, reminders of 1979 Tehran will do fine."
The problem there is that no-one will believe anything released as a result of the raid. It is perfectly possible for the US to mock up anything that they want to say, so even genuine intel will be disregarded.
But, let's be honest, they aren't going to do that either. At best we will get a watered down, paraphrased version of events.
Of course, if there isn't any evidence, we will get the standard "Too secret to release but it is leading to some big operations". Or maybe that would mean they really were keeping the intel close to their breast.
Either way we'll never know. You can't trust what US intel people say for public consumption and you can't trust the Iranians.
All you know for sure is that you've pissed off the Kurds.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.01.2007 @ 09:46
"The Sunnis had their chance, it is time to crush them."
Unless by "crush" you mean "exterminate", it won't work. Fallujah should demonstrate that quite amply.
Are you really willing to exterminate the Sunnis in Iraq?
What then to do about the Sadrists? Exterminate them as well? Leaving Iranian backed SCRI in charge?
Bleak though it may sound, these are the sort of choices faced now.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 8.01.2007 @ 15:26
BRING ME THE HEAD OF JAMIL HUSSEIN
"That isn’t how one discusses what is true or false. Something is true or false, it doesn’t matter how serious it is."
1) A serious road accident killed 3 people on the roads in my county yesterday (it didn't, it is an illustrative point). I offer this as information, draw conclusions on road safety as you will.
2) As a result of the thousands of child murders that occur each day in my county (they don't, just another illustrative point). I, as an agent of the government, propose that we should imprison all males between the ages of 20 and 40 who have had any suspicions raised against them to ensure the safety of our children.
The two statements make truth claims, but one is obviously a matter for more serious consideration than the other.
Philosophically, we should be concerned about truth, of course, but practicaly some truth claims are more important than others.
"Every day the same violence in Iraq happens in New York, Los Angeles, but in sheer ignorance those commentors turn away."
Really? I don't remember stories about car bombings, mass killings, abductions of entire faculty staffs and almost constant assasination attempts against government officials in New York.
I didn't know it was such a violent place. Glad I don't live there.
"Perhaps if unremitting negativity with NO real support of the republican admnistration or the military were alleviated by something that were not so one sided right from the beginning we would have a different result now."
Oh, don't be ridiculous. The Bush admin got to run this war the way they wanted from the start. I doubt that even a competent group could have successfully run it and eneded up with anything very different from where it is now, but that lot? Honestly? You think the reason that they failed is the media?
Come on...
Comment Posted By Drongo On 7.01.2007 @ 20:06
"As I’ve said countless times, even if every story Hussein was a source on proves false, it doesn’t change the reality of what’s happening in Iraq. How many times do I have to say that before people stop throwing it up in my face as a strawman?"
I actually think that you are a rather different case. You do seem perfectly happy to question the right as well as the left. In your case it is a strawman. In the case of Malkin et al, it is not.
"I also find it humorous that the same people who questioned pre-war intel because of no confirmation from outside sources (though technically the yellowcake nonsense was cooked up by the Italians) would then attack the right blogosphere for questioning the AP when there was no proof of specific incidents except for Jamil, who they couldn’t prove existed."
Hmm.
In the one case they were presenting a case for blowing up a country and killing thousands of people. They deliberately and mandaciously created intelligence out of thin air and repressed the evidence that they didn't like.
In the other you havea news agency without any proposals or requirement to persuade anyone to do anything (as far as I can tell, if AP is suggesting a course of action, please enlighten me).
One is a *tad* more serious than the other, don't you think?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 7.01.2007 @ 11:59
"But the Jamil Hussein story is different. Here is someone who, although not an authorized spokesman for the Iraqi government, has been used as a sole source on dozens of stories involving the worst of the war’s violence; sectarian massacres, blood curdling murders, and police or army collusion in the violence. And questioning the judgement of the stable of AP reporters in Iraq who have used Hussein as a sole source these many months – despite his distance from most of the incidents among other problems – would seem to me to be a reasonable and responsible way to hold AP to standards they themselves have set."
I couldn't agree with you more. Single sourcing stories in a war zone, while it may be the best that can be done, (and of course, since then they have provided other interviews to back up their story so it is no longer strictly single sources) is inherently unreliable.
AP, by telling you that their story was single sourced, by IDing the source (albeit cautiously), are teling you that the reliability of the story is not 100%.
However, the hysteria about this one AP source is not, at heart, about media reliability. It is about painting your opponents (or perceived opponents) as unreiable. If you wish to demonstrate that Malkin is more interested in press reliability than promoting her agenda, prehaps you would like to point to examples of her group of truth-seekers aggressively investigating claims that were anti-muslim, pro-Israel, anti-Hizbullah, pro-Republican or pro-Bush in any detail to expose them as falsehoods.
I'm not a betting man, but I'd imagine that you'd have some trouble.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 7.01.2007 @ 03:51
"If they can’t corroborate, they shouldn’t print. It’s that simple."
Ahh, would that such a respectable attitude was taken by our governments in their intelligence reports to the public. Then we might not be in the godawful mess.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 6.01.2007 @ 05:26
"What a horribly nihilistic and cynical attitude to take. There is quite a bit of violence in Iraq, however to reduce such stories to din and believe whatever story you hear because ‘it doesn’t surprise you’ makes you a spineless dolt."
I didn't say whether I believed it. In fact, in such a cloudy situation, I think that belief is the wrong attitude to take.
"To regurgitate cocktail party bile as ‘hundred drilled bodies being found every day or so’ doesn’t make you sound informed. It makes you sound like a bigot."
What? Are you honestly unaware that there are a hundred or so bodies found in Bagdhad every couple of days? Are you unaware that they routinely show signs of torture?
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=166434&Sn=WORL&IssueID=29291
I don't claim this as absoulte accuracy either, but it is consistent with UN and BBC sources on total civilian casualties.
Were you honestly unaware of this going on?
"You are no different than a person who assumes all black people have a predilection to commit crime because you read about many crimes committed by black people in the newspaper."
What on Earth are you talking about? The bodies in Bagdhad aren't exactly new or controversial, they are factual and obvious. The standard marks of the sectarian killings are drilled knees and burns. Only someone who was paying very little attention could miss them, surely?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 6.01.2007 @ 05:25
