Here's why the 2nd London bombings are suspicious.

<small tin-foil hat on>
If London is on high alert and there are cameras EVERYWHERE; why did FOUR MORE guys GET AWAY with "bombs" again??? Londoners aren't that stupid and I thought they had police everywhere.
What gives??
I smell distraction/continuing to keep us "on our toes" so we don't look at everything else.
Anyone with me on this??

Downing Street Memo... Rove-gate... Jackson distraction over, Aruba
girl fails to capture as much attention as Runaway Bride... need
for swift passage of "Patriot Act" extensions...

YUP... need a bombing somewhere, preferably where white people who
speak English (OK, the British don't quite speak English, but close
enough!). Can't have it here as that would say we have failed on
the war on terror... so it's either Canada, the Aussies or England.

Let's pick England...

quick, who has OBL's cell number now...

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

...because he's accomplished almost every one of bin Ladens goals, and not caught the fucker to boot.

and stuff. Gads, doesn't he know there's a War on Terra goin on?

He has a memo problem, you know.

and we all pay for it

Every time Bush needs him. Remember when he popped up right before the election and endorsed Kerry?

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. The man has no vision.

Incompetence has fewer moving parts than a huge conspiracy of malice.

Malice is why they've never bothered to be competent.

Incompetence hides a lot of malice.

(I'm not aruging for or against a conspiracy here: I plead ignorance. But sheesh: the bush gang is obviously both evil and bad at its job)

:rofl:

I would not have believed it either... except, there sure were a
lot of coincidences... starting with the pre-9/11 stated belief
by PNAC that a "new Pearl Harbor" was needed. And they got one,
and then they launched the war in Iraq (without any linkage to
9/11), and the American congress (and public) went along with that
(pre-emptive war... WMDs... Saddam works with terrorists...).

Plus, along with the entire timeline of events that surrounded
9/11 - please look into this, then ask yourself why we couldn't
scramble jets in time to intercept the hijacked airliners? Not
for lack of knowing that they were hijacked - and not for lack of
the ability to intercept ala Payne Stewart's private jet - and not
for lack of notice that a terrorist attack was probable (Presidential
daily brief - Bin Laden determined to attack in the US). And then
ask yourself "Is it MORE likely or LESS likely that we were caught
so flat-footed and unprepared that we couldn't even muster a Nat'l
Guard to intercept the hijacked airliner over Penn... hours after
the WTC and the Pentagon... or is it MORE likely or LESS likely that
certain key people in our own government either didn't act or
caused confusion and stagnation of any response (war games planned
with the FAA for 9/11 involving FAKE hijackings... war games
involving the Pentagon that involved a hijacked plane crashing into
it - just days before the real event). So, is there any direct
evidence of MIHOP or even LIHOP, no... but the observational
evidence (noticing what didn't happen as well as what did) is
tilting me towards LIHOP or even more sinister, MIHOP. And the
worst part is that I really believe that these people (doing this
out of their unfailing belief in themselves and what they see as
"right") definitely have the moral capability of either causing
it or not stopping it. They are cut from much the same cloth as
Tim McVeigh, and they want to "Wake Up America" to retrieve it from
a certain decay and doom if the "liberal left" runs the country.
So anything, even murder, is justified. This is the philosophy of
the Sean Hannitys, Ann Coulters, Rush Limpballs and Jerry Falwells.
You can hear it in how much they hate. The quiet revolutions of
Reagan and Newt failed to move the country to where they wanted, so
sterner measures may have been needed... and look where we are now.

the terrorist. I remarked earlier, why would they go to the same place in London and then do it again when they know security is tight. They got the pictures of these four real quick. Where are the pictures of the first four or five? I am calling in my cat, he will know...

I'm going to do the same for my dogs and post a pic....classic!

It's been pointed out on DU before - Shepherd's Bush, Oval, Warren. Since when have Islamic fundamentalists been playing word games?

My take on it: these names weren't chosen to send a particular message (though one could extract a message out of them), but to show gall. Once you notice that the names were not picked at random, it's absolutely, glaringly obvious. At the same time, you can't expect reporters to ask the police chief at a press conference whether they're looking into it - they'd be laughed right out of the press room. So in the end you're left with this absolute certainty and are facing a void.

