Iraqi villagers kill 5 insurgents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1295847.htm

Last Update: Friday, February 4, 2005. 11:27am (AEDT)

By Middle East correspondent Mark Willacy


The residents of a small Iraqi village have killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting in last weekend's national elections.

Several other insurgents were also wounded.

The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.

The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.

The insurgents' cars were then set alight.

Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.

Since this is so brief, I dunno how the mods will take it.

The story sounds like propaganda and/or bullshit, but I'm willing to
be convinced, it might just be somewhat embroidered truth.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or something...

:)

:D

You and the original poster. Tag-team propaganda ! It's an art form...really.

Iraqis against Iraqis.

vigilantism is never good

an excuse to stay over there, to keep the peace. This sounds way too much like propaganda to me, and look at what news source it came from...plleeeeezzze.

No, they are definitely not.

I hope everybody realizes that. Aren't they like BBC?

Once the Iraqis are taking care of their own security situation, a LARGE part of Bush's excuse to be there evaporates.

The sooner the Iraqis themselves can defend themselves, the better off EVERYBODY will be.

and US will need to stay to keep the peace.

OMFG, I'm starting to think like them!:scared:

Its like having ganglia grow into the inner reaches of my brain, leaving me with discomfort and a 103 degree fever.

vigilantism is another; it lays the groundwork for civil war

they came back with machineguns to deliver coffee?

If somebody says "Do this and I will kill you" and you do it anyway, and they come back in force and with guns, what would a reasonable person think they were there for?

Why should the people have assumed that they were there for some positive reason? And if the Klan came to your house, said "don't vote or we'll kill you" and you did, and then they came back, would you ASSUME that they didn't mean you harm? I sure as hell wouldn't...I'd shoot first and ask questions later, and the law here would say it's legal.

period

isn't credible either?

I guess Iraq really HAS turned into a paradise then.

</sarcasm>

I am talking about THE ARTICLE THAT IS THE SUBJECT.

The Iraqis can defend their own country if need be. That's what I'd like to hope.

or part of a burgeoning civil war?

this "article" explains none of the details necessary to know the difference; it smacks of simple propaganda.

Lets people draw their own conclusions based on personal bias.

:eyes: Sounds like vigilantism and vandalism to me. Did they destroy evidence? :shrug:

to hit the insurgents where it might hurt them more; in the pocketbook. Loosing bodies don't hurt them too much, they send people out on suicide missions often. Loosing cars and weapons may hurt them worse.

but when five guys come to kill you and you kill them instead, that's not vigilanteism, that's SELF-DEFENSE.

Would you rather that the people who voted just allow themselves to be killed?

If it was your ass on the line, I HOPE you wouldn't be so quick to say that the innocent people should have just let themselves be killed...

Just because something is good for Bush does NOT mean that it's automatically bad, just as something that is bad for Bush is NOT automatically good. For example, if the rape rates in the US skyrocketed in the US under Bush's administration, would you be cheering it?????

THINK before typing, people...

I smell PROPAGANDA

the part which gives us more of a reason to be able to pull our troops the hell OUT of Iraq???

but provide NO NAMES

WHY NOT JUST PAINT HUGE FUCKING BULLS-EYES ON THEIR BACKS!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Do you think there were only 5 insurgents in Iraq?????

of ANYONE or ANY WITNESSES. There were PLENTY when the people were hauled onto the BRIDGE.

somehow, I think the surviving insurgents, who operate in a terroristic manner, might be HIGHLY interested in who was there. I'm sure that they'd question them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, don't you agree?

Life in the US is generally seen as far more civilized than life in Iraq is right now, what with the insurgencies and beheadings and all, correct? Yet how much trouble do we have getting witnesses to come forward HERE in cases involving, say, gang violence?

and as far as it "HELPING BUSH" - that bastard created the situation that enables all kinds of killing to go on - he's a warmongering piece of SHIT.

but if you automatically disbelieve anything that might be good for him just because it helps him, you're gonna spend a fortune on aluminum foil for your haberdashery....

don't buy into the propaganda PLEASE; we've already got half the voters doing that. That smarmy fascist thug CAUSED THIS QUAGMIRE - and stuff like suspicious stories aobut Iraqi civilians taking revenge should NOT "HELP" him.

because the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves while actually establishing a Democracy, it'll appear to be a "win" for him in the history books.

