CIA death squads operating in Iraq

The longer the Iraq war continues, the more Orwellian the language and the more sinister the methods adopted by the Bush administration and its allies. While President Bush and his officials depict Iraqis resisting the US-led invasion as �terrorists� and �death squads,� CIA and Special Forces assassination squads are at work in Iraq, seeking to eliminate Iraqi leaders and other opponents of the US occupation of the country.

In the language of the White House and Pentagon, the thousands of Iraqi citizens in plainclothes�whether ordinary people, militia members or soldiers�who are resisting the invading forces in any way they can, are �war criminals.� But the undercover US hit squads and other military-intelligence operatives roaming throughout Iraq in civilian clothes, terrorizing the population, are �heroes� in the cause of democracy and liberation.

This website has a vast amount of information and links, some of which are conspiracy theory related. A very good site for info, in my opinion.

mprofaca.cro.net...

Mr. M

ohhh god....

CIA and Special Forces assassination squads are at work in Iraq, seeking to eliminate Iraqi leaders and other opponents of the US occupation of the country.

- really??????? you'd think we are at war....WAIT, NEWS FLASH - WE ARE!!!!! If they are not with us, they are against us, that means, if not neutralized, they pose a threat to our guys over there - hence why we are trying to kill them!

In the language of the White House and Pentagon, the thousands of Iraqi citizens in plainclothes�whether ordinary people, militia members or soldiers�who are resisting the invading forces in any way they can, are �war criminals.�

Are you implying that they should be allowed to resist? please tell me otherwise!

But the undercover US hit squads and other military-intelligence operatives roaming throughout Iraq in civilian clothes, terrorizing the population, are �heroes� in the cause of democracy and liberation.

First off - they are doing exactly what they should be doing - covertly going after our enemy and the enemy of a free Iraq. Second, refering to them as "death squads" and "hit squads" is moot. They are there on millitary operations - call them what you will - the fact is that they are there to combat an evil dictators regime, and any and all terrorist activity and can/do use leathal force to do so. Making up silly names like death squad is stupid - under that assumption, every millitary unit in history should instead be called a death squad.

Get with it - the fact is that we are trying to get rid of a bunch of bad apples, and in a country such as Iraq, the most effective way to do it is to go undercover, find out who the players are, and capture or kill them. And in case you are going to say we should always capture them, sending a message through force is recieved much clearer by those who are our enemys then by pussyfooting around.

FYI check the poles in IRAQ - 53% say they are better off right now then before we came in. even more believe that in a year they will be better off then before we came in. It was a NBC pole if i recall, if you want the link let me know.

It's not my opinion, let's get that straight right now. I posted it for the purpose of discussion. Oh, BTW, I've been there done that.

Mr. M

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by StarChild]

seriouslly,. how #ing naive can you get?
ITS A WAR YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT

CIA hit squads operating in Iraq?

I'd be pissed if they weren't... our guys need all the protection they can get.

Don't forget the predators roaming the skies ready to take out enemy combatants with hellfire missiles.

I still find it hilarious that the continued Iraqi opposition is considered terrorism when this didn't happen until after another country invaded their lands and took over. Its a resistance force and its simply a lie to call it terrorism.

Originally posted by heelstone
I still find it hilarious that the continued Iraqi opposition is considered terrorism when this didn't happen until after another country invaded their lands and took over. Its a resistance force and its simply a lie to call it terrorism.

If they are a freedom force, then why do they keep killing civilians (ours and theirs)? Wouldn't a freedom force target only the oppressors?

Personally, I am all for it. Remember what Patton said about winning a war...

Originally posted by COOL HAND
If they are a freedom force, then why do they keep killing civilians (ours and theirs)? Wouldn't a freedom force target only the oppressors?

Personally, I am all for it. Remember what Patton said about winning a war...

You forget COOL HAND. Iraq was not a unified country. We left Saddam in charge after Desert Storm so that it would be easier to maintain Iraq and not have it erupt into civil war or turn into another Iran. The opposition does not like the United States invaders, but also does not care for parts of the population that live there as well.

edit:

ALSO, most of the attacks have been bomb plantings. The U.S. is a powerful opponent, so attacking directly means certain death for opposition forces. Bombs are better to use against such a force since it leaves more of the opposition alive. Bombs are also indiscriminatory killers. Though if you are fighting an invading force and resort to bombs, you must accept that part of the local populace will be killed as well.

