It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraqis Apprehend US Soldiers Dressed as Arabs Trying to Detonate a car Bomb

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd


So? There was no car packed with explosives in the context it was being reported. And you said it wasn't reported, which it was. You did not say it was reported, but didn't specify what the Brits were wearing. Now you're just trying to cover yourself, but your post is right near the top of the page. You said it was not reported. Now you say you saw it on Fox as well.


Not trying to cover anything, I just don't consider a half assed story missing half the facts a report, that's all.

For instance, remember when there were reports of the U.S striking a "terrorist" base, and it turned out that we attacked a wedding ceremony, or celebration? Well, would you consider those original stories as accurate reports?Would you consider that origianal story "news" ? Or would you consider it as worthless?

Regardless, I stand by my original statements. This will not reach mainstream press unless there are photos circulating out there, just like with the brit incident. And,waiting for western news services to carry a story before anyone believes it is assenine.
[edit on 14-10-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Well, for one I don't think pictures of rapes can be openly aired on the news, just like beheadings, in case children are watching. That said, if our media was controlled by Bush and his cronies, ALOT of things would not have seen the light of day, not even the pictures that were released. It's a bunk argument that ALL of our media is controlled by this administration.


Just because something is unfit for primetime is no reason for the pentagon to keep photos under lock and key. As for the media being controlled by bush, to believe that this administration has not had a stranglehold on most of the reports out of Iraq is naive at best, nevermind all the journalist that have ended up shot and detained by coalition forces. Am I arguing that they have complete control? No, but they are trying.



You're right, I don't care what they refer to them as. It just lacks professionalism, and gives clues as to how deeply they likely check the facts they are reporting. I wonder if they're the same ones who were reporting giant spiders fighting along side the resistance, I guess our biased media covered that up as well.


Well, it lacks professionalism when most media outlets call the resistance insurgents, which they are clearly not, yet these are the very same sources that you are waiting for verification from. Sorry but your argument that this is propaganda, and that you are going to wait for reports from the other sides propaganda for verification, confuses me.

I never saw the iraqi resistance report cover anything on spiders. They have had quite a few breaking stories though.


My brand of propaganda? I don't buy into propaganda on either side, and I'm against this war in Iraq. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge everybody who disagrees with you as somebody who supports Bush. I certainly don't. But that doesn't mean I believe every story that comes from the resistance/insurgents either, unlike some. I try not to buy into propaganda of ANY kind.


It is human nature to accept that which we have already formed an opinion on, or are you to tell me that you are somehow different? The comment was not to you per se, just to all the posts in general that dismissed the story outright for no other reason than its source.

I never claimed you supported Bush or this war either, just like I never claimed that the Brit story was not on any western media outlet, just like I never claimed that I thought this story was true...

Quick to judge?...Pot, kettle, black.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Not trying to cover anything, I just don't consider a half assed story missing half the facts a report, that's all.

For instance, remember when there were reports of the U.S striking a "terrorist" base, and it turned out that we attacked a wedding ceremony, or celebration? Well, would you consider those original stories as accurate reports?Would you consider that origianal story "news" ? Or would you consider it as worthless?


Regardless of what I considered it, I would be wrong if I flat out said it wasn't reported. That's all. I understand what you mean, but you should have stated the western media reported, but in your opinion they reported it inaccurately.



Regardless, I stand by my original statements. This will not reach mainstream press unless there are photos circulating out there, just like with the brit incident. And,waiting for western news services to carry a story before anyone believes it is assenine.


The Brit incident happened so fast, it's impossible to say it wouldn't have been reported had there been no pictures. To say that would be mere speculation regardless how sure of your opinion you are. And why do you automatically believe the resistance reports, but dismiss western reports as biased? Personally, I don't believe either. I take the reports given by both, and look for a middle ground. That's usually the closest to the truth. The problem is so many feel the need to choose a side, I see both as wrong. Unlike the movies, I don't see a right and a wrong in this conflict, I see two wrongs and a bunch of innocent Iraqis in the middle.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Just because something is unfit for primetime is no reason for the pentagon to keep photos under lock and key. As for the media being controlled by bush, to believe that this administration has not had a stranglehold on most of the reports out of Iraq is naive at best, nevermind all the journalist that have ended up shot and detained by coalition forces. Am I arguing that they have complete control? No, but they are trying.


