Iraq detains 1,000 in anti-al-Qaida crackdown

Sunday 18th May, 05:12 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 74 Total Comments Show All

SuperLib at 02:41 AM JST - 20th May

My solution? When have I offered a solution and more to the point, why should the oness be on me? Heh, buddy, I've already told you if you want to walk the moral high ground and then proceed to get it so very Wrong then you should expect to get criticized and where possible, laughed at for defending all that shrieking that ended up with this much suffering.

You don't support invasion and you don't support a dictator. It's just all so absurd, adverts. I mean it really is. You're saying that you're refusing to take a position, then you're telling me that I must suffer the consequences of my position. I'm talking to someone who is debating from the standpoint that he can do no wrong, as if inaction cannot possibly have consequences. And judging by the amount of criticism you dish out, the irony of it all is completely lost on you, and I can't see how you don't get that.

Good point. I guess they aren't to be sat on the oil reserves that were the real reason for the invasion, so on that score, I think you should probably keep quiet and get back on topic.

And again. Burma is slapping you in the face right now. The world did nothing and now hundreds of thousands are going to die. Here is a perfect example of what happens when the world chooses to do nothing. But obviously you feel none of the sting, you're too busy making cracks about Bush and oil. Guess what? Allowing dictators to stay was your solution. None of our damn business, remember? Well here is the result of the "none of our damn business" policy. But I guess since you probably don't support people dying at the hands of a dictatorial government then you shouldn't have to burden yourself with the consequences, however real they may be. Smith is saying in another thread that he's considering kind-of maybe thinking about force as an option. Even he can see that at some point you have to say enough is enough and the world needs to act because the cost of inaction is getting to be too high. But the cost of inaction just doesn't exist in your world and surely isn't a part of any decision that you make.

"I've asked you this many times but I've never gotten an answer from you: Would you be willing to live under a government like Saddam's to free yourself from the threat of Al Queda?" Other than the fact this is the first time I've seen you asked me this question, a) it's irrelevant

Why is the question relevant? Because I know you'd never live under the system you are telling other people to live under. You'd never choose it for yourself, but it's a great option for them, right? When you have to face the consequences you reject it, but when others have to face the consequences your position does a 180.

And again: You don't support a government using Saddam-style rule to keep out Al Queda, and you don't support Al Queda in Iraq. You're right on that fence again with your entire position being anti-option A and anti-option B. Please share with us your mythical option C where there's no Saddam and no Al Queda. We're all ears.

You advocated keeping a dictator in power. Period. That was part of the package. Part of the decision. You're trying to say that you don't support dictators like it's some kind of disclaimer which removes that reality from your position. If that option exists in your world then here's my official position on Iraq: I support the invasion but I don't support the killing.
nonacnon at 03:11 AM JST - 20th May

Where is tne new Al Qaida number 2?
Madverts at 03:41 AM JST - 20th May

Superlib;

"You don't support invasion and you don't support a dictator. It's just all so absurd, adverts. I mean it really is."

No, you're making my position and then arguing from that point on. It's like us living in the same neighbourhood and a known paedophile comes to live there. You say to me after a couple of beers "right Adverts, I'm going to get the gun out and kill this disgraceful individual - I'm not having him near the kids". To which I say, "Whoa there Super, he may be a bad apple but gunning him down is really not a good idea". And then you turn around to me an say "so you support paedophiles in the street? What are you, some sort of goddamn paedophile sympathizer??"

That is your argument here, old friend.

Either way, it doesn't change a thing here to the point in contention. The invasion that was billed as a fight against al-Qaida, acually put 'em there. And they've been running amok, with all the other very different factions of fundies since day 1. This is because of the invasion whether you want to hear it or not, and it has caused the loss of many, many lives.

Also, I don't get why you're so riled about the original comments that Taka made - we have no idea whether these suspects have anything to with al-Qaida. I have warned you about the fundies in the Iraqi army and the "government". And I have also warned you about getting cosy with the sunni's to help fight this battle.