Every day I'm reminded of this quote by a Bush advisor via Sy Hersh:

This was the name given to the military operation that commenced to flatten Fallujah in Iraq <b>immediately</b> after the '04 elections. It worked quite well to distract ANY attention that might have been paid to the astounding election results. Taunting the police is a classic trait of serial killers.

A taunt - this is the word I was looking for. Have a look at this:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/07/its-enough-to-make-you-paranoid_19.html

"Once you begin to smell something fishy, it's hard to smell anything else. And as soon as you start grasping the semiotics of conspiracy, you see tells, like inside jokes shared with the doomed, made on the dual assumptions that nobody is going to believe you and there's nothing you can do about it."

was called something different altogether! I forgot by which name they sold it here (would have to dig in one of my CDs and am too lazy) but the same crime was called by a totally different name here. By the same Americans.

--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

Does anyone doubt that the Idiot Bush is capable of killing more people to further his insane agenda?

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

thing as actual terrorism.

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

ask the families of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis the US has slaughtered so far if THEY think we're terrorists

why don't you go over there yourself and find out?

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

endorse or support the madrasahs or other indoctrination training camps!

Did you make that up?????
Because if you don't have a link, I'm calling BULLSHIT!

Recklessly? Yes. When's the last time you heard the media chant "We are all Iraqis today"? Over twenty thousand civilian deaths brushed under the carpet.

As for the tinfoil part - read chapter 1 of "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert (can probably read it on-screen at Amazon). If it's all lunatic crock, you should be able to show where the author goes wrong.

and when it kills women and children is the moral equivalent
of a suicide bomber doing the same.

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

Are our targets "military" now? If a civilian defends his own country, does he become a military target? These are some hard questions you need to ask yourself.

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

Unfortunately that way is supported much more by the Bush administration than facts.

I'll give you another way to look at it: All Iraqis want us the fuck out of their country. Some of them have signed on for the so-called "security forces" because, well, jobs are pretty hard to come by and their families are starving. What would you do in their situation?

Here's another perspective (run with me here). Bush turns into Saddam Hussein incarnate, and begins killing, torturing, and "disappearing" political enemies--in the US. North Korea, ostensibly to "set us free", launches a massive invasion of the US. Would you support it?

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

You are living in a fantasy world.

We are not in Iraqi rebuild it but the control it resources
and make sure that it is economically with in the Anglo-US
sphere.

The poor Iraqis are just in the way and most want closer
relations with Iran not good old Uncle Sam.

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

so long as the power to buy sell and bring it to market
is controlled by Anglo-US interests and that it is traded
in dollar based transactions.

It could stay in the ground for 30 years it wouldn't
change the motivation to control it.

my bad. There are certainly Iraqis, particularly those who were victims of Saddam's atrocities, who support a temporary US occupation and are hopeful that some sort of democracy will develop out of this.

But there is a huge factor which we as a nation have failed to come to grips with. Iraqis, more so than many cultures, are *extremely* proud of their country and their heritage--regardless of the acts of their leader. That is why our invasion of their country is analagous in every way to us being invaded by a country like North Korea or China--no matter *how* bad it got here, you wouldn't support that, and neither would I.

Add to that the fact that invading another country outside of self-defense is in every way ethically and morally wrong (another topic, another thread). Add our apparent willingness to attempt to sweep horrific prisoner abuse under the rug, and I am 100% convinced that no, they really, really want us the hell out of there.

If you haven't checked out this blog, this is the real stuff, posting from Baghdad. You'll get a point of view which is absent from US media:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

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

:thumbsup:

the neocon plan was never just to go in and install a democracy. The plan was to occupy the place, hence why they sent in Jay Garner initially to be Governer of Baghdad. When that didn't work they sent in Bremer to set up the CPA. That didn't work too well either, so now there's the interim government.

But the reality is that the neocons still want their permanent military bases there and it seems like a lot Iraqis don't like that idea.

and occupation there was no terrorism in Iraq. Now there is terrorism on a daily basis. From interviews I've seen with many Iraqis they put two and two together and think the occupation caused the terrorism.

Gee, I guess in your world the 100,000+ dead people piling up and the dozens of daily car bombs going off can be chalked up to ungrateful Iraqis with perception problems. Brilliant!

who has spent more time in Iraq than any other American journalist, venturing outside of Hotel Palestine and meeting ordinary Iraqis, at least 80% of Iraqis support the insurgency. Saudi and other foreign fighters and jihadists, some of whom are allied with al-Zarqawi, the ones who are responsible for suicide bombings, make up a small minority within the insurgency and are unpopular among many of the Iraqi guerrilla fighters.

is a question of definition. The fact remains that the military of the United States of America has killed more innocent civilians in Iraq than any Muslim terrorist could hope to accomplish.