They'd better try harder, most of the reports out of Iraq are bad. More soldiers, more innocents killed every day. Support for this war, and this president is falling like a rock. There are almost no feel good stories coming from Iraq, if this administration was in control, the picture would not be so grim.



Well, it lacks professionalism when most media outlets call the resistance insurgents, which they are clearly not, yet these are the very same sources that you are waiting for verification from. Sorry but your argument that this is propaganda, and that you are going to wait for reports from the other sides propaganda for verification, confuses me.


Being called in insurgent is not a blatant insult, being called a puppet is. Being called an occupier is not a blatant insult, being called an infidel is. That's the defference in the level of professionalism. That should be obvious. As for waiting for the other side's propaganda, I wait, again, to search for the middle ground.



I never saw the iraqi resistance report cover anything on spiders. They have had quite a few breaking stories though.


Ask Syrian Sister, she'll provide you all the info you need. While you're at it ask her about the doves of war.



It is human nature to accept that which we have already formed an opinion on, or are you to tell me that you are somehow different? The comment was not to you per se, just to all the posts in general that dismissed the story outright for no other reason than its source.


Not just the source, but also the lack of any evidence other than a story on the internet, like I said I'll wait for the pictures. But I doubt they're coming.



I never claimed you supported Bush or this war either, just like I never claimed that the Brit story was not on any western media outlet, just like I never claimed that I thought this story was true...


I assumed that because you said my propaganda, when I have no reason to spread propaganda. But you clarified that you didn't actually mean mine when you said mine. Just like when you said....

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
most western media sources did not report the story for a few days


...you meant they did, you just didn't find them to be entirely accurate.

Maybe you should be a little more clear in what you really mean?




Quick to judge?...Pot, kettle, black.


When did I say resistance propaganda was your propaganda? When did I insinuate that you believe everything they say and support them? Please show the pot where he made the kettle feel as if the kettle was assumed to support or spread resistance propaganda.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
.
.
.
.
Did anyone notice the source of the story? It had the code .ru in the
address. Isn't .ru the code for Russia? Tell me how big a presence
does the Russian press have in Iraq. Tell me also if they do have a
presence, are they there to tell the truth or for some other agenda.




[edit on 14-10-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Regardless of what I considered it, I would be wrong if I flat out said it wasn't reported. That's all. I understand what you mean, but you should have stated the western media reported, but in your opinion they reported it inaccurately.


Let me get this straight, and please allow me to continue with the example that I provided for simplicity's sake. So when the media reports that a terrorist safe house is hit, when in fact no terrorist safe house was hit, that still counts as a report of the incident in your eyes?




The Brit incident happened so fast, it's impossible to say it wouldn't have been reported had there been no pictures. To say that would be mere speculation regardless how sure of your opinion you are. And why do you automatically believe the resistance reports, but dismiss western reports as biased?


Of course it's imposible to state with any certainty whether or not the story would have been covered had there been no photos. I have seen stories break though, and western media will not run it until there is overwhelming evidence floating around the public sphere. After a few years of this, yes, I have come to the conclusion that a story will not break unless there are photo's to back it up.

Now, as for automatically believing resistance reports, I never said I believed this report . Admittedly, I do put a bit of faith in the resistance report as I have seen too many instances where they are more accurate than western media. I do not however believe every story that they run, nor did I ever claim that to be the case either.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
They'd better try harder, most of the reports out of Iraq are bad. More soldiers, more innocents killed every day. Support for this war, and this president is falling like a rock. There are almost no feel good stories coming from Iraq, if this administration was in control, the picture would not be so grim.


Oh really? From everything I gather, most of the stories are feel good stories, and the ones that are not, are usually "inaccurate".



Being called in insurgent is not a blatant insult, being called a puppet is. Being called an occupier is not a blatant insult, being called an infidel is. That's the defference in the level of professionalism. That should be obvious. As for waiting for the other side's propaganda, I wait, again, to search for the middle ground.



No, it's a blatant lie is what it is, and most people consider lies about them to be an insult.



