This almost makes me want to support Bush

[Gonzolo]

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," a speaker identified as Zarqawi said in an audio tape on the Internet.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050123/wl_nm/iraq_dc

Does anyone here support this Zarqawi fellow? What is his alternative to democracy, Islamic law? Ethnic cleansing of the "infidels"?

Just for fun, let's say that I suddenly side with this guy, what do I do next?

 

[spender]

This Zarquawi guy is nonexistent boogeyman,created by US/Israel/UK spy agenciess.

 

[Gonzolo]

I'm not convinced.

 

[Bilal]

Zarkawi is just ghost!

Iraqi resistance declared several times that they do not know Zarkawi .. so how we can be convinced that this man is exist, even if he exist .. He will be in isolated group. Do not forget that immediately after 11/9 , Pentagon established ‘’black propaganda department’’ to convince the public opinion by lies . For example, they talk about Iran-Alqaeda link, but every child in ME knows that Wahabi Muslims (OBL) hate Shia (Iran) more than USA for religious reasons.

Bush do not fight Zarkawi and OBL, he is murdering innocent people.

As I said before if .. KKK represents the American people then OBL and Zarkawi representing The Islamic world. Those people will never rule any place because nobody want them, thanks to CIA who gave them support in 80s and built for them many bases in Afghanistan.

By the way, Islamic laws do not mean ethic cleansing! There are many schools created in Islamic history, most of them are open minded -except the school of OBL and Taliban.

There are Islamic party rule Turkey and Malaysia, did you hear about ethic cleansing! Both countries are the best economical and respect for human rights in the Islamic world.

I'm not convinced.

 

[EL]

Bilal, I agree with much of what your saying, but I think you're way out here:

There are Islamic party rule Turkey and Malaysia, did you hear about ethic cleansing! Both countries are the best economical and respect for human rights in the Islamic world.

Turkey is definately not a good example of a country respecting human rights. Just think about the Kurds...

 

[spender]

Zarkawi is just ghost!

Exactly ! but we going to have really hard time convincing Americans about it.
They believe everything they hear or see on TV.They are adults but with brains of kids.

 

[Bilal]

Dear EL,

This is also support my views.

Compare Turkey under nationalism - secular rule in 80s with the current government of Turkey .

Nationalist Turks, who created the problem of Kurds and Armenian, while the current government trying to improve their conditions. At least they let them now to speak Kurds in their schools and to have their own TV stations, which was impossible under nationalist-secular governments.

Turkey is definately not a good example of a country respecting human rights. Just think about the Kurds...

 

[Townsend]

Exactly ! but we going to have really hard time convincing Americans about it.
They believe everything they hear or see on TV.They are adults but with brains of kids.

Hell yeah you are going to have a hard time convincing me of something like this. By the way, I never ever watch television. I cannot stand commercials and so I just avoid it altogether and get my information elsewhere.

Now as for the reason I will never believe this crazy idea is rather simple. If some part of the department of defense had established a propaganda machine to tell lies to the public don't you think it would have come out during the election? If Kerry could have pinned that one on the Bush administration he would have taken the election. Everything the Bush administration has done has been under the microscope of left wing media, especially since the start of the war with Iraq. There is no way this could have sliped through the cracks and yet some liberal yahoos from the internet managed to know it.

Regards

 

[wasteofo2]

Do not forget that immediately after 11/9 , Pentagon established ‘’black propaganda department’’ to convince the public opinion by lies .

Wow, that's interesting, they even called it the "black propaganda department" eh? Care to somehow back that up?

Had you ever stopped to think that perhaps you're being influenced by your government and media in the same way that you claim the Americans are being influenced by their Government and Media? Perhaps America isn't as bad as you seem to think it is, but would you really know? Have you ever been to America, or have you only heard about it through your own media and government? There's no doubt that the American media is nationalistic, and there probabally is some government influence in it (since no one challenged the assertion that Iraq had WMD and all...), but why should there be any more doubt in your mind that your media and government are biased against America and want you to believe it's worse than it is, and all other sorts of lies?