The Iraqi Army surrendered at the gates of Baghdad.
We are no longer fighting a WAR.
There is NO ARMY in the field against us.
Our troops are being used to supress a civilian uprising.

There ARE NO "Military Targets" in Iraq.

as long it serves those ends.

What about dropping a JDAM on a popular restaurant because
Saddam might have been eating there at the time killing
innocent men women and children.

Was that nice and peachy on the Forever Free moral "equivalency" scale?

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

killing is killing and both are wrong.

The difference here is you are morally culpable for
the actions of your government assuming you live in
a democracy.

Assuming you have no ties to the Egypt bombers the
only blood on your hands is the dead Iraqis, how convenient
of you to release your self from any guilt for wrongs done
in your name with you approval.

Your a real stand up guy.

your neighborhood because they have evidence some dangerous people are hiding out there it's good to know you'll be understanding. If your family and neighbors are killed and maimed at least you will know they didn't do it on purpose. Not murder. No intent, things happen.

You really have it together. Personally I am less grown up then you. I would rage at the murders of my friends and loved ones.

Why is it OK over there if it would not be OK as a way to stop dangerous criminals here? Moral equivalency scales being used...it would make sense. Safer for police, less time wasted in courts and jails.

gives a shit about our intent.

and foaming with ad hominum, consider that your whole argument is based on a one way view of American operations in the region. That is to say, you are drinking the cool aide with a vengence.

We gave Iran the Shaw and SAVAK, we founded and funded the School of the Americas, our policy has been to speechify the virtue of western democracy while supporting the governments that were most brutal, because they seemed stable enough to be bought on a long term basis.
That this policy came with consequences should surprise no-one but the self deluding or witless.

We have scorched and poisoned Iraq with Depleted Uranium, and created the next generation of big blow back. We destroyed the country we said we were going to rescue, so **'s cronies could make obscene profits
and control the second largest proven reserves of oil while playing at building it back. We have reduced the quality and value of human life in Iraq to levels far worse than Saddam.

Further, buying anything the lying-ass ** administration has to say to us about any nation with oil has proved to be a fools paradise. So when someone says they think that the president of oil sucking America , the guy who told us after 911 to go out and drive more, is complicit with a member of a family that gave him money, and helped fight his daddy's war against the Soviet Union's godless commies, I don't get red in the face. I say, find me proof, and I will help you rip the doors off.

We're not kidding you. Bush and the Vichy Collaborators are.

And yes, "intentionally" killing Iraqi women and children IS the SAME thing as actual terrorism. Actually it's even worse, because it's state-sponsored terrorism that allows war-supporting fools to go to bed at night thinking their hands aren't dripping with blood.

The DLC is totally out of touch on this and many issues.

All of great Neptune's ocean won't wash this blood clean from our hand? And "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."


Kiss. Big wet open mouth kiss.

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

Please don't buy into this GOP nonsense. He wants to kill us. It is war, and he is fighting on the only terms he can--his own.

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

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

You think the bombing of the Chinese embassy wasn't intentional? It is generally understood to have been bombed because the Chinese were aiding the Serbs with some kind of intelligence, satellite pictures or whatever. It's not a very well-kept secret.

Funny you should mention Serbia, I spent that war in Croatia with Serb expats and we got our news from Serb national television until it was BOMBED by Wesley Clark's fighter jets in the middle of a broadcast, killing a dozen journalists or more. Is that not a civilian target?

The purpose of Shock & Awe is to terrorize the population to the point where they believe resistance is futile. That means targets aren't just military, even though that's what they tell you on CNN.

What Powell and everyone in the Bush administration sees now is Ullman’s vision for high-tech war. He calls it “rapid dominance,” or “shock and awe.” The idea is to scare the enemy to death. To win, you don’t need to inflict physical pain and destruction. Just the fear of pain, and the massive confusion it creates, is enough.

Ullman wants the U.S. to (in his words) “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” “This ability to impose massive shock and awe, in essence to be able to 'turn the lights on and off' of an adversary as we choose, will so overload the perception, knowledge and understanding of that adversary that there will be no choice except to cease and desist or risk complete and total destruction."

Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples’ neurological systems, “to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."

When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Ullman is sure it will work as well in 2003 as it did in 1945: “You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes." "Super tools and weapons -- information-age equivalents of the atomic bomb -- have to be invented," he wrote in the Economic Times. "As the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-08.htm

Which targets were military in Falluja? That's a flattened city after November 2004.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who hasn't bothered to catch up with the news in years and is out to "wake up the USA". Be silent and read more, trying hard to stay away from anything published by the Ministry of Propaganda. You'll find plenty of reputably sourced stories right here at DU if you can be bothered to read a little before rushing off to sound the alarm about how the Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming. In other words, wake yourself up first if you want to remain "forever free".

What a ridiculous name for a blog. Wakeup-USA. Did you choose it yourself or did the "DLC" choose it for you?

:rofl:

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

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

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

And then you're all over a London bobing thread derailing the conversation because we have got to be "fucking kidding you".

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

are doing is terrorism. And you bring Israel into it as if the Israeli government was another innocent victim of fanatical Muslim terrorists.

I do not believe that there are ANY, not one, not one single Muslim out there who wants to do us harm because they believe in a perverted form of Islam. The people who want to do us harm have a long list of grievances against us, at the top of which is the charge of US state-sponsored terrorism.

No one hates us for our freedoms. They hate us for our terror.



VIEWS ON WHY AMERICA IS HATED
http://www.robert-fisk.com/why_america_hated.htm

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

right after the "end of hostilities"...

A truck (possibly filled with explosives or maybe not, it doesn't
matter) is fired upon by artillery... the truck's engines is destroyed.
A guy (Iraqi, probably an insurgent) stumbles out... he is shot with
machine gun fire and falls to the ground. That's all part of war.
Then the thing happens that should not happen. A GI walks up to
the guy, he is audibly moaning and moving slightly, but clearly
not a combatant anymore (if he ever was)... and the GI shoots him
dead.

Much like the incident much later in Fallujah that a reporter
witnessed... Iraqis, possibly insurgents, either wounded or
captured (usually both), simply shot.

We aren't supposed to be this way. This is NOT AMERICAN. John
Wayne would be ashamed.

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

and "terrorism" is a loaded, piece-of-shit term that anyone can call their enemy. To the Iraqis, we are terrorists.

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

the crimes being committed there are systemic and not isolated incidents. Soldiers have been speaking out about this. Kevin Benderman, Camillo Mejia, Jimmy Massey, Pablo Paredes, Trent Helmkamp and many more.

"Sgt. Benderman's opposition is not the theoretical if sincere opposition of a student peace activist. Kevin Benderman has seen things that none of God's children should have to endure. He was present when his superior ordered his unit to open fire on small children who were throwing rocks at the soldiers of his unit." He chased the hungry dogs from an open mass grave filled with the bodies of young children, old men and women.


DU Question: Is this SOP for American forces in Iraq, or is this an aberration.
We read all sorts of reports about the cruel mistreatment of Iraqi citizens how wide spread is it?


SGT Benderman's answer: At the time that I wrote the statement about my commander ordering us to shoot the kids on the wall I felt that it was an isolated incident. I felt that he was completely out of his _______ mind. You fill in the blank. Looking back I thought that he was just scared and over reacting to something that did not require that type of statement or action.

After seeing more of this type of thing on the news and from other reports that have come out I am now inclined to believe that this is the SOP that is to be implemented by commanders in the daily operations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3701519#3701975



===For nearly 12 years, Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say "gung-ho," Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life -- Marine boot camp.

The Iraqi war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged last December 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, North Carolina. When I talked with Sergeant Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved.

Paul Rockwell: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?

Sgt. Massey: I went to Kuwait around January 17th. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.

Paul Rockwell: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?

Sgt. Massey: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.

Paul Rockwell: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?

Sgt. Massey: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways.

There was this one particular incident -- and there's many more -- the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.

Paul Rockwell: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?

Sgt. Massey: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: 'Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong.' That hit me like a ton of bricks.

Paul Rockwell: He spoke English?

Sgt. Massey: Oh, yeah.

Paul Rockwell: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?

Sgt. Massey: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said 'Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons.' That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.

Paul Rockwell: You got to see the bodies and casualties?

Sgt. Massey: Yea, first hand. I helped throw them in a ditch.