I'm not happy we're there. But at the same time, I don't want to see Iraq end up with the insurgents winning, and being able to do what they want when and where they want within Iraq. Just because the insurgents are anti-American does NOT mean that they are nice people. They aren't. They're murderous scum that are deliberately targeting the Iraqi people. If they were truly "freedom fighters", they'd be attacking MILITARY targets only, not civilian targets. If the decent people in Iraq (which I believe is a LARGE majority of the people there) stand up for themselves and refuse to allow terrorists to act at will, that's a GOOD thing.

The sooner Iraq is stabilized, the sooner we can get our people the hell OUT. And a stable, democratic Iraq is the best-case scenario we could achieve. The Iraqi people stepped up to the plate during the election. They voted despite real, credible threats of death if they did so. THEIR lives are on the line, far more so than the USGIs there, because they are relatively "soft" targets. So when the insurgents threaten to kill them and they kill the insurgents instead, that's a positive thing considering what the other outcomes could be.

There are some on this board who actually have said "I support the insurgents" because they're partially fighting the US occupation. Don't ask for a link, the mods pulled the entire thread, but one long-term poster who shall remain nameless actually said that. These people are misguided, and do far more harm to the cause of getting our people out than they do good. As long as Bush is in office and there's a real insurgency going on, our troops will NOT come home. And isn't bringing the troops home our real objective? Or is our objective rather to just bash Bush on general principles, regardless of how much it hurts ALL of us? If you're one of the "Support our troops by bringing them home" crowd, I don't see HOW you CAN NOT hope for Iraq to be stabilized quickly.

And later on we have that video tape that kills everyone who watches it in a network exclusive. Watch it live at 10.

NT!

...to put forth an image of an errupting civil war that we would need to be around to quell. Classic imperialist strategy, and they own the networks.

"voting" in a fraudulent election.

It's so incomplete, anyone can believe it means anything they would be predisposed to thinking.

They didn't go after anyone, they were defending themselves against an attack.

.. those people came with murder in their hearts, and if they weren't killed, they would have been doing some killing of their own.

This was self defense, not revenge.

Heyo

how do you KNOW that's what happened? How do you know they weren't killed for other reasons? The article leaves much to speculation.

to satisfy your political agenda. What part of "The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election." do you not understand?

there's no dates, times, names; the source is dubious - come on

are the ones in the article.

Do you have some information that says that the people involved were NOT insurgents who had warned them not to vote, and then came back to punish people who did vote? If so, I'd love to see it.

We had people like this in the US in the South in the 1950's and '60s. People who didn't want people to vote, and who tried to intimidate them into not voting. If five of them had gotten their asses shot while on a retribution raid against people who voted anyway, you'd be with me in cheering at what happened to them.

Attempting to disenfranchise people, regardless of the reasons behind it, is an inherently EVIL thing IN AND OF ITSELF. It doesn't matter what uniform they wear, or what cause they support.

nt

the ones reported in the article. Based upon THOSE facts, which are the ONLY facts we have "in hand", you wouldn't support their act of self-defense?

nt

than no source at all.

Now if you had a source that said something different actually happened there, the credibility of BOTH sources would be at issue. But with only one source, you have to go with what you've got unless it's something like Newsmax.

you believe what you want to believe

theres lots more sources w/the same story. Doesnt make it true but...

Just because it was printed does not make it a fact. It lacks most of the things that would verify the CLAIMS in the article as fact. :eyes:

IMHO if it were gospel truth I have no problem with these people fighting against people who threatened them. They are IMO already in a civil war. On the other hand this story sounds like bullshit and it never bothered to back up that bullshit with good journalism.

but if you're trying to say it did NOT happen, or that something ELSE happened, when obviously there's an Iraqi police report out there saying it DID happen, you should have SOMETHING other than blind hatred of Bush to back it up, yes?

Imagine that you're a scientist, and somebody offers up a theory you don't like. Would you try to disprove the theory by shouting "Nuh-uh!!!" or would you offer some form of EVIDENCE to back up your assertation?

lost cause

"and you sound like someone who would sacrifice innocent people to satisfy your political agenda."