 

[Bilal]

At least the idea existed in the Pentagon .They could deny it , but who knows??:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

Wednesday, 20 February, 2002, 18:14 GMT
Pentagon plans propaganda war

By Tom Carver
Washington correspondent

The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda.

As part of George Bush's war on terrorism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media.

A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence.

It is well funded, is being run by a general and its aim is to influence public opinion abroad.

Black and white

It has been canvassing opinion within the Pentagon on what it should do.

The options range from the standard public relations stuff - doing more to explain the Pentagon's role - to more underhand tactics such as e-mailing journalists and community leaders abroad with information that undermines governments hostile to the United States.

These e-mails would come from a .com return address rather than .mil to hide the Pentagon's role.

The most controversial suggestion is the covert planting of disinformation in foreign media, a process known as black propaganda.

All this has sparked off a fierce debate within the Pentagon. The options range from "the blackest of black programmes to the whitest of white," one official told the New York Times.

Some generals are worried that even a suggestion of disinformation would undermine the Pentagon's credibility and America's attempts to portray herself as the beacon of liberty and democratic values.

Under review

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked a team of lawyers to check the proposals' legality.

The Pentagon is forbidden from spreading black propaganda in the American media, but there is nothing to stop an American newspaper picking up a story carried abroad.

The Pentagon is well versed in what it calls "psyops", dropping leaflets and using radio broadcasts to undermine enemy morale.

But these kind of activities have always been confined to the battlefield, such as Afghanistan.

Using covert tactics on media outlets of friendly countries is much more controversial.

Wow, that's interesting, they even called it the "black propaganda department" eh? Care to somehow back that up?

Had you ever stopped to think that perhaps you're being influenced by your government and media in the same way that you claim the Americans are being influenced by their Government and Media? Perhaps America isn't as bad as you seem to think it is, but would you really know? Have you ever been to America, or have you only heard about it through your own media and government? There's no doubt that the American media is nationalistic, and there probabally is some government influence in it (since no one challenged the assertion that Iraq had WMD and all...), but why should there be any more doubt in your mind that your media and government are biased against America and want you to believe it's worse than it is, and all other sorts of lies?

 

[vanesch]

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," a speaker identified as Zarqawi said in an audio tape on the Internet.

I don't know how this can make you favor Bush's actions. Indeed, although of course Zarqawi's statements (whether he exists or not) are to be despised, who is responsible for the situation that made it such that a madman can make such a call in the media without immediately loosing all credibility and respect ? Who is responsible for such hate in the mind of people that such statements become acceptable ?
If someone, before the invasion in Iraq, had made such a statement, inside or outside of Iraq, he would just be ridiculous. Now, suddenly, such a statement becomes defendable (at least, that's now the opinion of Zarqawi and his followers, otherwise they would not have made it). Who is responsable for that change of minds ? It must be a great politician and statesman who has enacted this :grumpy:

 

[chound]

There are Islamic party rule Turkey and Malaysia, did you hear about ethic cleansing! Both countries are the best economical and respect for human rights in the Islamic world.

I'm a Hindu and I lived in Malaysia in a vastly backward muslim dominated state of Kelantan. But you could not feel any difference. There are 2 temples in the city centre and few teples scattered wherever there is a sizable indian population in Kelantan. There has been no discrimination. May be the govt gives preference to Malays then Indians and then Chineese in Jobs and Education. But otherwise there is nothing. Many muslim polis regulate traffic during hindu festivals. Such a nice display of communal fraternity. But nothing is perfect and there may be some instances of over discrimination.