Paul Rockwell: Over what period did all this take place?

Sgt. Massey: During the invasion of Baghdad.

Paul Rockwell: How many times were you involved in check-point "light-ups"?

Sgt. Massey: Five times.

"We Lit Him Up Pretty Good"

There was Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.

Paul Rockwell: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?

Sgt. Massey: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally.

Paul Rockwell: A demonstration? Where?

Sgt. Massey: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket--propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: 'Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it.'

Paul Rockwell: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?

Sgt. Massey: Both.

Paul Rockwell: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?

Sgt. Massey: Higher Command. We were told to be on the lookout for civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government?

Paul Rockwell: What kind of firepower was employed?

Sgt. Massey: M-16s, 50-cal.machine guns.

Paul Rockwell: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?

Sgt. Massey: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a 'mercy' on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody 'Don't shoot.' Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.

Paul Rockwell: After you lit up the demonstration, how long before the next incident?

Sgt. Massey: Probably about one or two hours. This is another thing, too. I am so glad I am talking with you, because I suppressed all of this.

Paul Rockwell: Well I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it must be to recall the painful details.

Sgt. Massey: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's something that I had repressed for a long time.

Paul Rockwell: And the incident?

Sgt. Massey: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: 'You all just shot a guy with his hands up.' Man, I forgot about this.

Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs

Paul Rockwell: You mention missiles and machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?

Sgt. Massey: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have eighty-percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year old.

Paul Rockwell: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?

Sgt. Massey: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.

Paul Rockwell: Did you breath any dust?

Sgt. Massey: Yeah.

Paul Rockwell: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.

Sgt. Massey: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.

Paul Rockwell: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?

Sgt. Massey: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stones magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said 'Holy shit!'

Paul Rockwell: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?

Sgt. Massey: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from a cluster bomb.

Paul Rockwell: What happened?

Sgt. Massey: He stepped on it. We didn't get to training about clusters until about a month before I left.

Paul Rockwell: What kind of training?

Sgt. Massey: They told us what they looked like, and not to step on them.

Paul Rockwell: Were you in any areas where they were dropped?

Sgt. Massey: Oh yeah. They were everywhere.

Paul Rockwell: Dropped from the air?

Sgt. Massey: From the air as well as artillery.

Paul Rockwell: Are they dropped far away from cities, or inside the cities?

Sgt. Massey: They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.

Paul Rockwell: Including inside the towns and cities?

Sgt. Massey: Yes, if you were going into a city, you knew there were going to be cluster bombs.

Paul Rockwell: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over.

Sgt. Massey: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its own. There's always human error. I'm going to tell you. The armed forces are in a tight spot over there. It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.

Embedded Reporters

Paul Rockwell: How are the embedded reporters responding?

Sgt. Massey: I had embedded reporters in my unit, not my platoon. One we had was a South African reporter. He was scared shitless. We had an incident where one of them wanted to go home.

Paul Rockwell: Why?

Sgt. Massey: It was when we started going into Baghdad. When he started seeing the civilian casualties, he started wigging out a little bit. It didn't start until we got on the outskirts of Baghdad and started taking civilian casualties.

"I Killed Innocent People For Our Government"

Paul Rockwell: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it?

Sgt. Massey: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: 'Are you o.k?' I said: 'No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians.' He goes: 'No, today was a good day.' And when he said that, I said 'oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?'

Paul Rockwell: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?

Sgt. Massey: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.

Paul Rockwell: What changed you?

Sgt. Massey: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the difference. That was when I changed.

Paul Rockwell: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?

Sgt. Massey: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.

Showdown with the Brass

Paul Rockwell: I understand that all the incidents -- killing civilians at checkpoints, itchy fingers at the rally -- weigh on you. What happened with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?

Sgt. Massey: There was an incident. It was right after the fall of Baghdad, when we went back down South. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these things were going through my head -- about what we were doing over there. About some of the things my troops were asking. I was holding it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him and told him: 'You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is wrong over here. We're committing genocide. ' He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.

Paul Rockwell: What happened then?

Sgt. Massey: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops, I didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.

I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the regimental Sergeant Major. He's in charge of 3500-plus Marines. 'Sir,' I told him, 'I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you did was wrong.' It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the President of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.