Good luck. You're going to need it.
Madverts at 03:46 AM JST - 20th May

z, you're absolutely right and I'm wrong. There is nothing at all the matter with insurgents, sorry freedom fighters, turning to the al-Qaida flag to free their country.

In fact, if America invaded my country, I'd be the first to strap a suicide bomb on to an impresionable young man or woman, and send them to the market to blow up my innocent country men and women in order to show the invaders who's boss.

OK?
adaydream at 03:52 AM JST - 20th May

That's the honest answer I expected.

You would not fight for your country, but you would willingly send someone else off to die in your place.

Words of a true patriot.

Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on the story, not at each other.
Madverts at 03:54 AM JST - 20th May

Oh and Superlib,

On re-reading, you want to talk about a truly absurd position. I've got one from your earlier post:

"I support the invasion but I don't support the killing."

Heh...I mean, WTF?
Sarge at 07:00 AM JST - 20th May

"they've ( al-Qaida in Iraq ) been running amok"

Heh, more like they've been running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Oh, and Madverts, SuperLib's "I support the invasion but I don't support the killing" is an example of your logic.
SuperLib at 10:02 AM JST - 20th May

No, you're making my position and then arguing from that point on.

Then by all means, please give us your position, adverts. Last I checked it was "none of my damn business" with the caveat that you aren't responsible for anything that that policy might allow, whether it be Iraq or Burma.

No, you're making my position and then arguing from that point on. It's like us living in the same neighbourhood and a known paedophile comes to live there.

Why not use Iraq as an example of Iraq? But I'll use your example if I must, but with changes for appropriate realism and context. Instead of the guy just being known, imagine he has someone locked in his basement. The threat is real and it's happening right now, right in front of you. You do nothing. You don't call the police. You look away and say, "None of my damn business." Then you go about your day while hearing the screams from the house next door. Your positions consistently leave out the consequences of inaction.

we have no idea whether these suspects have anything to with al-Qaida.

Right, that's my point. You and Taka have no idea if these suspects have anything to do with Al Queda. So making the accusation that they've arrested people who have nothing to do with Al Queda doesn't hold.

On re-reading, you want to talk about a truly absurd position. I've got one from your earlier post: "I support the invasion but I don't support the killing."

I'm borrowing the logic that exists to create your position and I'm using it in mine. I'm telling people that I want to act, but I'm conveniently excusing myself from the consequences of that decision. So now I'm officially anti-Saddam and anti-killing.
Sarge at 11:38 AM JST - 20th May

"Where is the new al-Qaida number 2?"

Who knows? They come and go all the time.
dano2002 at 02:17 PM JST - 20th May

It is funny how many of you think Iraq was a little garden of eden before the invasion. In fact, it was a ruthless dicatorship that controlled the population by killing anyone opposed. And let's not forget the Kurds or a little invasion in 1991. Now, taking that in mind, if my country was attacked and the evil dictator (i.e. mussolii) was killed then i would not fight back. why didn't italy, germany, japan fight on against the occupier? your point makes no sense. sane people do what is best for their country. brainwashed or terrorists blow themselves up and kill their own countryman for no purpose but to cause anarchy.
nonacnon at 04:26 PM JST - 20th May

The whole notion that US went into Iraq to help Iraqis because they cared about the people is as absurd as people believing that bunnies live on the moon. Let us not forget that US politicians when confronted about the hundreds of thousands of children who died of famine in Iraq said* It is worth it.*
Madverts at 05:32 PM JST - 20th May

Uh, sarge,

I see you're a no show with the elusive proof. Heh. Nothing changes eh?
Madverts at 06:42 PM JST - 20th May

Oh superlib,

What happened to you man? I'm not living in the binary "with or against us" bush world that you apparently are.

You make it sound like I suported Saddam Hussein becuase I didn't support the invasion. I supported neither and my position is valid, whether you like it or not. And the reason I did not support it, you know fine well. What were the words I used in 2002 that got shrieked down by the bush supporters....? Was it something about the creation of a monumental breeding ground for terrorists? Could I have been pondering on the ramifications of litteraly handing the country to its' shiite brothers in fundie Iran? Could I have been worried about the already seething tensions in the region?