Ask Syrian Sister, she'll provide you all the info you need. While you're at it ask her about the doves of war.


I am more than familiar with the story, my only point is that I never saw it on the iraqi resistance report.




Maybe you should be a little more clear in what you really mean?



Perhaps I should, after a couple of years here I probably should know by now that people like to pick apart sentences and argue semantics as opposed to addressing the points raised, my bad...


[When did I say resistance propaganda was your propaganda? When did I insinuate that you believe everything they say and support them? Please show the pot where he made the kettle feel as if the kettle was assumed to support or spread resistance propaganda.


Above you did ask why I am quick to believe the resitance report, and deny the major media reports. Why would you ask that if you did not believe that to be the case? Why would you believe that to be the case when I never said anything like that? Because you were quick to judge, that's why.

The pot kettle black comment was in reference to you saying that I was""quick to judge", when in fact you have been pretty quick to judge yourself. Like when I mentioned the brits and said that it did not hit "most major media outlets" . What did you do? You were quick to judge, and tell me how fox, and ATS had the story. You like playing semantics so much, how about this? Did I ever say that not a single major media outlet covered the story? No I did not. I said most. How much clearer can I be?


Of course there is more, but I think you get my point now. You have been pretty quick to judge yourself, hence the ...pot, kettle, black comment.


[edit on 14-10-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
i've been looking for the article.

Thanks for that



Quds Press spoke by telephone with a member of the al-Ghazaliyah puppet police who confirmed the incident, saying that the two men were non-Arab foreigners but declined to be more precise about their nationality.


Could have been green card soldiers.


This story more than likely true, after all it wouldn't be the first time!!!! And it's not really our side that is known for lying *cough* wmd's *cough*. However i doubt we will ever know for sure wether it is absolutely true for sure. It seems the evidence has been taken away.

The resistance reports where very very reliable at the start of the war, They reported things that took the main stream media days to catch up on. And sometimes they give photographs that the mainstream media do not.

But after a while, there are fears that the resistance reports have been infilitrated by the missinformants working for the enemy. The IR reports work on gathering news from alot of sources, makfarat al islam, al quds press, on the ground correspondents. There are now fears that some of those informants are sabateurs working against the resistance.

however it remains to be a source far far more reliable than the controlled western media.

And this time, this story definetly isn't sent in by a enemy infilitrator.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Buy your self a dictionary.


Partisans, and resistance fighters, that is the name of iraqies fighting the occupation.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Let me get this straight, and please allow me to continue with the example that I provided for simplicity's sake. So when the media reports that a terrorist safe house is hit, when in fact no terrorist safe house was hit, that still counts as a report of the incident in your eyes?


Of course it counts as a report. For simplicity's sake, if you ask me for the answer to 2+2, and I say 15, did I not give you an answer? Not saying the answer is correct, but it is an answer. Because you disagreed with the way in which the incident was reported, you can say it does not exist? Also the incident you mentioned, and the incident with the British soldiers are two different things. Fox did not say they were there selling ice cream, the only thing left out of the immediate reports was how they were dressed, so now anytime the media reports anything are they to report what everybody was wearing or the report doesn't actually exist? If so Fox also left out that there were members of the madhi army disguised as police in Basra.



Of course it's imposible to state with any certainty whether or not the story would have been covered had there been no photos. I have seen stories break though, and western media will not run it until there is overwhelming evidence floating around the public sphere. After a few years of this, yes, I have come to the conclusion that a story will not break unless there are photo's to back it up.


That's just responsible journalism, you can't simply report something because somebody says it's true. Facts must be checked and must be verifiable, which is something I don't think, IMO, is important to members of the resistance.



Now, as for automatically believing resistance reports, I never said I believed this report . Admittedly, I do put a bit of faith in the resistance report as I have seen too many instances where they are more accurate than western media. I do not however believe every story that they run, nor did I ever claim that to be the case either.


You can have faith in whomever you wish, and I won't fault you for it. My personal take on this situation is that I'm nearly 100% certain that the coalition is not stupid enough to dress up soldiers as arabs to carry out "false flag" bombings. Not because I don't think they would stoop to that level, but because I know that if they did they would employ actual arabs to do it. There is no shortage of ruthless bastards who are out of the job since Saddam's fall, and most of them have a price. It would be completely retarded, not to mention way too risky, to dress up Americans as arabs when there are plenty of arabs that would do it for cash. If they were to get caught the coalition could easily deny all knowledge.