This interview first appeared in the Sacramento Bee. Paul Rockwell is a writer in the Bay Area. To set up interviews with Sgt. Massey, contact Paul Rockwell at rockyspad@hotmail.com

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_sjm.html

we are the Germans in WWII France. And they are the Underground.

Change the uniforms and clothing and such and you can't tell the
difference. And yes, the French Resistance used "terrorist" tactics
all the time, and especially against "collaborators".

And we are acting more and more like the Germans occupying France,
complete with torture jails and executing anyone that even might
look like a member of the underground. No, we haven't started putting
members of certain religions or races into boxcars to be shipped
to gas chambers... but then, genocide is not one of the operational
parameters of the PNAC'rs... what they want is more like military
and economic superiority, and building permanent military bases
in "forward operational theaters" and closing bases here in the
US is all part of the plan.

From what I've read and heard, even through our heavily filtered
press here... the incident I described is happening a lot, and I
just haven't heard of the associated military courts martial and
such.

And what is the US policy in Iraq? Can you or anyone from the RNC
actually articulate what we are doing now? And I suppose that
actual genocide is now required for us to doing the "wrong thing".
Is that what you are saying?

BTW, what would YOU call a tactic named "Shock and Awe"? I think
the object of that tactic was to strike fear, and yes, TERROR, into
the hearts of Iraqis everywhere.

American pilot drop a bomb on a group of Iraqis running across a road. The tape also recorded his conversation with the commanding officer, and when asked, the pilot couldn't confirm whether they were insurgents or civillians.

He slaughtered them anyway, and was heard saying 'Oh yeh' at the moment of impact. He seemed to be enjoying it as if it were a video game. This might not be systematic of US military policy in Iraq but it made me sick to my stomach nonetheless.

It was shown on Channel 4 in the UK about 12 months ago. No link I'm afraid, just my word.

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

I've seen the video clip in question, the pilot asks for permission to fire at a group of people assembled on the street. He receives permission to fire and an explosion is seen. The pilot says "oh dude" like it's the most awesome damn thing in the world to blow up Iraqis. I doubt there was anything out of the ordinary about it.

I was quoting from memory. I just remember being really shocked when I saw that clip, disgusted by the fact that the pilot enjoyed slaughtering human beings. He probably thought it was revenge for 9/11 - misguided fool.

...WAS a retaliation strike against the civilian population of an Iraqi City.

ALL the insurgents had left Fallujah. There were NO insurgent "strongholds" reduced with precision weapons. There was little or no return fire. Civilians were FORCED to remain in their houses which were then bombed and napalmed according to the few surviving wittinesses and one journalist who managed to escape. Indiscriminate killing of everything that moved. Elderly, women, and children.

The attack on Fallujah was a SERIOUS WARCRIME!

the circumstances surrounding 9/11, I would recommend to listen to the interviews with Daniel Hopsicker found here:

http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/DX

Scroll down and start with November 2, 2004, then November 16 and July 5, 2005. The only American journalists who have done any real investigative journalism into the events of 9/11 are Hopsicker and the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl, who paid for it with his life. Hopsicker has spent three years following the tracks of the 9/11 hijackers. Here's one of the questions that arise from what has been uncovered in the course of his investigation: why do the hijackers continously bump into veterans of the Iran-Contra operations during their sojourn in the US? This entire phenomenon appears to be a lot more complicated and multifaceted than it appears on the surface.

PS. We're intentionally killing Iraqi women and children and that is the same thing as actual terrorism.

You're not going to get a lot of sympathy here.

Seems some people tend to feel that just because Junior wears a three-piece suit and doesn't push the button himself, he isn't exonerated for the slaughter taking place in Iraq.

Another POV you won't find a lot of support for is the one that implies these acts are "wanton" or religion-based. They aren't. I won't say you're dense, but you are misinformed on this issue.

What is "actual terrorism", anyway? :shrug:

"Actual Terrorism"(tm) -

That's the difference when a bomb falls from the sky or is launched
by a ship on a tomahawk missile and blows up your city in an
undeclared war and when a guy with a back pack bomb walks into
a bar and blows up your city. See the difference?

I'm damn sure the civilians who die in both instances really don't
care about the distinction all that much.

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

read "War Is A Racket" by General Smedley Butler.

He's the one the duPonts and Fords approached to execute a coup against the u.s. gov't and install a fascist gov't in its place. i believe prescott bush was involved in this plan also.

edit:typo

and please read the history books a bit more closely.