 

[plover]

From everything I've heard, it seems unlikely that al-Zarqawi does not exist (e.g. it does seem that he was in prison in Jordan for several years in the 90's). However, it also seems unlikely that he has played the role in Iraq that is attributed to him by the U.S. and some Iraqis (and it's at least possible he's been dead for a while). The most sensible theory of al-Zarqawi that I've seen is that his name is being http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FA18AFB-F2C9-4678-8E6A-3595D91B83A1.htm (Saddam's intelligence service):

Reflecting back, one cannot help but wonder if al-Zarqawi was used as a lure to trap the Americans into taking this action [attacking Falluja]. On the surface, the al-Zarqawi organisation seems too good to be true. A single Jordanian male is suddenly running an organisation that operates in sophisticated cells throughout Iraq. No one man could logically accomplish this. But there is an organisation that can - the Mukhabarat (intelligence) of Saddam Hussein.

According to former Iraqi intelligence personnel I have communicated with recently, the Mukhabarat, under instructions from Saddam Hussein, had been preparing for some time before the invasion of Iraq on how to survive, resist and defeat any US-led occupation of Iraq. A critical element of this resistance was to generate chaos and anarchy that would destabilise any US-appointed Iraqi government.

Another factor was to shift the attention of the US military away from the true heart of the resistance - Saddam's Baathist loyalists - and on to a fictional target that could be manipulated in an effort to control the pace, timing and nature of the US military response.

The author of the linked piece was apparently a weapon's inspector in Iraq for several years which explains why he would have contacts in the Mukhabarat.

It would be nice if there was something concrete to go on concerning Zarqawi though.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know how this can make you favor Bush's actions. Indeed, although of course Zarqawi's statements (whether he exists or not) are to be despised, who is responsible for the situation that made it such that a madman can make such a call in the media without immediately loosing all credibility and respect ? Who is responsible for such hate in the mind of people that such statements become acceptable ?
If someone, before the invasion in Iraq, had made such a statement, inside or outside of Iraq, he would just be ridiculous. Now, suddenly, such a statement becomes defendable (at least, that's now the opinion of Zarqawi and his followers, otherwise they would not have made it). Who is responsable for that change of minds ? It must be a great politician and statesman who has enacted this :grumpy:

You do know that the terrorism in the Middle East predates the current war, right? It even predates 9/11...

Here's a little bio (with pic): http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-musab-al-zarqawi/

and another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

 

[Bilal]

Ansar AL Islam is Kurds group who close to ALqaeda (established in Dec. 2001). Their base exists in Bijara-Habjah (town which was attacked by chemical weapons), this means their base in ''protected Kurds zone-non flight zone'' and Saddam was not allowed to send his army there. The zone was protected by Anglo-American air force from 1991 till 2003.

How you can blame Saddam for activities in Kurds area, which was protected by USA since 1991?!

You do know that the terrorism in the Middle East predates the current war, right? It even predates 9/11...

Here's a little bio (with pic): http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-musab-al-zarqawi/

 

[Bilal]

You can read also from the link you mentioned:

((After September 11
After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again traveled to Afghanistan and was reportedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former terrorist organization. Zarqawi then settled in the mostly-Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established. His followers claimed he was killed in a US bombing raid in the north of Iraq [11] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/).))

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2875269.stm


((About 70 US missiles are reported to have struck the belt of hill country close to the Iranian border that is controlled by the Ansar al-Islam.))

((Ansar al-Islam preaches a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war and controls about a dozen villages and a range of peaks between Kurdish-held territory and the Iranian border. ))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

 

[Zlex]

Anything on that Black Pentagon Propaganda Department, yet?

The credibility of your posts are lost with other posters when as soon as a claim is poked with a pin it crumbles to pieces.

 

[Gonzolo]

Bush do not fight Zarkawi and OBL, he is murdering innocent people.

I'm sure that's his guilty pleasure Saying things like this can make one lose credibility.

As I said before if .. KKK represents the American people then OBL and Zarkawi representing The Islamic world. Those people will never rule any place because nobody want them, thanks to CIA who gave them support in 80s and built for them many bases in Afghanistan.

