Debka is breaking news that nobody else has. This makes it hard to confirm, but in my opinion they have a very good track record. That doesn't mean that I trust them.
Apparently the invasion has started. Not with a massive bombing campaign, but with a lightning blitz of heavy armor rolling north from Kuwait towards the southern oil fields (which they claim have been surrounded for a month by U.S. special forces.)
And supposedly deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz has defected and is in U.S. hands. And Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan has not been seen in Baghdad for three days, and is suspected of having defected as well.
Hmmm. Now all debka content is gone. The site is there, and the template, but no words.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Meanwhile, more reputable news sources are saying that Iraq has fired the first shot.
Bush's letter to Congress: ...acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I just can't believe the brazen lying going on. I'm not saying Sadam's regime isn't evil - just that we have no proof of specific evil acts which would trigger a legal (or even moral) invasion of another country. Lynch mobs are sometimes correct in their judgements, but that doesn't make lynch mobs morally or legal valid! So, to belabor the point, where is the proof that Iraq had any (even tangential) connection to 9/11? THERE IS NONE! Might it be true? Sure. A lot of stuff might be true. That's not the issue. We should need some proof (the kind someone even marginally objective might believe) before we can kill a bunch of people and demand the moral high ground while doing so.
The fact that the administration has been repeatedly caught providing false information of a connection to 9/11 as well as on the status of the Iraq nuclear program only makes us more dubious.
Be prepared for the flood of manufactured evidence once they go in, to justify this after the fact. Remember Noriega's "cache of pornography"? I think it was a copy of Playboy.
[Yes I know I'm ranting. But this is my blog, so it's OK.]
I'm sure there are people who would be exasperated with my position. The same way many people can't understand it when the ACLU defends the rights of neo-nazi groups to march. "But these people are bad!" Yeah, no shit. The key is not to become like them, even as you work to defeat their ideas. I know you know this Tom, I just can't believe how many people don't get it. I'm against this war not because I'm for Sadam, but because I'm for the rule of international law over madmen like Sadam and Bush.
Of course we're going to find out he was a really really bad guy after we go in. Why am I so sure? Because we all already know he's a really really bad guy. We don't need the evidence to come to that conclusion. The reason we need some evidence before we attack is to demonstrate to the world that we are not doing the sort of thing we are accusing - and attacking - Saddam for doing. Namely - invading other countries with no legal backing!
D'uh!
This is going to drive me crazy. Like you were saying Tom, for sure they will roll the press in ASAP to broadcast all sorts of horrible images: torture rooms, rape rooms, mass graves, chemical weapons, bio weapons. Yes, yes. We know that all already. But holding this up as justifying the illegal invasion is completely missing the point.
People too uninformed to realize this are in the unfortunate position of being brain washed. People who do realize the bigger picture, and are still backing the U.S. action are doing serious harm to the stability of the world. And presumably with full understanding. So what's going on?
I hate to risk going even more off the deep end, but one has to start wondering about the streak of religious fundamentalism in the U.S. government. Is someone trying to bring on the apocalypse? It seems hard to completely rule that theory out, as unplausable as it sounds. I liked it better when the crazy conspiracy theories were about power and oil and money instead of the willful destruction of the world.
I'm just trying to sound blase. I'm completely freaked out about this. It's not that we haven't done this before--Panama is actually a good example, we apparently killed hundreds of people to get one guy--but the scale of this is enormous. I think it's a combination of Bush's fundamentalism, Cheney's view that we have to make the world fear us, Likud influence in the White House--these people don't listen to anyone. That's understandable in that they're nuts--but what creeps me out are all the mainstream, un-zealot Washington establishment types going along with this. It took a herd mentality among highly educated, supposedly critical thinkers to get us where we are today.
I'd bet that there are already US forces in parts of Iraq but FWIW Debka can be erratic at times. During the Afghan War they claimed Chinese troops had marched into Afghanistan and were headed for Jalalabad. Debka's content may also be subject to Israeli military censorship.
I've read follow up reports which confirm that there were Chinese muslim fighters on the Chinese side of the border at the beginning of the Afghan war. Whether these groups were under the control of the Chinese government or not is another question (Debka seemed to indicate that they were.) I can't find a link now, but I'll keep looking. In any case, I don't think that story is a complete refutation of Debka's accuracy. I read them everyday, and they get way more right - generally 24 hours ahead of anybody else - then they get wrong.
But yes, they do get a few things wrong. And I don't really trust them to not be spreading disinfo. But I'm not sure they're worthy of too much extra caution compared to the rest of the media.
Well, OK, both of Debka's claims look like they are wrong. Not that anything is too clear at this point. On the other hand, that post got me three inbound links, and since all I really care about is my power in google I'll say that's a job well done.
At least some good is coming out of this. I'm switching to blase mode now too.
In blase mode? Read Modesty Blaise!
LOL. "The wonderful thing about Modesty is that she isn't just a tough guy in a woman's body." If I had a penny for every time I heard that. Oh wait...