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by heelstone]

Originally posted by heelstone
I still find it hilarious that the continued Iraqi opposition is considered terrorism when this didn't happen until after another country invaded their lands and took over. Its a resistance force and its simply a lie to call it terrorism.

Yeah, and before that Saddam was a practicing Buddhist monk who loved his people. Everyone wore flowers in their hair and Baghdad was known as the City of Love.
Ba'ath party officials had much the same job as holiday reps - making sure everyone had enough beer and enjoyed a great time in this perfect Utopia. The only thing you could be arrested for was not having a good time!!! But that didn't matter too much as all the state secret police did was send you on a seminar entitled "How to Party".

Goddamn!!! Iraq was perfect before it was invaded.

In fact Saddam threw such a great party, over one million revellers died in the festivities.
That could hardly be called terrorism, could it?

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by Leveller
Yeah, and before that Saddam was a practicing Buddhist monk who loved his people. Everyone wore flowers in their hair and Baghdad was known as the City of Love.
Ba'ath party officials had much the same job as holiday reps - making sure everyone had enough beer and enjoyed a great time in this perfect Utopia. The only thing you could be arrested for was not having a good time!!! But that didn't matter too much as all the state secret police did was send you on a seminar entitled "How to Party".

Goddamn!!! Iraq was perfect before it was invaded.

What are you talking about, Leveller? Don't start into this thread trying to throw it off topic simply because you are against my issue on calling Iraqi opposition terrorists. If you want to go the route of human rights, I suggest you read on what a human rights group has to say about it.

news.amnesty.org...

Amnesty International is saying that things are wosre now because of the U.S. and continued Iraqi opposition killing civilians. They are saying that the civilian populace actually was better off before March 20 2003 with Saddam in power than right now which is months and months after the war has been supposedly over with.

How about you blow me?

People like you whine whatever the reason. You totally ignore facts and when somebody states something you don't agree with you accuse them of changing the subject.

Well, you wet wank. You hate the US so much and love the paw widdle Awab wegimes, why don't you go stick your berkha on and # off over there. It's so easy to criticise the injustices when you're sitting on your lard ass and eating burgers, ain't it?

Quote, the libs at Amnesty all you like. They've got as much credibility as a fart in a wind tunnel. Tell you what. Why don't you go work for Amnesty? Then I can ignore you even more.

While you're at it, entirely disregard the independant polls that were recently held in Iraq which shows that most Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone and most think their quality of life is better. Oops. Too late. You already have. Ignoring facts and slopping out bull# leftwing propaganda means facts are always the first casualty.

Hey. If your way of life ever needs defending just give me a call. Even though you're a wanker and a whiner, it's still my duty to defend your right to be one. Ain't life grand?

This is NOT the mudpit.

Please conduct yourselves accordingly.

Originally posted by Leveller
How about you blow me?

Do you want banned? You know that you can't make strong personal attacks on this board.

People like you whine whatever the reason. You totally ignore facts and when somebody states something you don't agree with you accuse them of changing the subject.

I don't think I've ignored any facts yet. I understand this situation completely and have taken your post on in the manner I saw most appropriate for the time being.

Well, you wet wank. You hate the US so much and love the paw widdle Awab wegimes, why don't you go stick your berkha on and # off over there. It's so easy to criticise the injustices when you're sitting on your lard ass and eating burgers, ain't it?

Whats a wet wank?

I don't "love the paw widdle Awab wegimes", but we certainly know now that Iraq was not a threat to the United States and going over there and blowing them all to hell was not the right thing to do.

You are really into making personal attacks, ain't ya? I could do it as well, but I don't want to be banned. For one thing, I'm 5'11" 175bs and I eat like one burger a month if that. Mostly turkey and chicken as I'm not much a fan of constant red meat.

Quote, the libs at Amnesty all you like. They've got as much credibility as a fart in a wind tunnel. Tell you what. Why don't you go work for Amnesty? Then I can ignore you even more.