This whole WAR is a sacrifice of innocent people to satisfy a political agenda.

Just saying. No offense intended to Heyo, just how it is.

nt

NT!

war of aggression which to date has killed over 1400 American men, women & teens and tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women, & kids???

:wow:

Label me naive! I knew some who CALL themselves Dems or progressives still support bush's invasion & occupation of a nation that hadn't been threatening anyone or doing anything to anyone, but as we all also know, they aren't really Dems or progressives (lieberman, Hell's Zell etc)

But a real progressive supporting this bullshit?????!! No f*cking way!

Exactly. No fucking way.

who is left to vote for in 2008?

You can tell me a duck quacked.

Maybe I didn't see the duck quack, maybe I didn't hear it.

But it's a duck, it probably quacked.

:dunce:

This was bound to happen sooner or later.

Heyo

vigilantism can be useful.

Best used when the official government is either unable or unwilling to act.

that the insurgents are not Iraqis necesarily, but are muslim extremists. Aren't they coming in from other countries as well? I'm not sure that would be anywhere in the realm of civil war.

NT!

Possibly, but I see it more as Iraqis taking their country back from Islamic fundamentalists.

Sounds like BS and the timing makes sound more like BS

it is unbelievable the conclusions people are jumping to

There is finaly some good news out of Iraq.

n/t

thanks

As one should be able to tell simply be reading the article. ;)

SHEESH

What the...???

Edited: yes, now I see...I'm not the "sheesh" target, lol!

Amazing what bullshit some supposed progressives take as gospel, isn't it.

nt

Turkey, Oman, and Lebanon.

have backups.

I just wish they at least attempted to use the non-existant judicial system.

yup, a restraining order sure as hell would have stopped those guys with machineguns from killing the voters...

of extensive probation.

that the "insurgents" wouldn't be attacking and killing people HAD WE NEVER INVADED IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And the reason for invading Iraq?

WMDs.

I rest my case.

Iraqis as members of Saddam's regime - what do you think all these guys were before the war? Where did all of Saddam's killers go? Freedom fighters mys ass - these are thugs trying to regain power before the Shia and the Kurds take their revenge.

...the worm turns.

Looks like some of the Iraqi people, or these particular folks at least, have had their fill of the insurgency.

Flame me if you want, but I think this rocks. Those people did not come to bring flowers and congratulate them.

Heyo

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING I READ. GOT THAT??????????????

WHY DO I SEND PACKAGE AFTER PACKAGE OF BABY CLOTHES AND TOYS TO THE SOLDIERS TO GIVE TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ IF I DON"T CARE ABOUT TEHM???

YOU ARE F***ING INSULTING BEYOND BELIEF.

I simply do NOT think that the sickening results of a f***ing SENSELESS QUAGMIRE is "GOOD NEWS" and neither do I believe that sowing the seeds for CIVIL WAR is "good news". THINK before you spout such UTTER NONSENSE.

I really do not care for that black-white mindset, regardless what side of the political aisle it comes from.

Glad you're able to read my "sick" mind for me.

:eyes:

shit.

All being rolled out to support the Bush propaganda election. If there were people killed, the true story will be much different. Either killed by U.S. forces, or some kind of family or tribal vendetta that has nothing to do with the "elections". The details are suspiciously scant.

On edit - I seem to recall these kinds of stories from Viet Nam days too. In fact, I think John Wayne did a movie about it.

and got lots of hits. same story pretty much. make of that what you will.

Nothing like this story though. How about giving half a dozen or so links for those of us who are inefficient googlers?

On edit - There was a reference to it on a trascript from an Australian radio station, quoting the same fellow. It sounded vague there as well:

"MARK WILLACY: That's right, Tony. The Iraqi police have investigated a case in the village of al-Mudhariya, which is just south of Baghdad. The villagers there say that before the election insurgents came and warned them that if they voted in last weekend's election, they would pay.

Now the people of this mixed village of Sunni and Shia Muslims, they ignored the threat and they did turn out to vote.