[edit on 14-10-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
PLEASE NOTE: The IR REPORTS ARE NOT RUN BY THE IRAQI RESISTANCE.

I REPEAT, THE IR REPORTS ARE NOT RUN BY THE IRAQI RESISTANCE.



"That's just responsible journalism, you can't simply report something because somebody says it's true. Facts must be checked and must be verifiable, which is something I don't think, IMO, is important to members of the resistance."


and is it important to members of the western media??

The western media just reports anything the american government says as fact.

The IR reports get there info from people on the ground wether they are giving good info or not is up in the air.

As a truth seeker i will take everything with a grain of salt, even the word of my own people.

And still my findings are that they are atleast far far more reliable than the western media.


27jd


but because I know that if they did they would employ actual arabs to do it


Well they employ death squads to perform assasination and other secterian things, like the Badr Brigades and the Peshmerger.

But for something as important as a Psy-Op they wouldn't leave to just any old pawn. And not even to regular soldiers.

Look at those two brits they captured, you really thing they where just regular soldiers?

SAS? I thought the SAS moved in groups of four atleast.

They have their reasons JD, and sometimes they do use traitors, But there is a point where even the traitors become unreliable.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Buy your self a dictionary.


Partisans, and resistance fighters, that is the name of iraqies fighting the occupation.


I was waiting for your arrival on this thread SS, and I'm certain it will be very amusing.



in·sur·gent Audio pronunciation of "insurgent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

dictionary.reference.com...


How is an insurgent not what you described?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
and is it important to members of the western media??


Yes, it is.



The western media just reports anything the american government says as fact.


Then the government must really like screwing itself over, because the media has been very critical of Bush recently. His approval ratings are lower than they've ever been and the "government controlled" media is all over it.



The IR reports get there info from people on the ground wether they are giving good info or not is up in the air.


I'm glad you can admit that, and I agree.



As a truth seeker i will take everything with a grain of salt, even the word of my own people.


We're in the same boat then, that's exactly what I've been saying.



And still my findings are that they are atleast far far more reliable than the western media.


I find them both biased to a degree and like I've staed before, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
STILL waiting for proof they were US soldiers. Until you provide that, then your headline is just to inflame everyone you can and cause controversy. Nice job.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Of course it counts as a report. For simplicity's sake, if you ask me for the answer to 2+2, and I say 15, did I not give you an answer? Not saying the answer is correct, but it is an answer.


And what good would such an answer be? Would it in fact answer the question? No it would not. Would it be the answer to the question? No it would not. There is only one answer to that question, just as there was only one incident, and one incident to report, and it was not reported. What was reported on fox was the fact that two brits were arrested due to some shootout, the report on fox did not mention the people killed, the weapons found, or many other circumstances surrounding the incident. They picked and chose what they would report, thus turning it into a completely different story than what it actually was.

So, yes, there was a report concerning a incident involving some brits, but was it the report of what truly happened? No it was not. Just like if you gave me the answer 15 to the question what does 2+2 equal, I would say that you had not answered the question.



That's just responsible journalism, you can't simply report something because somebody says it's true. Facts must be checked and must be verifiable, which is something I don't think, IMO, is important to members of the resistance.


Of course "facts" need to be checked, the only problem is, most people do not consider anything a fact unless it is accompanied by a photo, and even then there is still a signifigant percentage of people who will choose not to believe the "facts" once they are presented to them. The gipper was way ahead of his time when he stated that "Facts, are silly things"



You can have faith in whomever you wish, and I won't fault you for it. My personal take on this situation is that I'm nearly 100% certain that the coalition is not stupid enough to dress up soldiers as arabs to carry out "false flag" bombings. Not because I don't think they would stoop to that level, but because I know that if they did they would employ actual arabs to do it. There is no shortage of ruthless bastards who are out of the job since Saddam's fall, and most of them have a price. It would be completely retarded, not to mention way too risky, to dress up Americans as arabs when there are plenty of arabs that would do it for cash. If they were to get caught the coalition could easily deny all knowledge.