Ignore them all you want, it still doesn't make them wrong about their assessment of the situation.

While you're at it, entirely disregard the independant polls that were recently held in Iraq which shows that most Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone and most think their quality of life is better. Oops. Too late. You already have. Ignoring facts and slopping out bull# leftwing propaganda means facts are always the first casualty.

Oh, I'm sure many Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, but I'm also sure they don't like being stuck between a rock and a hard place when there are portions of their population that are completely against the U.S. invasion force. Being blown up for being at the wrong place at the wrong time was not how Iraq operated before last year. Before then you actually had to do something against Saddam's regime to get in trouble. Now if you just step out the door (or maybe if you stay inside) you are subject to being blown away.

Hey. If your way of life ever needs defending just give me a call. Even though you're a wanker and a whiner, it's still my duty to defend your right to be one. Ain't life grand?

I'm a wanker and a whiner? I hope you get banned. I will not stand for personal attacks over my opinions.

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by heelstone]

Yeah Rant. OK. Warning taken and understood.

For anyone that is interested in the facts though:

news.bbc.co.uk...

"An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.
The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence."

Heelstone. Whatever you think is irrelevant. Wether or not you want me banned is irrelevant. The fact remains that you ignore truth to get your point across. That's about the only relevance here.

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by Leveller
Heelstone. Whatever you think is irrelevant. Wether or not you want me banned is irrelevant. The fact remains that you ignore truth to get your point across. That's about the only relevance here.

I haven't ignored anything yet. I even addressed your little poll opinion. Polls about how people feel about their lives is not indicative of the physical death toll the populace is suffering from. The dead can't talk if you didn't know.

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by heelstone]

Originally posted by heelstone
Polls about how people feel about their lives is not indicative of the physical death toll the populace is suffering from. The dead can't talk if you didn't know.

Yet you still have the gall to ignore the million dead under Saddam and quote an Amnesty poll at me?
If the dead could talk, don't you think that they would have wanted Saddam out? Certainly, the polls now show that the living do. And I guess that million dead would have a pretty storng opinion too.

Wars are harsh things. We don't live in a Utopia. Either you sit by and let people like Saddam perpetuate evil (and no way can you deny that his regime wasn't evil) or you do something about it.

Which is worse? Sitting on the fence, watching a crowd get murdered or trying to stop the murder? Yes, people may get hurt, but as I stated, this is the real world. Until a weapon is invented that can only target the guilty, people are always going to get hurt. But believing the liberal media and those who are opposed to US efforts purely because they don't like the US is totally lame.

Sure, the US and it's allies could have sat on the fence. They did for a decades, they should have gone into Iraq years ago. But being late doesn't make it wrong. Even doing it for the wrong reasons doesn't make it wrong.

The fact is that Iraq has been under a state form of terrorism for years. It was much more organiosed and much more deadly than anything that you see today. Denying that truth and claiming that terrorism in Iraq is a new evil is to perpetuate a lie.

Originally posted by Leveller
Yet you still have the gall to ignore the million dead under Saddam and quote an Amnesty poll at me?
If the dead could talk, don't you think that they would have wanted Saddam out? Certainly, the polls now show that the living do. And I guess that million dead would have a pretty storng opinion too.

I don't know where you pulled that millions number out from, but thats not accurate at all. I've read that perhaps the maximum is 300,000, but even then I haven't read any solid numbers.

You're damn right I have the gall to ignore the dead of another country. The United States has ignored the deaths of millions in other countries over the years including the more real number of 60+ million dead in China thanks to Mao Zedong. The U.S. does not make it a point to save people from their own governments and we certainly didn't go to war this time for that reason either. It has since changed to that reason, but it wasn't why we were told we went.

Wars are harsh things. We don't live in a Utopia. Either you sit by and let people like Saddam perpetuate evil (and no way can you deny that his regime wasn't evil) or you do something about it.

Which is worse? Sitting on the fence, watching a crowd get murdered or trying to stop the murder? Yes, people may get hurt, but as I stated, this is the real world. Until a weapon is invented that can only target the guilty, people are always going to get hurt. But believing the liberal media and those who are opposed to US efforts purely because they don't like the US is totally lame.