We understand that last night the insurgents came back to punish the people of al-Mudhariya, but instead of metering out that punishment the villagers fought back and they killed five of the insurgents and wounded eight. They then burnt the insurgents' car. So the people of that village have certainly had enough of the insurgents."


Also, a vague reference in a South African site:

"In a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers of Al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who attacked them for taking part in the elections, police said."

Personally, I will need more substantive details, names, interviews, etc. We have been burnt too many times by Jessica Lynch type stories.

But Ok
http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050203182247.jsa6f3qg.xml

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1657158,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1469954,00.html

There theres three. maybe those sources suck too but its 3 stories on 3 different websites. I merely brought it up. All were on the front page too.

Here is the Turkish reference:
In a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers of Al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who attacked them for taking part in the elections, police said.

Here is Times on-line:
But in a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers in al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting.

I think these journalists are just reading from a script at this point, a press release. Notice the sameness of the wording. I need something better than an echo chamber. If this is enough for you, I congratulate you on your lack of jadedness. Bush's lies have been too much for me.

were compendiums of the violence that happened since the SOTU address. I somehow don't think that the other stories of violence listed trouble your mind regarding the veracity of the reporting.

To me, the fact that they are included along with the rest of the body count makes it more, rather than less, credible.

This account is out of the ordinary, and fits in well with what might be expected by propaganda considerations. The others are run of the mill for the current situation. Therefore I prefer some verification that doesn't amount to repetition (word for word ) of the same story taken off the wire with no names or details.

Jessica Lynch's tale was repeated by lots of sources too.

all news stories to such skepticism.

Almost everybody over there supposedly has an AK-47 or variant, right? You think it's extraordinary that a bunch of people would actually defend themselves against people who were trying to kill them?

Does that mean that the entire insurgency is really just propaganda?

If you tell people with guns that you're going to kill them, you shouldn't be surprised when they shoot you. That strikes me as common sense, not extraordinary propaganda.

I haven't read any stories of villagers killing insurgents yet, although there may have been such accounts. So it is extraordinary in that sense. It has propaganda value in as much as it supports the idea that the general population is against the resistance and in favor of the occupation government and the recent elections - or at least that is how it will be played if there is a basis to the account. I would be very surprised if Bush and the right wing media didn't do so.

If the facts of the case are true, I wouldn't be surprised by villagers shooting back. Who wouldn't shoot back? I am not particularly romantic about the resistance. Movements like this generally attract plenty of opportunists.

I will admit to some ambivalence about the whole thing, but frankly I think if this works out for Bush he will go on to another invasion and eventually something catastrophic will happen. So, I tend to favor the resistance on those tactical grounds.

I am withholding judgment on this particular story until a better account (more than just the say so of an unnamed police official) comes along. Bush and unnamed Iraqi supporters have lied enough times during this invasion and occupation that I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. When anything sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

But I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I just prefer us all to be civil when we do disagree.

"I haven't read any stories of villagers killing insurgents yet, although there may have been such accounts."

of an incident where locals caught an insurgent "red-handed" trying to plant a bomb under a car. They beat the shit out of him on videotape, while he was pleading for mercy (no translation was necessary, you could tell by his posture/body language/facial expression what he was saying, and the bomb was right there). As for what happened to him eventually, I have no idea, but the locals on camera were indeed highly pissed. So I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think that the locals would respond with automatic weapons fire when people who had previously threatened their lives showed up.

I imagine there are all kinds of complications, especially given the ethnic and tribal cleavages. Some will support the occupation. Some will just be pissed at bombers that are inept enough to kill their own side. Plenty of shakedown artists and the like use the cover of political instability for their own purposes, and people get fed up with that. Political and economic instability always breed crime of all sorts. People get fed up with that too.

On this particular story, though, I need some independent corroboration. It has been framed as a "strike back at insurgents" story, so we deserve corroborating evidence.

I suppose the real evidence of how much popular support the resistance has will, as always, be measured in the numbers of American dead, as a resistance needs the support of the local population to succeed.

http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050203182247.jsa6f3qg.xml

"In a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers of Al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who attacked them for taking part in the elections, police said."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1657158,00.html
mentioned again

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1469954,00.html
mentioned again

http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/04/top17.htm
mentioned again

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=12385#
mentioned again

Apparently, the Iraqi police are telling reporters about it, and it's been widely picked up.

