I killed innocent people for our government by paul rockwell

Embedded and CIA-paid propagandists will of course fill volumes with acts ascribed, in every case, to "the insurgency" just as every amateur video of another abducted westerner must of course be from the same (or dare we say , "Al Qaeda"), matthew.

But apply some careful investigative scrutiny to the history of covert "counter insurgency" ops which are the stock in trade of CIA/MI6/Mossad and indeed our own respective special ops military segments and you'll begin to see a much less clear cut and indeed more troubling picture emerge for an armchair war apologist like yourself.

I suggest you review events already exposed some time back of just such false flag activities being conducted by your own lads in Basra...

Not arabs it seems

Now consider that as a "foot in the door" into ongoing efforts by those with the biggest vested interests in maintaining our presence in that ravaged land (thanks to our unprovoked and illegal war of aggression) and perhaps your take on the morality of this invasion and its Washington-hailed "successes" might be due for a rethink.

 

a CBU falls under the sub category of CEM....

just for the record

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm


pretty easy to step on if it's laying around.....

 

Pointbreak, the multitude of your substantiations intimidates the libedo of my discussion. I dost bestow this victory on the futile warmonger regime which you lo resound. AHem G'day

 

I stepped on an ICBM in the desert, it was only about a 3 megatonne yeild so I just lost my little toe.

 

you missed the earilier posts about typo



there were 12,000 cluster type bombs used in iraq, icbm's, 0


CEM, CBU, ICM, DPICM, all acronyms that can attach to different varieties of cluster bomb, most civilians (journalist) are only used to ICBM as an acronym for weapons

 

I know, I was just poking at stepping on one

 

just assume the journalist is an idiot and we're good


it's how I get through life...

 

Anyone can ring up and call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" or in the case of your article "Swords of Truth". Never crosses your mind to question the fact that there are a seemingly endless number of "never before heard of" groups immediately claiming responsibility or issuing demands, yet you still refuse to go and educate yourself about the nature of covert counterinsurgency operations and their psy op value in inflaming public sentiments in favour of continued military activity.

I suggest you do some research as well on CIA-paid journalism, youll find more than enough citations to wrankle your comfy illusions of objectivity from inside theatres of US warmongering.

 

dont forget UK warmongering and the other 74 coalition forces involved in the conflict.

 

you do realize that media has something called fact checkers, some places have something called journalists that have something called integrity




also 2200 of those cluster bombs were the U.K's

 

Lick, if you refused to believe that the sky was blue, nobody make you admit it was. But it you think anyone here actually cares, you're wrong. What are you saying - "I want evidence that terrorists commit terrorist acts - but a videotaped confession isn't enough."

Well, on that basis, can anyone possibly conceive of any evidence that you couldn't flippantly deny? No. There is no conceivable evidence which you couldn't angrily denounce. So its a waste of time. You go on believing that everything inconvenient, like terrorists killing people, is a mossad conspiracy. I don't care.

 

a most terrorist organizations make films with their suicide bombers in fromt of their flag or emblem before the bombing to

1. pressure the person into doing it
2. prevent others from taking credit



I always wonder what'd happen if 2 organizations hit the same target on the same day.....

 

Then you get two bombs going off in the same place with two differing groups blowing each other up along with intended targets .. unlikely scenario though.

I don't think any pressure is put on the 'person doing it' as i think the people involved are ready and willing .. if anything the bomber is wishing to prove something to the 'organisation' they are alligning themselves with [those behind the camera].. One upmanship / more devotion etc etc etc ...

As for 'taking credit' deffinitly but it does not really matter , and not something i guess goes through the victims [not the bomber the intended target/s] mind/s.. So i don't concern myself with the machination of the petty squables and such...as they don't concern themselves with what i think at all.

 

well okay, heres my argument

(lets see if we can carry it through with one hypothetical person in a scenario and minimize confusion)

herb wants to be a suicide bomber, signs up for the program, is all zealous and shit, gets the bomb, goes out then decides not to because he has some kind of change of heart, well between the making of the video as documentary evidence and the inertia of the thing there is enough weight on him to go do it, to influence him from trying to change his mind and ratting them out or something (which is improbable, but not totally impossible, so I can imagine wanting to use whatever tactics you could to minimize that probability)

then he blows himself up, the group he did it for wants recognition because recognition = more sign ups = more following = more of all of the things a terrorist organization needs to keep functioning, so they use their emblem, do the al queda style shout out on al jazeera and get their press



as to the 2 blowing up the same place at the same time, they both have videos, they both know they did it, but they might not know the other did it, so there might be conflict, they would both have legitimate claims, but one would get credit, it would probably in the long run just hurt ones credibility, but there are all sorts of ways that could escalate into something worth actually noticing

 

Have you ever heard of SPIN.. ?.

Also the ability to not add to the story anything that does not take away the thrust of the arguement within the story.

Even i don't believe everything i read in the media..if somebody had the will and the time i gaurantee 40% of most articles could be refuted or the 'facts' 'corrected' ..

 

I'm talking real journalists, not the actors who play them on t.v.

 

'Real' journalists have a editor and of course a editorial policy.. plus have the 'respect' of their employees...but

Andrew gilligan he was a 'real' journalist..but he fucked up big time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446391.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3082323.stm

 

oh pity, it's a wonderful excercise, understand your enemy, or that which is declared your enemy in the least and you gain in the least some understanding in what you are declared......

(that was a bit convoluted, I mean if you understand a true enemy you gain insights of what you are, if you gain insights into what for example your nation calls your enemy you can see what they and the world see you in being declared enemy of this person are)