This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
Wonder how his son would feel abou that..
Published on February 3, 2006 By ShadowWar In War on Terror

I found a letter from a father of a solider killed in Iraq on a web site that is pro terrorist and reports items as "resistance" fighters and such. His son was killed in 2003 and the web site uses his letter as a propaganda tool. I wonder if he knows his words are posted as being pro-terrorist and supporting the "resistance". http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20248&hd=0&size=1&l=e The letter was originally sent and published on an local paper in his area. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/257833_veterandad02.html

I did a little more research and then found out that " His parents, Joe, 62, and Pat, 60, are peace activists who have marched against the Vietnam War, the Trident submarine base across Puget Sound from Seattle and the Iraq War. " http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/146769_casualty04.html Which they have every right to do. I just wonder if the know the are now poster children for the terrorist?

On this same site I find they have "her that will remain nameless" has written several things they use. She is even getting fan letters from the Terrorist! http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20231&hd=0&size=1&l=e . A search of the website shows more than 5000 hits for her name. Bet her son would be so proud of her.

I wonder if people who do these type of things (besides "her that will remain nameless") know that they are being used by the supporters of terrorist and the terrorist themselves to support their goals and objectives?

Here is an article from the same web site that I found to be very interesting to say the least, its title:

Media Responsibilities: Reasons We Publish What We Publish

Les Blough, Editor, Axis of Logic

Feb 2, 2006

I agree with Robert Thompson's assessment of the publication of anti-Muslim political cartoons in Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen. The publication caused uproar resulting in a
powerful boycott against the purchase of Danish goods, internationally. Any honest reader must agree that these cartoons were obviously designed to cause distress, conflict, and hatred toward Islam and Muslims. Rather than encouraging the reader to give this publisher more traffic, we will briefly describe 2 of the cartoons to allay curiousity. They are not worth viewing. One of the cartoons depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a "terrorist" and another is a slur against all Muslims everywhere. Those who claim the right to free speech as a defense of this sort of publication are either confused or are of the same meanness of spirit and mind that is expressed in the cartoons. Predictably, the publisher attempts a "free press" defense for what it has done.

That is just the first paragraph. You will find the rest of it just as entertaining.

: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20251&hd=0&size=1&l=e

Folks, its sad. Its sad that people don't wake up and see what’s really going on and how they are being used by a culture and religion that professes one thing and then turns around and does just that which they profess is not them. They cheer when the dead are Americans or others that support America, yet they decry it when it is a rifle or RPG toting "resistance" terrorist who was attempting to do just what they say they don't do.

This war is not against the Iraqi Insurgents, or the Iraqi people, or any small group of "resistance" fighters. Its against a religion and culture that has festered for centuries and now has an outlet for its violent and deadly tendencies. Its against a group that openly state their religion requires they kill any who not only openly oppose them, but even those that dare just speak out against them or now, even draw a cartoon. In the US artist are free to desecrate the Christian religion by placing what to some are sacred symbols in urine, throwing feces on other objects like that, and all is "OK" because its protected by "freedom of expression". But you do that to one of these fanatical Islamist symbols and you are threatened with death and violence.

This type of information only makes me more and more convinced that the US is the greatest nation in the world and that our soldiers are doing great things when they capture and kill the Islamic Radicals that are inciting the rest to violence. Another of the problems is why have the Muslims who are true Muslims and detest this type of violence, why have they not stepped forward and denounced these terrorist in greater numbers? It might be because the Muslim religion says one Muslim should not speak out against another Muslim in favor of an "infidel". But yet they will use what infidels write and say to try and further their cause. Well I guess it will come down to who is able to stop who. I have a feeling I know who will ultimately "win" this war. And I am glad I am on that side of the "line in the sand."

 



Site Meter


Listed on BlogShares

 


Comments
on Feb 03, 2006
Wow, this is like an IED dropped in the lap of everyone who thinks that there are no unintended consequences to calling for a premature surrender of our troops from Iraq.

Awhile ago, I posted an article about how the bacteria is using our freedom of speech as a weapon against our troops. Kingbee expressed doubt that they are using the U.S. anti war movement for their own purposes;

unless you can offer proof of some direct action to benefit the enemy--some number of whom are (whether you wish to recognize it or not) iraqis acting in the sincere belief they have a right to drive any occupying force from their nation--you risk libeling fellow citizens for no other reason than they disagree with your conclusion.Link


I admit, I couldn't answer his challenge, thanks for taking care of that in a most decisive manner.
on Feb 03, 2006
A very fine article.
on Feb 03, 2006
It just amazes me (although by now it should not) that the left only cries freedom of speech when it is speech they like.  I dont recall the author railing against Piss Christ or "Poop Mary".  Where was he then?  for those are clearly pure and simple hate against Christians.  Yet no outrage.  Pity.
on Feb 03, 2006
I admit, I couldn't answer his challenge, thanks for taking care of that in a most decisive manner.