So far, this report has been picked up but not verified in any sense. Most of these are just rips from a wire service. I still reserve my judgment, until I see more corroborating details.

On edit: Just to clarify,
Dawn: In a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers of Al Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five guerillas who attacked them for taking part in the elections, police said.

Times on-line: But in a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers in al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting.

News24: In a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers of Al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who attacked them for taking part in the elections, police said.

and reporters picked it up.

What, pray tell, do you need for corroboration? If a bunch more insurgents come in and slaughter them, THEN will you believe it?

Corroboration of the story by several named sources (perhaps unnamed by the reporter, but with assurance that he or she has independently confirmed the report). Maybe some pictures, some interviews with witnesses or participants. At the minimum, the police spokesman has to have an identity. An unnamed police spokesman or press release just isn't enough. I don't think these are unreasonable standards. You probably wouldn't either, if this was a report from the U.S..

If there was a retaliatory attack that wouldn't be confirmation of the original report, but it would be circumstantial evidence. We still wouldn't know if the police report was true. For all we know the event had nothing to do with the election or insurgents - it could have had some other cause.

But if credible supporting evidence comes forth I would certainly change my view.

after all, fewer than 200 of them were killed this month by insurgents, right???

If it was a report from the US, you're right. But Iraq isn't the US. More cops were shot and killed in Iraq last MONTH than were shot and killed in the entire US last YEAR, and we have many times their population of both people and cops.

When the insurgents have labeled the police as collaborators and have said they all must die, somehow I don't think publicly outing their spokespeople is such a good idea.

Claims are being made that can't be verified. So we will just have to choose to believe them or not, based on our general sense of how reliable these unverified reports have been in the past.

Although it is possible that the AFP reporter patched together unrelated comments in order to create a false impression, on the surface it seems that the reporter made an effort to corroborate the story.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&click_id=2813&art_id=qw1107430203462B262&set_id=6

Is this an unimpeachable source? In April of 2003, Andrew North of the BBC told about a person known as Sheikh Abu Mohammed Sadiq al-Makiki, a.k.a. Sheikh Abu Mohammed.

A Shia cleric, Sheikh Abu Mohammed Sadiq al-Maliki, has recorded a message to Baghdad residents for broadcast around the city by US psychological-operations units.

"Go back to your jobs and stop stealing. It's against your religion, whether you're Shia or Sunni," he says.

The cleric has already helped US marines patrolling in eastern parts of the city, but he says he's not an American stooge. As soon as US forces have finished clearing out the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, Sheikh Abu Mohammed told the BBC, they should leave.

Some may be tempted to draw comparisons with Afghanistan, when US forces were similarly forced to work with local leaders who often had very specific agendas of their own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2943599.stm

That is sure to raise a few eyebrows. Personally, I am inclined to believe that both reports refer to the same Sheikh Abu Mohammed, and that he basically means what he says.

Guess the "liberal media" just don't wanna report the "good news".

by Islamic extremists."

Yeah, we know how they feel here in America after being threatened constantly by the "christian" fundie nuts here. They're all one and the same.

good for the Iraqis if the story is true. They are going to have to stand up for themselves one way or another. In this case I prefer to root for the common people of Iraq as oppossed to the insurgents.

nada:


No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - But in a rare case of civilians fighting back, villagers in al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting - did not match any documents.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=But+in+a+rare+case+of+civilians+fighting+back%2C+villagers+in+al-Mudhiryah%2C+south+of+Baghdad%2C+killed+five+insurgents+who+had+attacked+them+for+voting&btnG=Search

Wait...there we go! Turkey and S. Africa. Well heck yeah must be true then.

LOL!

Why is it you want the story to be false?

The need for some in this thread for this to be false is palpable.

Please show me where I said I "want the story to be false".

Thanks!

Are you claiming total objectivity on this though? Do you subject all news stories to such scrutiny?

Yes actually, I am claiming objectivity, for one because there's no such village in Iraq that I can find any mention of, for two, because it reads like propaganda (Shia calling "insurgents" "Islamic extremists"?), three, because this article appeared many hours ago yet it's not being picked up by MSM.