If you can't see the difference between our Balkan war and
the Iraq war, well I just can't help you.

I going to guess that you think we will eventually find those
WMDs in Iraq, too.

I won't address them. As far as civilians go, we had to let many of the people we captured go free. We used torture. We didn't mind possible large collateral damage in order to advance PNAC's goals, making corporations like Halliburton richer, and taking the oil. And we had no real exit plan. So even if we were not targeting civilians, what we did was awfully malicious.

Then, after examples are shown, you say "Well, it's not overall policy, so it's OK."

Want to know what terrorism is? Dropping five-thousand-pound bombs into the middle of a crowded city in the middle of the night. That's terrorism.

Redstone

*

...because he apparantly lied us into an illegal, unjust, immoral war that has killed more than 1,750 U.S. military, maimed many multiples more, and ground to hamburger tens-of-thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.

But don't construe this in any way as a comment on whether the London bombings are an instance of MIHOP (really).

What about raping children in front of their mothers?
Is the SAME thing as actual terrorism?
I am not 'fucking kidding you'. I just know what the *crime family is capable of.

--against civilians. The biggest beneficiary of our financial largesse in the 80s was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. (OBL brought his own money, which is why he was invited to the party.) Hekmatyar was well known for acid attacks against unveiled female university students in Kabul in the 70s, and our government knew that when it recruited him. CIA agents stood around and watched while he attacked girls's schools that the Soviet-backed government was building, raping and killing the teachers and burning the schools.

Or, rather than insulting our intelligence with your own ignorance, why not just lurk for a few months and READ THE FUCKING BOARD. I assure you, it will be an eye opener.

We may not have all the details just right but if you don't know the lines that have been drawn between the big dots -- PNAC, Halliburton, BCCI, Brown and Root -- then your shoot from the hip commentary isn't particularly welcome here.

I guess that means "free to have an opinion"...

I've got a good one for you... PROVE THAT SHRUB DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. Absolute proof...

Peace.

The US and Israel were the only nations that did not agree to the UN definition of terrorism that includes comparable acts of violence by nation-states.

It's not that the actions are not comparable. It's just that because 'we' do it, it's ok - or so the neocon thinking goes.

Puhleeze.


There are muslims pissed off enough at Britain and America to blow shit up in retaliation for Iraq and other issues. Why is that so hard to understand?

Exactly whats going on in the world and who may be behind what.


But lets look at who has benefitted and the circumstances surrounding our invasion of two islamic nations.

Who Benefits
1. UNOCAL
2. Israel
3. Halliburton
4. Military Industrial Complex
5. Carlyle group
6. Saudi Arabia

Right after Bush gets elected by Supreme Court, terrorist attack occurs. Next Bush invades Afghanistan and pipeline deal gets the OK. Next Bush invades Iraq while of course we know now, lying his face off to get it. So he obviously wanted that war. What else did he want, and what did he do to get it? How did groups linked to the Bush family benefit from 9/11? These are very real concerns that spring up conspiracy theories and New World Order theories.

the next day. The police aren't everywhere - just like any city, there aren't enough for that.

What is this meant to distract from? If you mean something in America, than an incident in America would have been far more effective.

not during rush-hour and the bombs didn't explode!
And who was injured, any news of him?

Fun fun.Yehaw.

but you shouldn't be too shocked ;) "I smell distraction/continuing to keep us "on our toes" so we don't look at everything else" Happened right here in your thread.

7/7 is as suspicious and stinks as much as 9/11.

just thought it was kinda funny (as funny as this can be; that is).

2nd London bombing.

my sense is that surveillance cameras predominately only deter honest people = the old "where there's a will there's a way" theory @ play imo

There may be cameras everywhere; that doesn't mean all of the camera footage is watched live. Four men with rucksacks packed with explosives; well, you know, quite a few people getting on the Tube are going to be carrying bags of one sort or another. Does that mean they're ALL supposed to be automatic suspects? Or that those few out of millions who pose an actual threat ought to be spotted immediately? The powers of the police are many and various, but I doubt they extend to clairvoyance.

And the idea that this was in any way a "distraction" is laughable, anyway. If some sinister and shadowy intelligence organisation WERE attempting to create an event that would distract media attention from something happening in the US, would the US not be the logical place to do it? New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, or Washington would me MUCH better locations than London.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy paranoia, but there's such a thing as carrying it too far.