How about we don't sit on the fence and ignore it like we did in the past? The U.S. has now gotten itself into an entirely hypocritical situation that makes it THE police force of the world. Our military cannot be used in such a method unless we commit our entire country to the cause of war and start drafting people and working solely towards the goal of removing all allegedly evil government regimes off the face of the planet.

Sure, the US and it's allies could have sat on the fence. They did for a decades, they should have gone into Iraq years ago. But being late doesn't make it wrong. Even doing it for the wrong reasons doesn't make it wrong.

Yes, doing it for the wrong reasons makes it a wrong. That is one of the biggest wrongs you can do. Doing things for the right reasons is good, this was not.

The fact is that Iraq has been under a state form of terrorism for years. It was much more organiosed and much more deadly than anything that you see today. Denying that truth and claiming that terrorism in Iraq is a new evil is to perpetuate a lie.

Please. Now you're calling the ruling party of a country terrorists? Then that means that throughout history, ALL countries that killed their own people over political and theological dissent were terrorists. You're really grasping at straws with such an argument.

You forget COOL HAND. Iraq was not a unified country.

No, I did not forget that. Thanks for making the assumption.

We left Saddam in charge after Desert Storm so that it would be easier to maintain Iraq and not have it erupt into civil war or turn into another Iran.

No, we left him in charge because it was better than having some other nut running the place. At least he knew we could get him whenever we wanted.

The opposition does not like the United States invaders, but also does not care for parts of the population that live there as well.

So, you are saying that they are acting indiscrimently? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
No, we left him in charge because it was better than having some other nut running the place. At least he knew we could get him whenever we wanted.

Well, George Herbert Walker Bush disagreed with that assessment, at least according to his 1998 memoir book "A World Transformed"

www.lincolninstitute.org...

In his 1998 memoir, "A World Transformed," co-authored with Brent Scowcroft, his former National Security Advisor, the senior Bush explained why he didn't send American troops to "march into Baghdad" to bring down Saddam at the end of the Gulf War:

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish."

On top of being "unwinnable," Bush warned that the costs of an occupation of Iraq would be "incalculable," with meager benefits:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

I'm pretty sure we got that same answer after Desert Storm from Colin Powell, but of course, he sees things different now.

So, you are saying that they are acting indiscrimently? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

I think I've argued my point on the opposition not being terrorists enough already. Bombs that kill indiscriminately have been used by the U.S. since the start of this war. Just about nothing can be done about it and its certainly not indicative that what is taking place is terrorism.

Originally posted by heelstone
Please. Now you're calling the ruling party of a country terrorists? Then that means that throughout history, ALL countries that killed their own people over political and theological dissent were terrorists. You're really grasping at straws with such an argument.

Am I? What exactly do you think state sponsored terrorism is? Do you think that it's something that governments only use against people outside of it's borders? Do you not think death squads and militias are terrorists?
You seem to show no understanding of what terrorism is. If you think it's just a few men in Arab headress placing bombs under cars, you are sadly mistaken.

And it was only 300,000? I could even be forgiven for stating a million, as 300,000 is a horrifyingly large number in itself. But I'm not even wrong in stating that it was a million. Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

This figure doesn't even take into account those who died from hunger and disease whilst Saddam fiddled the accounts of the Oil For Food programme.

You also state that "You're damn right I have the gall to ignore the dead of another country", yet you're hypocritical enough to use those dead as the basis for your argument.

Sure, you don't like to see your military policing the world, but if you realised that's the only way to safeguard your style of life, I'd be pretty sure that you'd be supporting them in a second. Do you think all of the commodities that your country wastes, all of the amenities that enable you to live in comparitive luxury come for free? Now and again you have to pay for what you get. Do you think the rest of the world would sit by and let you rape it's resources without at least safeguarding those supplies?

" The U.S. does not make it a point to save people from their own governments and we certainly didn't go to war this time for that reason either."

You also show a mind-numbing disregard for history - from World War 1 to Korea, from World War 2 to Bosnia - the US has continually been saving people from their own governments.


Who is the one clutching at straws?