And yes, actually, I certainly do subject all news stories to such scrutiny; why don't you?

I have no problem with Iraqis defending themselves, be it against foreign army invaders & occupiers (that would be us) or against "Islamic etremist insurgents", but this particular article reads like total bullshit, imo.

That answer all your Qs?

you would notice that I haven't said much about this. I got into this thread because I decided to google the story after everyone roasting it. Oddly enough I got a bunch of hits. Took me about 6 seconds. Now since I know NOTHING of any of these media sources I decided not to comment. It was implied that I was wrong even though I provided the search criteria. So I posted links. You yourself basically accused the OP of being a Freeper. So I chimed in. Note that I prefaced all my statements with the comment that if this is true...blah blah blah. To me thats objectivity. Not blanket denials.

YOU asked ME a question; I didn't ask YOU. In fact, the only post I did to you was in reply to YOUR question to me.

All the "hits" refer back to the one same newsfeed. So far there is no backup of this one newsfeed, and this one newsfeed reads like propaganda. All your links lead back to the one same newsfeed. That's called an "echo chamber" and is useless in verifying anything.

No, I did not accuse the OP of being a freeper. A "search by author" is interesting, though.

You are inferring things. That's fine, but please don't accuse me of things you are inferring. Thanks. :)

You said he was a dreamer...or something. Perhaps you would care to clarify. As to to asking questions of you I humbly apologize.

I called him a dreamer or something. For his remark.

And should he wish me to clarify, I could try, but not sure how to make it more clear.

Feel free to ask me questions; I just prefer you don't make flat assertions that I said or meant or thought something, based on your inference. :)

Imagine if the whole event just never happened. The villagers were never threatened, and there was no attack and nobody was killed. The whole thing was just a fabrication, made up for propaganda purposes. I think that would be OK.

Another possibility is that some people were killed in this village by somebody and this is a convenient cover story. That is why verification is necessary.

All that being said, I will admit that I tend to prefer that the Iraqis don't give into the occupation psychology. For those who believe that Bush is bringing democracy to Iraq, I suppose that statement will be objectionable. I say it because I fear Bush will take success in Iraq (or the appearance of success) as a sign that he should go ahead with his next invasion, and the next if that goes well (or appears to). That will end in general catastrophe, I fear. I would prefer that his program be stopped in Iraq and it looks like the Iraqi resistance is the only group capable of doing this.

But, it doesn't really matter what any of us want, what will be will be.

I try not to post on threads like this because passions run high. Heck I am not even sure the story is true. IF its true then good for them because the Iraqis are going to have to stand on their own two feet eventually. And frankly this is one of those threads that make all of us look bad IMO.

Most of us are just debating current events and our responses to them. Sometimes that includes our assessment of the reliability of sources, which seems like a perfectly reasonable point to debate.

With the exception of cheerleaders for death on either side (which don't usually last long) I don't see how any of this makes us look bad or good, and who is out there making these judgments.

Free speech is untidy, as Rummy might say, and I don't think anyone has to worry about what it looks like, to the mainstream media for example. They have pretty big beams in their eyes, and they know it. I do prefer it if people can remain reasonably civil, but I understand that isn't always possible. So be it.

It just seems though that some are too eager for some bad things and too negative whenever something (rarely) positive happens. This is what we get roasted for by the RW pundits and the moderates in the country do pay attention to that kinda thing.

It just doesn't matter. Whatever is said, they will twist it around anyway. Look what they did about Kerry's Viet Nam experience.

Thats all.

for putting forth Bush's propaganda!

I thought the rest of the world hated Bush? If so, why are these places putting out his propaganda for him?

Funny tho how US MSM hasn't bothered, hours later, to pick up the story.

I would wonder how you would reconcile that idea with your other theory that its all propaganda though. I mean I thought the MSM was controlled by the RW :shrug:

I check ALL news articles just as I checked this one.

IMO, this one reads like propaganda. There is no such village that I can locate in Iraq. Shia would not be very likely to use "insurgents" and "Islamic extremists". There is only this one article being echo-chambered and even then no MSM is echo-chambering it.