I hope you make sure he sees this. That way he can not claim he never saw or heard of it.
on Feb 03, 2006

I found another American written piece on the same web site and sent this to the Author:

Mr. Rahkonen

I was just curious and would like a response on how you felt about your article being used as a pro-terrorist propaganda piece on a pro-terrorist web site? http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20246&hd=0&size=1&l=e  How or what do you feel knowing that what you wrote is now being used by the terrorist themselves to support their cause? Honestly, I am asking for a written response as I am doing a piece on how Americans who write pieces and how some are used as propaganda pieces by the terrorist and the possible or apparent consequences to our troops and American morale.

Thank you ahead of time for your reply.

Chris Wagoner
Gainesville Florida

Ex-3rd Infantry Soldier and Diasabled Veteran
Internet Blogger - http://shadowwar.joeuser.com/

Now lets see what kind, if any, response I get. Should prove interesting.

on Feb 04, 2006
DJBandit:
I hope you make sure he sees this. That way he can not claim he never saw or heard of it.


I don't know if Kingbee will see it, but I did post it here AND in the article of mine. We'll see.
on Feb 04, 2006
I don't know if Kingbee will see it, but I did post it here AND in the article of mine. We'll see.


found it totally by accident. (i'll copy this to your article as well just so we're all sorta on the same page.)

your 'war is about identifying weaknesses' Link piece bothered me because, after dancing around the issue for 6 of its 7 paragraphs, you finally assert americans--some of whom have distinguished themselves in combat and others who've lost immediate family members--who conclude we should withdraw from iraq are working or being worked to benefit our enemies there.

i don't doubt your sincerity for a second, btw. it's obviously as certain and irrefutable to you as the fact of your mortality.

unless (or especially if) you're claiming infallibility on this issue, there's at least a slight chance you're incorrect. speaking out against our foreign policy may not be the equivalent of speaking for the enemy.

throughout the piece and its thread, you make some conflicting statements about the intended target of this propaganda campaign.

it's gotta be us if this is true:

While they bacteria may use footage and quotes from the demonstrations to bolster their recruits, they only offer momentary motivation.


they must be incredibly subtle cuz i've yet to witness any 'tonite you die yankee dog' leaflets (i would be in favor of giving baghdad bob the dr phil spot, but not cuz i wanna see bob win in the end). nor do i believe any americans would respond to a terrorist call to action.

if it aint their constituancy and it ain't the american people, i'm left wondering if you feel these treasonous statements are gonna demoralize george bush. obviously that aint the case either cuz the boy is steadfast as we all been told too many times.

i gotta point out one more thing here.

i made a point of asking you to identify the 'bacteria' and you obliged me. you also surprised me with your answer:

I have always defined "the bacteria" the same way. The terrorists who have travelled from other countries to fight against the new government of Iraq.


if that's the case, it seemed i'd misunderstood you or foolishly presumed i knew your mind.

obviously shadowar has a more inclusive view of things.

This war is not against the Iraqi Insurgents, or the Iraqi people, or any small group of "resistance" fighters. Its against a religion and culture that has festered for centuries and now has an outlet for its violent and deadly tendencies.


if i had any remaining doubt about whether shadowwar distinguishes between the iraqi resistance (who have a right--one you'd surely claim if the situation was reversed--to fight any occupying force in their homeland) it was cleared up for me after checkin out the site to which he provided a link. it's creators are certainly not our friends. but that don't make them terrorists.

nor--according to your own definition of bacteria--does it make them bacteria.

so i'm left wondering what this is all about.

Awhile ago, I posted an article about how the bacteria is using our freedom of speech as a weapon against our troops. Kingbee expressed doubt that they are using the U.S. anti war movement for their own purposes
on Feb 04, 2006
I hope you make sure he sees this. That way he can not claim he never saw or heard of it.


unless you have some basis for your lame lil insinuations--and you don't--you'd do yourself a favor by getting some counseling or something for that distasteful projection thing you got goin on.
on Feb 04, 2006

Kingbee said:

if i had any remaining doubt about whether shadowwar distinguishes between the iraqi resistance (who have a right--one you'd surely claim if the situation was reversed--to fight any occupying force in their homeland) it was cleared up for me after checkin out the site to which he provided a link. it's creators are certainly not our friends. but that don't make them terrorists.