I've never read Robert Stone's Dog Soldiers, but after William Gibson described it as "deep fried anomie" I sought it out. Kids who think war is great should read it to see how people felt and talked after 10 years of Vietnam.
It's really good. The movie version, called Who'll Stop the Rain, is pretty good too.
I did see that, back in the day. Nick Nolte had the same edition of the Portable Nietzsche I did (I think I still have it--can't find it on the shelf though). I'll probably watch it again (if I can find it) once I finish the book.
"for sure they will roll the press in ASAP to broadcast all sorts of horrible images: torture rooms, rape rooms, mass graves, chemical weapons, bio weapons." And you can bet that while they're at it they'll be seizing anything documenting Rummy's past (friendly) dealings with Saddam.
rant on brother, its some wierd times........
When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro. H.S. Thomson
this is no World Pro Fun Tour.....
Dumbass, we have unquestionable facts that they ARE terrorists! You should back your country and everyone fighting for it. We are protecting ourselves from terrorism and we will not tolerate it, not after thousands have died. You and everyone protesting the war, should be round up and shot. DIE! You terrorist aid!
Dumbass, we have unquestionable facts that they ARE terrorists! You should back your country and everyone fighting for it. We are protecting ourselves from terrorism and we will not tolerate it, not after thousands have died. You and everyone protesting the war, should be round up and shot. DIE! You terrorist aid!
in with the good air, out with the bad (anonymous) air
It's a good thing he's pasting the same statement, he's got a lot of posts and comments to troll.
we know there are many sicko's in this world and this here anonymous is one of them...
i was in line this morning to get a tea and the woman behind me couldn't believe the post's front page photo - an american marine was giving water to an iraqi soldier that was captured. "but he's the enemy?!" - she was horrified. what does shrub say, we're a compassionate people?
Yeah, it seems a lot of people are eagerly embracing the idea of "enemy."
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Ah yes, that's the word I was looking for: servile.
Pretentious bollocks, get real. War is not agame of chess.
|
Apparently the invasion has started. Not with a massive bombing campaign, but with a lightning blitz of heavy armor rolling north from Kuwait towards the southern oil fields (which they claim have been surrounded for a month by U.S. special forces.)
And supposedly deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz has defected and is in U.S. hands. And Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan has not been seen in Baghdad for three days, and is suspected of having defected as well.
- jim 3-19-2003 7:33 pm
Hmmm. Now all debka content is gone. The site is there, and the template, but no words.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Meanwhile, more reputable news sources are saying that Iraq has fired the first shot.
- jim 3-19-2003 9:09 pm
Bush's letter to Congress:
I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I just can't believe the brazen lying going on. I'm not saying Sadam's regime isn't evil - just that we have no proof of specific evil acts which would trigger a legal (or even moral) invasion of another country. Lynch mobs are sometimes correct in their judgements, but that doesn't make lynch mobs morally or legal valid! So, to belabor the point, where is the proof that Iraq had any (even tangential) connection to 9/11? THERE IS NONE! Might it be true? Sure. A lot of stuff might be true. That's not the issue. We should need some proof (the kind someone even marginally objective might believe) before we can kill a bunch of people and demand the moral high ground while doing so.The fact that the administration has been repeatedly caught providing false information of a connection to 9/11 as well as on the status of the Iraq nuclear program only makes us more dubious.
- jim 3-19-2003 9:14 pm
Be prepared for the flood of manufactured evidence once they go in, to justify this after the fact. Remember Noriega's "cache of pornography"? I think it was a copy of Playboy.
- tom moody 3-19-2003 9:39 pm
[Yes I know I'm ranting. But this is my blog, so it's OK.]
I'm sure there are people who would be exasperated with my position. The same way many people can't understand it when the ACLU defends the rights of neo-nazi groups to march. "But these people are bad!" Yeah, no shit. The key is not to become like them, even as you work to defeat their ideas. I know you know this Tom, I just can't believe how many people don't get it. I'm against this war not because I'm for Sadam, but because I'm for the rule of international law over madmen like Sadam and Bush.
Of course we're going to find out he was a really really bad guy after we go in. Why am I so sure? Because we all already know he's a really really bad guy. We don't need the evidence to come to that conclusion. The reason we need some evidence before we attack is to demonstrate to the world that we are not doing the sort of thing we are accusing - and attacking - Saddam for doing. Namely - invading other countries with no legal backing!
D'uh!
This is going to drive me crazy. Like you were saying Tom, for sure they will roll the press in ASAP to broadcast all sorts of horrible images: torture rooms, rape rooms, mass graves, chemical weapons, bio weapons. Yes, yes. We know that all already. But holding this up as justifying the illegal invasion is completely missing the point.
People too uninformed to realize this are in the unfortunate position of being brain washed. People who do realize the bigger picture, and are still backing the U.S. action are doing serious harm to the stability of the world. And presumably with full understanding. So what's going on?
I hate to risk going even more off the deep end, but one has to start wondering about the streak of religious fundamentalism in the U.S. government. Is someone trying to bring on the apocalypse? It seems hard to completely rule that theory out, as unplausable as it sounds. I liked it better when the crazy conspiracy theories were about power and oil and money instead of the willful destruction of the world.