I do believe that there is some sense to what you say above, good points actually. False flag operations and the groups that carry them out though, still need training, and still usually have some sort of oversight. I do not however agree with your baath loyalist comment , as they are largely responsible for the resistance that we are currently seeing. I seriously doubt we could get any sunnis to work for us, and for the record, yes that is IMHO.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Look at those two brits they captured, you really thing they where just regular soldiers?

SAS? I thought the SAS moved in groups of four atleast.


You already know my feelings on the British soldiers. I believe they were there to observe from a distance the police in Basra, who have been infiltrated by the madhi army. You know Iran wants a piece of the Iraqi pie, I hope you're honest enough to admit they want a Shia government in Iraq. I'm not saying they don't have a right to look out for their interests, but you know it's true.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.


The resistance where not revolting against any long established authority "government" nor are they "rebelling against a political party".

The resistance from it's very begining and to this day is a force against the occupation, it's not a political movement, it's a nationalist movement.

It began and continued, through out the changing of 3 different puppet governments that where put into power by the US, and it remains a force against the occupation. It isn't against any political party or any particular government, no matter how many political parties and governments are changed, when the occupation is there, the resistance will be there also.

A far far better fitting defintion is

Resistance:



A resistance movement is a group dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country

encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...



Partisan:




www.answers.com...

par·ti·san1 (pär'tĭ-zən) pronunciation
n.

1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.




Ofcource the US media won't use these words as it reminds people of the heroic defenders in world war 2.

The name reminds people of history, and shows them the truth


As for the word insurgent, it has bad connotations



By Sandy Shanks

"insurgent" has a dubious connotation. They are the bad guys.

During the American Civil War, confederate soldiers were described as rebels, or affectionately know as Johnny Reb. Technically speaking, they were, in fact, insurgents, but Americans demurred from calling their fellow Americans insurgents due to the harmful inference of the term.


[edit on 14-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
in·sur·gent Audio pronunciation of "insurgent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

dictionary.reference.com...


How is an insurgent not what you described?

For starters, coalition forces are not the established authority of Iraq. That was Saddam, remember? Iraq is now under occupation by a foreign power, that has installed it's own government, for the sole purpose of easing the occupation. I hardly think that can be considered as an "established authority"

There is no political party in Iraq to rebel against either, only the occupation. This is what makes them the resistance , and not insurgents

[edit on 15-10-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
And what good would such an answer be? Would it in fact answer the question? No it would not. Would it be the answer to the question? No it would not.


Yes it would be an answer. Not the correct answer, but an answer nonetheless. If a teacher was to grade it, it would be marked wrong, and the teacher would not say it was left blank. I think we can go back and forth with this one for eternity.



So, yes, there was a report concerning a incident involving some brits, but was it the report of what truly happened? No it was not.


What did they report that didn't happen? They only left out how they were dressed, maybe they didn't even know the whole story yet, and were reporting the scant info that they had in order to break it first.




I seriously doubt we could get any sunnis to work for us, and for the record, yes that is IMHO.


I must disagree. Not every Sunni baathist was fiercely loyal to Saddam, they just had to pretend to be to save their own butts. Money talks, and evil people listen most attentively.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

I believe they were there to observe from a distance the police in Basra,


If they where just there to "observe from a distance", why did they walk right up to them and shoot at them. Why where they dressed in civilian clothing. If you wanted to spy and infiltrate on your own puppet police force, then why not get one guy whome you really trust to join up and give you info, or even send in your own excellent spies to join up?

If they just wanted to observe, why did they have such an arsenal of weapons


who have been infiltrated by the madhi army.


It's funny how the western media ignores the fact that all of the puppet forces are infilitarted by the resistance untill they need to admit it, just to cover something else up!!!



I hope you're honest enough to admit they want a Shia government in Iraq.


LOL, isn't a "shia" government already in power in iraq? Sistani is Iran's man in Iraq, and he is Pro-American, not to mention the evil death squads the badr brigades. It's a complex story.

But indeed does any of this have to do with iran anyway, this is just washingtons way of pointing the finger somewhere else, when it is they who have have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join