There is no such thing as an Iraqi Resistance. Sorry they are terrorist and they are not all Iraqi and they kill the Iraqi people more than they kill the "occupying forces". SO what then are they? Terrorist. Resistance fighters and Insugants fight for the people not to kill them.

Oh just to clarify things. If your not with us, and you support the death of Americans, then your a terrorist supporter at least, and a terrorist propaganda piece at the least. If not a terrorist using the site to spread the information. Here is a sample:

I'll just post the sites heading, that should be enough for the average person to figure it out that this site is PRO-TERRORIST. If you need more, let me know:

 information from occupied iraq
   ÃÎÈÇÑ ãä ÇáÚÑÇÞ ÇáãÍÊáÉ


or

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Friday, 3 February 2006
Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr, member, editorial board, the Free Arab Voice


or

Anatomy of a Murder
Not only our enemies around the world scoff when Bush speaks of human rights

and


Resistance reports nine US troops killed in fierce fighting in ar-Ramadi; US admits seven of its men dead in local radio broadcast.

In a bulletin posted at 11:30am Mecca time Thursday morning, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that at the time of reporting fierce fighting was underway in between Resistance forces an US and Iraqi puppet troops ar-Ramadi, some 110km west of Baghdad.


More? Do we need to take a vote to see if anyone else agrees or disagrees this site is PRO-TERRORIST/ ANTI-AMERICAN. By supporting the terrorist they are part of the terrorist network.

on Feb 05, 2006
There is no such thing as an Iraqi Resistance. Sorry they are terrorist and they are not all Iraqi and they kill the Iraqi people more than they kill the "occupying forces". SO what then are they? Terrorist. Resistance fighters and Insugants fight for the people not to kill them.


if there was no iraqi resistance, all combat operations in iraq would involve only foreign fighters (ours and others). what i believe you're trying to say is there is no legitimate iraqi resistance, but rather an insurgency.

who they kill or how it's done--deplorable tho both may be--has no bearing on whether they are either of the above since it's a question of national politics and not morals or ethics.

furthermore it seems as if these fighters are not a single unified force so much as a coalition of former baathists, sunni nationalists, shiites belonging to the al sadr militia and independent nationalist shiites. there are also some so-called foreign fighters--arab and other ethnic jihadis--some of whom may be members of al quaeda.

U.S. intelligence and military officials estimate that foreign fighters make up only 5% to 10% of the insurgency, but they say that foreign fighters are responsible for most of the deadliest, most sophisticated terrorist strikes.

"We can confirm that there have been Saudi Arabian fighters in Iraq but can't go into numbers," coalition forces spokeswoman Stacy Simon said.


But Saudis play a disproportionately large role, the evidence suggests. The few nongovernmental experts who track the insurgency estimate that 12% to 25% of the foreign fighters are Saudis.

One study of foreign fighters in Iraq concluded that of 154 Arab fighters killed in Iraq in the six months ended March 2005, Saudis constituted by far the highest number — 94, or 61% — followed by Syria, with 16.

The study by the Israel-based Project for the Research of Islamist Movements also concluded that 23 of 33 suicide bombers killed during that period were Saudis.

Reuven Paz, the project's director and a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official, said more recent statistics showed virtually identical percentages of Saudi fighters. He said the study was based on a detailed analysis of militant websites, the only information available.

U.S. government officials had no comment on why they do not release a breakdown of foreign militants killed or captured


Link
on Feb 05, 2006
as promised, i posted my take on your article in the thread of parated2k's article Link in which he claimed americans who call for troop withdrawal provide the resistance with propaganda fodder (since he directed me here from there).

the gist of his reply is similar to yours. i responded there with this. it seems equally responsive to your contentions.

if only all similarly complex political questions were so easily resolvable to everyone's satisfaction. there is, however, a valid basis for disputing the legitimacy of the present iraqi government. what's more, even if everyone involved unanimously stipulated to its authority, the presence of troops under any flag but iraq's or the united nations' may reasonably be considered those of an occupier.

did you consider the soviet troops in afghanistan occupiers despite the ussr's claim it was acting at the request of the recognized afghan government in accordance with a mutual support treaty? were you as supportive of the warsaw pact?

since you invoked the coalition's authority, lemme ask if you believe it would exist independent of us involvement?
on Feb 05, 2006
Oh just to clarify things. If your not with us, and you support the death of Americans, then your a terrorist supporter at least, and a terrorist propaganda piece at the least. If not a terrorist using the site to spread the information.