There's nothing to reconcile; check EVERY news article, regardless the site. If it reads like propaganda, check it even more.

And that goes for ALL articles, imo, whether they're "good" or "bad" for bush. And if more Americans did check ALL articles, there wouldn't be so many ignorant Americans in this country.

Again, this article, for several reasons, reads like propaganda. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than the article itself.

for someone who needs help with Google. I asked questions about your ideas. Is that perhaps not allowed? I believe I was quite civil about it. Pity you couldn't return the favor.

I was questioning how you would reconcile these two things

1) Its propaganda. If so by who? I assume you mean some sort of Bush/RW propaganda. If not please clarify.

2) You argue that its a BS story because it hasn't been picked up by the MSM.

Do you really not see the problem with those two contradictory theories?

Not sure how better I can explain it to you.

In my opinion -that's what the "imo" means- this article, which has no corroboration, reads like propaganda.

I believe I posted...yes in fact, I did...several times that there is no such village in Iraq that I can find, that it's not likely Shia would say "insurgents" and "Islamic extremists" AND that this one article has not, hours later, been picked up by any MSM.

You accuse me of "not seeing the problem with those two contradictory theories". The "problem" is you ignored the other points I'd mentioned. Cherry-picking from my post? ;) Taken WITH the other points I posted previously and again now, the fact that no MSM hours later has picked up the article adds weight, IN MY OPINION, that this article is propaganda.

Is that clarified enough for you? I suspect not, as it's exactly what I said in my previous post that you didn't understand. Oh well, best I can do. :)

As for "fairly insulting", that's how you inferred it. I found your first post to me quite insulting, as well:


Boosterman (469 posts) Fri Feb-04-05 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #83

85. My question for you


Why is it you want the story to be false?


******

I did imply that you wanted it to be false. In that case I apologize if you took offense.

I would question whether you googled the source material before you started replying. The whole thing started over objectivity afterall. At least in my eyes you seemed to lack it.

As to your village point I really cant say as I can find maps aplenty of the area south of Baghdad but unfortunately cant read the language. I imagine there are lots of unlisted villages too but that would be some lame propaganda that lists a nonexistent village.

In regards to the phrases used I would imagine their was some "translation" involved. Heck it might be propaganda.

And as to your last point while I can see how you might take my phrasing for an an attack on yourself exactly what would you classify...should I type slower as?

google and dogpile & ask someone to LexNex for me; no hits on the village name came up.

"Translation" can certainly change things, agreed! One prime example is the bushCartel-translated tape of Iraqis being told to "move all WMD"...which in fact didn't translate to that at all.

ABC.net is not a credible source, and that no other media has corroborated it...was Mikey there, south of Baghdad, interviewing the Shia, when reporters aren't being allowed out anywhere in Iraq without US "minders"?

I don't know if it is true or not; but imo it reads like propaganda. Why are some posters getting into a twist over this? Don't believe nuthin' until there's 3 credible corroborating sources, and that even includes reports saying bush is an idiot. Ok bad example, there are thousands of such reports for that, but you get what I mean, I think.

My "should I type slower" wasn't actually meant as an insult, but I'd hoped a way to untwist the knickers between us; it failed, I apologize. :)

Its quite possible its propaganda. I just hope its true in a way. Some good news (yes I realize they are killing people) would be welcome.

Peace

Did you mean: Al-Mudharabah


Your search - Al-Mudhiryah - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "mudhiryah".

Usually names that have been in the news will pop right up on Google. What I don't understand is why, with so many news feeds picking the story up, why Google wouldn't see that.

Whassup with that?

(BTW, Mudharabah refers to 'profit-sharing,' what Islamic bankers use instead of interest.)

Opposition to Bush does not mean that i am opposed to Iraqis standing up for themselves and taking control of their own country.

DoNotRefill talks common sense.

we simply do not like being fed propagada

The story is vague at best. AEDT is the only one covering it. It's from their release that the few other sites created their stories. There's no Reuters, AP or AFP climbing on board and it's now hours later. I'll wait for some validation from another source.

THANK YOU for your logic; I will wait with you. Be aware, however, that you may be accused of HATING IRAQIS and HAVING A SICK MIND.