No, no, no you're right. That was totally un-reasonable. I was supporting Saddam. You're with us or you're against us. That's the mentality I'm sadly dealing with here.

So let me try your game here, just per se. You Superlib, as a supporter of the invasion, actively supported al-Qaida entering Iraq a nd wreaking havoc, rather than leaving a secular Dictator in power.

Heh. It's easy to argue like that. Only it's intellectualy dishonest.

We both know that the reasons Bush Co attacked Iraq had sod all to do with the opression of the Iraqi people. And then you bring up Mynamar, but how many other vile dictatorships operate right now with impunity other than a few strong words from the outside world? We know fine well there will be no regime change via US invasion because there is simply no strategic or economic interest worth the risk - unlike Iraq. And you want me to agree with this position?

If the invasion of Iraq had been a success and all that b/s we heard from bush/wolfie/rumsfeldt would alreay have come to pass. You'd have been proven right I'd be sat where you are right now thinking it was a really good idea for once for America to take it upon itself to invade another country and dictate to them how to live.

But it hasn't been a success by a long shot.

As far as I can see, there is the potential for as many victims since the invasion as there was during Saddam's entire reign of kicking his people into line, though albeit, not through the wars Hussein started. So I think your humanitarian argument looks more than a little pale these days, especially since Saddam had from the late sixties to implement his policies an we're into what, the 6th year of the occupation?

Also, your humanitarian issue was a secondary, last-minute justification, when the neocons realized all that shrieking about the WMD's they invented and all the terror threats they kept creating were only working on the weak-minded, and heh, they know who they are.

But this, believe it or not Superlib, is the topic that we're supposed to be discussing - the continued presence of al-Qaida in Iraq. A presence that was allowed by the invasion and a presence that secular Saddam, despite his mis-givings, refused them. You all seem to be have a real problem being presented with this fact.

"You and Taka have no idea if these suspects have anything to do with Al Queda. So making the accusation that they've arrested people who have nothing to do with Al Queda doesn't hold."

Rubbish. It's the accuser that needs to bring his/her proof to the table as I said earlier to sarge and super-d..., only they copped-out as to be expected.

Here we have the fairly new Iraqi "government", that has been proven to be at best impotent in picking up the pieces of where the invasion left off, though who are under tremendous pressure from their US backers to finally show some positive results. Therefore they've rounded up a load of people, told Reuters or whichever news source picked it up that they're al-Qaida suspects, though neither you nor I will know for sure if they are, or how these suspected al-Qaida members will be treated in their time in captivity in what is if you're honest, a broken third world country rife with Islamic fundementalism.

Clearly the threat of this Islamic fundementalism, and the internel power struggle that has been happening since the invasion Iraq doesn't seem to worry you. You're really expecting the Iraqi "government" had impartial agents to detain these people and that everything will sort itself fairly soon to the point where there's a Macdonalds on every Baghdad street corner, monster truck extravaganza's every Saturday night and somewhere in this fantasy, the Islamic findies will mysteriously vanish.

Frankly I think all that is simple delrium. And that it's dangerous to live that far in la la land.

But go on calling me a Saddam supporter if it somehow makes you feel better for what has happened in Iraq. The dead bodies no longer to belong to Hussein. They belong Bush Co and all the supporters that gave legitimacy to this invasion - and it looks sadly, as if the cadavers are in no short supply.
HoDeDo at 02:37 PM JST - 22nd May

War for oil? I sure haven't noticed it at the gas pump, or the supermarket. I wonder what they are doing with all of this oil they are stealing from the poor Iraqis?
Madverts at 11:37 PM JST - 22nd May

"War for oil? I sure haven't noticed it at the gas pump, or the supermarket"

Heh, where do you live? Saudia Arabia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7414093.stm

Oil soars to new record over $135