what this clarifies is your misunderstanding or repudiation of constitutional protections afforded to all american citizens--not solely those with whom you agree (or vice-versa).

you may be as convinced your opinion is right and all others are so horribly wrong as to doom their advocates to an eternity of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but you're just one of many--all of whom are very likely equally convinced their way is the only way.

until you're lawfully and officially appointed head of some sorta loyalty inquisition tribunal, deciding who among us is or isn't acting in the best interests of the united states is presumptiously arrogant, divisive, offensive and, frankly, unamerican. (if you should somehow be appointed head of a loyalty tribunal inquisition, i'd hope you--and any other american--would not only refuse to serve but would publicly denounce anyone connected with such an abberation.)
on Feb 06, 2006

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Sunday, February 05, 2006
Oh just to clarify things. If your not with us, and you support the death of Americans, then your a terrorist supporter at least, and a terrorist propaganda piece at the least. If not a terrorist using the site to spread the information.


what this clarifies is your misunderstanding or repudiation of constitutional protections afforded to all american citizens--not solely those with whom you agree (or vice-versa).

you may be as convinced your opinion is right and all others are so horribly wrong as to doom their advocates to an eternity of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but you're just one of many--all of whom are very likely equally convinced their way is the only way
.

I no where said you don't have a right to voice your opinions. SO where in the world di that come from? Are you saying I am not allowed to do the same? I thought you were smarter than this. I am sorry I assumed you were. There is a difference between peacful and non-violent demonstration of a issue and supporting the death of US Troops. And there are established methods for getting issues addressed by our government.

BY supporting the death of someone you encourage the same people to kill more and to be violent. This is especially true of violence prone people. If you are anti-abortion (not saying you are or are not, making a point here) and you see or hear of someone killing a doctor involved. Then you get online and post how they were right in what they did and that you feel they should do it more, and you openly support them, you are encouraging them to commit more murder. So that makes you a murder supporter correct? Doen't take a law degree to figure that one out.

As for you post "if only all similarly complex political questions were so easily resolvable to everyone's satisfaction. there is, however, a valid basis for disputing the legitimacy of the present iraqi government. what's more, even if everyone involved unanimously stipulated to its authority, the presence of troops under any flag but iraq's or the united nations' may reasonably be considered those of an occupier."

Our troops are there and recognized by the UN (not that that matters) and at the request of the newly ELECTED Iraqi government. And with more than 70% voter turn out I think their government is a better example of a representative government than ours. And our Troops are working with and actually training the troops that operate under the Iraqi Flag. Are those troops (the Iraqi ones) occupiers? If they are in your eyes then you seriously need to have your vision examined. If they are legitimate then those that attack them are not a resistance force but terrorist. More Iraqis are killed by the terrorist than US forces. We are not the primary target anymore and have not been for some time.

This will help(maybe) 

For most of January, the casualty rate in Iraq was at the lowest rate since the spring of 2004, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman said in a briefing from Baghdad today.

"In January ... there were 19 days where the number of casualties were lower than 50, and that's the lowest rate we've seen since the spring of '04," Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said.

"If you study total casualty numbers - and these casualty numbers include coalition, civilian and Iraqi security force casualties - the month of January had about 1,600 casualties," he said.

By comparison, he pointed out, November, December and January had monthly casualty totals 1,000 less than October and less than half those recorded in May 2004.

"You can see a significant trend line down in the number of casualties: coalition, civilian and Iraqi security force casualties," Lynch said.

While the overall downward trend is encouraging, "the predominant number of casualties are in the Iraqi civilian population," Lynch said. "If you work the numbers you realize that 50 percent of the casualties ... are Iraqi civilians."

Lynch attributes this to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in Iraq. He said the terrorist is inept at attacks against coalition and Iraqi security forces, so he has shifted the focus of his attacks.

"He's zoomed his target (in) on Iraqi civilians," Lynch said. "That is indeed the target of Zarqawi because he can get mass effects, he can get mass coverage, and he's trying to create a sectarian divide here in Iraq."

Yesterday's attack on Iraqi construction workers in a Baghdad Shiite neighborhood is a prime example of Zarqawi's tactics, Lynch said. A bomb killed at least eight and wounded more than 50.

But still Iraqi citizens' tips are foiling these kinds of attacks on a more regular basis, he said.

Two recent operations were launched in Baghdad and north of Karbala on tips from Iraqi citizens. They resulted in the detention of a suspected kidnapper and the discovery of materials used in making improvised explosive devices, Lynch said.