- jim 3-19-2003 9:57 pm
I'm just trying to sound blase. I'm completely freaked out about this. It's not that we haven't done this before--Panama is actually a good example, we apparently killed hundreds of people to get one guy--but the scale of this is enormous. I think it's a combination of Bush's fundamentalism, Cheney's view that we have to make the world fear us, Likud influence in the White House--these people don't listen to anyone. That's understandable in that they're nuts--but what creeps me out are all the mainstream, un-zealot Washington establishment types going along with this. It took a herd mentality among highly educated, supposedly critical thinkers to get us where we are today.
- tom moody 3-19-2003 10:12 pm
I'd bet that there are already US forces in parts of Iraq but FWIW Debka can be erratic at times. During the Afghan War they claimed Chinese troops had marched into Afghanistan and were headed for Jalalabad. Debka's content may also be subject to Israeli military censorship.
- bruno 3-19-2003 11:13 pm
I've read follow up reports which confirm that there were Chinese muslim fighters on the Chinese side of the border at the beginning of the Afghan war. Whether these groups were under the control of the Chinese government or not is another question (Debka seemed to indicate that they were.) I can't find a link now, but I'll keep looking. In any case, I don't think that story is a complete refutation of Debka's accuracy. I read them everyday, and they get way more right - generally 24 hours ahead of anybody else - then they get wrong.
But yes, they do get a few things wrong. And I don't really trust them to not be spreading disinfo. But I'm not sure they're worthy of too much extra caution compared to the rest of the media.
- jim 3-19-2003 11:41 pm
Well, OK, both of Debka's claims look like they are wrong. Not that anything is too clear at this point. On the other hand, that post got me three inbound links, and since all I really care about is my power in google I'll say that's a job well done.
At least some good is coming out of this. I'm switching to blase mode now too.
- jim 3-20-2003 5:54 pm
In blase mode? Read Modesty Blaise!
- bruno 3-20-2003 6:13 pm
LOL. "The wonderful thing about Modesty is that she isn't just a tough guy in a woman's body." If I had a penny for every time I heard that. Oh wait...
- jim 3-20-2003 6:24 pm
I've never read Robert Stone's Dog Soldiers, but after William Gibson described it as "deep fried anomie" I sought it out. Kids who think war is great should read it to see how people felt and talked after 10 years of Vietnam.
- tom moody 3-20-2003 7:06 pm
It's really good. The movie version, called Who'll Stop the Rain, is pretty good too.
- bruno 3-20-2003 7:42 pm
I did see that, back in the day. Nick Nolte had the same edition of the Portable Nietzsche I did (I think I still have it--can't find it on the shelf though). I'll probably watch it again (if I can find it) once I finish the book.
- tom moody 3-20-2003 7:59 pm
"for sure they will roll the press in ASAP to broadcast all sorts of horrible images: torture rooms, rape rooms, mass graves, chemical weapons, bio weapons." And you can bet that while they're at it they'll be seizing anything documenting Rummy's past (friendly) dealings with Saddam.
- steve 3-21-2003 4:53 am
rant on brother, its some wierd times........
- Skinny 3-21-2003 5:45 am
When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro. H.S. Thomson
- mark 3-21-2003 5:49 am
this is no World Pro Fun Tour.....
- Skinny 3-21-2003 2:27 pm
Dumbass, we have unquestionable facts that they ARE terrorists! You should back your country and everyone fighting for it. We are protecting ourselves from terrorism and we will not tolerate it, not after thousands have died. You and everyone protesting the war, should be round up and shot. DIE! You terrorist aid!
- anonymous (guest) 3-22-2003 3:39 am
Dumbass, we have unquestionable facts that they ARE terrorists! You should back your country and everyone fighting for it. We are protecting ourselves from terrorism and we will not tolerate it, not after thousands have died. You and everyone protesting the war, should be round up and shot. DIE! You terrorist aid!
- anonymous (guest) 3-22-2003 3:40 am
in with the good air, out with the bad (anonymous) air
- pam 3-22-2003 5:02 am
It's a good thing he's pasting the same statement, he's got a lot of posts and comments to troll.
- steve 3-22-2003 8:03 am
we know there are many sicko's in this world and this here anonymous is one of them...
- Skinny 3-22-2003 5:55 pm
i was in line this morning to get a tea and the woman behind me couldn't believe the post's front page photo - an american marine was giving water to an iraqi soldier that was captured. "but he's the enemy?!" - she was horrified. what does shrub say, we're a compassionate people?
- linda 3-22-2003 6:05 pm
Yeah, it seems a lot of people are eagerly embracing the idea of "enemy."
- jimlouis 3-22-2003 6:59 pm
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Ah yes, that's the word I was looking for: servile.
- mark 3-22-2003 7:10 pm
Pretentious bollocks, get real. War is not agame of chess.
- Buer (guest) 3-27-2003 3:09 am