Yes, I do thank OBL and the CIA for bringing down the Berlin wall. I don't like the idea of having a system trap its citizens inside its borders.

By the way, Islamic laws do not mean ethic cleansing! There are many schools created in Islamic history, most of them are open minded -except the school of OBL and Taliban.

But how can Islamic law be just when disagreement happens between an Muslim and a non-muslim? It's evident that the non-muslim are inherently second-class in such a system.

There are Islamic party rule Turkey and Malaysia, did you hear about ethic cleansing!

No, I did not. It's simply the only conclusion I can draw from what hear from Al-Qeaeaeaeda. I honestly don't know what would make those guys happy. They condemn themselves to be eternally pissed.

 

[russ_watters]

So, Bilal, are you now admitting that he exists?

 

[Bilal]

Did I confirm he exists or not?

Also you can read from the post again:

‘’….His followers claimed he was killed in a US bombing raid in the north of Iraq [11]

Even the American sources claimed that his leg was cut in that attack..

I said: if he exists, he will be within small isolated group.. He will not be that Superman who causes all troubles in Iraq!

They said: if we arrest Saddam , then the resistance will stop ... they did in December 2003 and the resistance increases ...

They said: creating national government will end the resistance ... they created it in July 2004, but the resistance increases ...

They said, destruction of Falluja will end the resistance, they destroyed it and the resistance continues ….

They said, after the election … Iraq will be stable (we will see!)

Now, they are saying Zarakawi is Superman and he causes all the troubles! I wish they will arrest him to see how Iraq will be peaceful!

So, Bilal, are you now admitting that he exists?[/QUOTE

 

[Zlex]

So, Bilal, are you now admitting that he exists?

I guess 10 foot poles are hard to come by.

Still waiting on that Black Pentagon Conspiracy Department.

It's quite amazing, and entertaining, to bear witness to this phenomenom.

 

[russ_watters]

So then if he exists, its our fault for creating him when we invaded Iraq, even though he began his career before the Iraq invasion? My friends are right - I really do need to start smoking pot.

Seriously, Zlex, the humor of it is half the reason I post in the politics forum.

 

[Gonzolo]

I don't know how this can make you favor Bush's actions. Indeed, although of course Zarqawi's statements (whether he exists or not) are to be despised, who is responsible for the situation that made it such that a madman can make such a call in the media without immediately loosing all credibility and respect ? Who is responsible for such hate in the mind of people that such statements become acceptable ?
If someone, before the invasion in Iraq, had made such a statement, inside or outside of Iraq, he would just be ridiculous. Now, suddenly, such a statement becomes defendable (at least, that's now the opinion of Zarqawi and his followers, otherwise they would not have made it). Who is responsable for that change of minds ? It must be a great politician and statesman who has enacted this :grumpy:

Zarqawi should do Yoga and drink herbal tea. Knowing I'd come out of it alive, I'd be glad to sit down with him and whatever written copy he has of the "principles of democracy" and discuss it over a beer - I mean... water.

Why Bush went to Iraq I still haven't figured out, I comfort myself by imagining we'd all be somehow suffering immensely had he not. But his choice of policy is still not a reason for choosing leaders through DNA, a discriminatory religious process, or by pulling his name out of a hat.

 

[vanesch]

You do know that the terrorism in the Middle East predates the current war, right? It even predates 9/11...

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. The point is not that there are crazy terrorists out there. The point is that even a terrorist has to make credible statements, at least credible to a restricted audience. For instance, OBL wants the world to be ruled by Islam, and there's a public for it. But up to recently, no terrorist in his right mind (whatever that may mean) would be so stupid as to declare war on democracy as a principle ! There would be no public for it at all, he would just discredit himself completely. The fact that there's a terrorist now out there claiming that, means that there IS now a public receptive of such a claim, otherwise he would not send it off in the media and make himself completely ridiculous, wouldn't he ?
The very fact that he thinks (and probably he's right) that there now IS a public who's receptive of the idea of a war on the principles of democracy means that the Iraqi mission has instored so much hate towards all which is the West, that even noble ideals such as democracy are good to piss on. Isn't this quite the opposite of what the mission was supposed to obtain ??