The number of tips from Iraqis has increased from about 400 in December 2004 to 4,700 in December 2005, he said. Iraqi citizens gave coalition and Iraqi security forces over 30,000 tips last year, the general noted.

"We find a majority ... of our operations and Iraqi security force operations are intelligence-led operations based on tips provided by Iraqi citizens," Lynch said.

Security operations are continuing all across Iraq, he added. Of the 443 total operations conducted last week, only about one-third were coalition forces only.

"Two-thirds ... were either conducted independently by the Iraqi security forces or done in combination with coalition forces," Lynch said. "So you see, we've reached the point in our counterinsurgency operations where the Iraqi security forces have clearly taken the lead across Iraq."

Last week's operations resulted in the detention of 320 suspected terrorists, 11 foreign fighters, 100 weapons caches and the clearing of 150 emplaced IEDs, he said.

Any person that says the people that are blowing themsleves up and killing both US and Iraqi Military, and the Iraqi civilians are nothing more than resistence fighters is seriously in denial of what is going on. Have you talked to anyone that has actually been there on the ground with the Iraqi Forces and police and seen whats going on? I have, several times. And almost to the one they state that the vast majority of Iraqi people want us there until their forces can take over. That to me gives our troops legitimacy to be there, especially when the people want them there.

From a Jan 26th briefing:  Question: General, Hi. Dogan Hannah with Knight Ridder Newspapers. I was wondering what the U.S. -- what the military's response is to the Islamic Party's call this week for Sunnis to defend themselves from these raids that have been occurring. I mean, is this something that you would support or discourage, or I mean, you know, what is the message, and has there in fact been a formal message or response to this?

GEN. LYNCH: There hasn't been a formal response, but the answer to your question is the answer that I give all the time. What the people of Iraq need is trust and confidence in their Iraqi security forces -- those 227,000 trained, equipped members of the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army. And rather than advocating armed militias or armed response to acts of violence, the people of Iraq need to support the established Iraqi security forces, and that's what we see in general terms.

As I've talked about before, polling data leads us to believe that 80 percent of the people of Iraq have trust and confidence in the Iraqi security forces, and that's what needs to happen.

Its fairly simple. If you support the terrorist that are killing innocent Iraqi men, women and children, and encouraging them to do it more and posting things about their success, then you are a terrorist supporter. Any disputing of that? Didn't think so.

You are also aware that the people of Iraq themselves have started to fight back against the terrorist. Reports (tips about IEDs, caches, and terroris) to the Coalition forces have increased 970% over the year (2005). In addition Iraqis are fighting back against the terrorist. 

From a Jan 22 briefing in Iraq to the Iraqi/ FREE press.

Q (Through interpreter.) On January 19, Major Recklenin (sp) said that there have been some fighting between some armed Iraqi groups and insurgents in Al Anbar and Salahuddin. Do you think this is a positive development against the Zarqawi organization? Do you think it is a positive step for the Iraqi side or for you also?

GEN. ALSTON: I say yes to all of those questions. It is a positive sign that the people of -- in Al Anbar -- and we've seen it in Ramadi, most recently -- that the people of Al Anbar would see Zarqawi and his people for what they are, people that bring violence to their area, that have no future, that includes them, that democracy is absolutely not part of the future that Zarqawi and al Qaeda have in mind for the area of Iraq. For them to recognize that as they have seen it, but for them to show their opposition by drawing the line to secure their neighborhood, for their local leaders to step out against Zarqawi, whether it would be sheikhs and others who would share the same values as those local people, all of that, I think, is a positive sign.

The people of those areas, I think, have never had difficulty understanding the violence associated with Zarqawi. But the fact that we have reached a point in Iraq where in those areas they are not only not intimidated by Zarqawi, but that they are willing to stand up and oppose Zarqawi -- I think that's the more interesting issue and the more interesting development, the fact that they feel that they can oppose them, the fact that they have more Iraqi security forces and Iraqi army in particular in Al Anbar that are there to support them, then I think that that is an interesting development. I think it's a positive development. And as I said before, the key to reducing violence in Iraq faster is the people of Iraq exposing the terrorists so that they can be taken away and brought to justice.

So the question boils down to who do you support Kingbee? The Iraqi People (at least 80% of them that want democracy (the voters), those fighting against the terrorist (Iraqi police and Armed forces) or those that advocate the killing of innocent Iraqis, the Iraqi Army and police and the coalition forces? If you answer the later, you are a terrorist sympathizer at least and other things that I will not use the words here to describe.

Its a pretty easy call. If you can drop all the Bush hate, and look at just the Iraqi People and ur forces and leave Bush out of it, yo may not be so blind.