 

[vanesch]

Why Bush went to Iraq I still haven't figured out, I comfort myself by imagining we'd all be somehow suffering immensely had he not.

Well, if you have a lot of imagination, you can always do that
I think Bush himself hasn't figured out yet why he went to Iraq the way he did. I think it is because he didn't like Saddam, and the idea didn't go much further than that.

In the beginning, I was rather receptive of the "oil" comments and so on. But my view on Bush is changing, in that I'm starting to think that he's a profoundly good guy. I'm starting to think that he really thought that the world would be better off without Saddam (and not that this was just an excuse to go and get an easy victory, and a lot of oil and contracts for his friends, as I thought in the beginning), and that a small lie to motivate people to help him with that noble task (WMD, A quaida link...) wouldn't hurt. I think he had in fact a vision of a statesman, and really wanted to bring freedom, democracy, wealth and coca cola to his bearded fellowman. But the problem is that he has been terribly wrong in his approach because he hasn't got any idea of international politics and that the thing went absolutely not according to his simpleminded vision of world affairs. But he's probably a good boy and did what he thought he had to do. Next time better :rofl:

 

[Burnsys]

Anything on that Black Pentagon Propaganda Department, yet?

The credibility of your posts are lost with other posters when as soon as a claim is poked with a pin it crumbles to pieces.

Information Operations
U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Information Operations Center (JIOC) is responsible for the integration of Information Operations (IO) into military plans and operations across the spectrum of conflict.
The JIOC provides direct C2W tactical and technical analytical support to operational commanders. The JIOC supports the integration of operations security, psychological operations, military deception, electronic warfare and destruction throughout the planning and execution phases of the operations.
http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/jtf-cno/jioc.htm
-------------------

The military calls it "psy-ops" - psychological warfare. In its crudest, most visible form, it's leaflets falling out of the skies, which in itself can be a chilling sight. Since October, 26 million leaflets have been strewn over Iraq, one that says your leader lives in luxury while you are starving, one that shows a cartoonish Saddam holding Iraq captive in his hands.

Psy-Ops:

There are also radio and television broadcasts, e-mails, cellphone messages and Internet material.

The military mindset that adopted the phrase "shock and awe" to brand a bombing campaign is acutely aware of the force of words that are as blunt as a cudgel. This is psychological warfare, and as the real firepower has become more overwhelmingly crushing, the military has put more effort into what it calls psy-ops. It is propaganda, but, however loaded that word is, it's not bombs and bullets. And, as the military says, words are cheaper than blood.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/realitycheck030326.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

PSYOPS seeks to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.
For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future

Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.

Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.

Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Information Operations
U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Information Operations Center (JIOC) is responsible for the integration of Information Operations (IO) into military plans and operations across the spectrum of conflict...

So you're claiming that this command is new, in support of your previous assertion...?

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Quite possibly...

The point is that even a terrorist has to make credible statements, at least credible to a restricted audience.

Now that, I just don't buy. To me, the point is simply control via hatred: it doesn't matter who, it doesn't matter why, but if you can get someone to hate someone else passionately, you can control them. The people he's trying to recruit, by and large, are uneducated, highly impressionable, and would't know democracy from foot fungus. It doesn't matter what the target of/reason for the hate is. A terrorist organization is basically a cult: get people to rebel against an authority (any authority) and they will be your slaves.

The very fact that he thinks (and probably he's right) that there now IS a public who's receptive of the idea of a war on the principles of democracy means that the Iraqi mission has instored so much hate towards all which is the West, that even noble ideals such as democracy are good to piss on. Isn't this quite the opposite of what the mission was supposed to obtain ??

I (and lot of other people) have been saying for years that this is a war against democracy. For a terrorist to finally admit it changes very little.