Tuesday, May 31, 2005


Invasion of Iraq: Undeclared Motives - Introduction

America in Iraq: why, where and where to (3)

I hope that we have by now established through the previous discussion that the present US administration invaded Iraq on flimsy evidence and had more or less an unconvincing case. The ‘declared motives’ were rather weak to say the least.

We are therefore left really in the dark. One has to find the most logical explanation in terms of events on the ground. These are murky waters. There is considerable danger of slipping into unsubstantiated, conspiracy-oriented explanations.

Numerous reasons for the true aims of the invasion of Iraq have been proposed. None has been, nor likely ever to be, publicly admitted! Some of these are evident (as will be seen from the discussion) but one cannot be certain which the most prominent reason is.

It is likely that the actual reasons are more than one; hence a number of forces within the US establishment could be seen to act in collaboration or in competition. For example there have been: Reports of conflict between the Pentagon and the State and CIA; Reports of conflict between the professional military people and the civilian (neocons) leadership of the Pentagon; Reports of conflict between the oil industry and the neocon approach; And there is of course always the ever present, yet almost invisible shadow of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” as well as many other semi-phantom powers and special-interest entities.

All these should not confuse us. But they do seem to indicate that there was no overwhelming consensus within the US government establishment on the post-invasion plans. Some of these forces were not the ones initiating the policy. They probably fought over details or control of the implementation or to realize their own visions with the broadly defined objective.


Since we are operating in murky waters here, the logical approach would be to consider all possible options (which we may not know all of) and apply our known observation of what happened actually on the ground to those theses to find out which ones are likely to fit!

One problem is that there is a possibility of the existence of more than one objective and more than one force operating.

And there have been mistakes and errors which confuse the issue. In this case, it is always useful to go back to the beginning when mistakes and input from other parties have not yet confused the issues.

On top of that, there may have been not only tactical changes of US policy but possibly strategic changes due to discovered facts, changes on the ground and / or later discovered limitations to the original objectives. These may not be known in the short term due to the secrecy that usually shrouds the administration’s deliberations (especially those related to policy, foreign policy and particularly those related to national security).

This is truly a difficult task.

Past experience with the entities being considered may help… or it may be a hindrance! For examples, observers of US foreign policy usually form an opinion of their undeclared intentions from past experience. But we cannot do that if we want to convince an unbiased observer.

A possible criticism that may be expected is that it is not ethical to base an argument around speculation and guessing in the absence of concrete proof. Based on my previous arguments, particularly regarding the ‘evidence’ used to go to war I ask: is it acceptable to go to war on the basis of guessing and hints but not to attack war on the same bases?

The proposed tentative arguments have some quite strong points on their side that should encourage this pursuit: People are dead and dying everyday! Ordinary Iraqis whose country is being devastated and whose lives have been shattered, Americans who are losing sons and daughters everyday and the rest of the world, whose future is probably being shaped to some extent in Iraq today… all have a right to know. At least they have the right to inquire further!

There are also strong indications that the process of death and devastation will go on for a number of undetermined years. I cannot yet see any light indicating the end of this tunnel. Even the usual chorus of active rosy picture painters has been rather quiet lately.

In any case, we know that this route has led to disaster… or has it?! Some people may not even agree to this conclusion!

Basic assumption: No nation would go to war and risk the lives of its boys and girls and spend enormous amounts of money without (what are believed to be) good reasons.

Do we have to assume that those who decided to invade Iraq are rational? My personal position is: Yes!

In the following series of posts, I will address the main theories that have been put forward to explain the possible undeclared motives behind the invasion of Iraq:

1. Securing control over a major oil resource
2. Creating a country to neocon design and to “Project for the New American Century” requirements
3. Avenging 9/11
4. Creating a haven for foreign investment in a rich country
5. Eliminating Saddam’s long-term threat
6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq
7. Leading the world into conflict intentionally

Sunday, May 29, 2005


Tale of Two Presidents

Brothers under the Skin

[Another light note for your entertainment before we move on to the depressing subject of examining the undeclared motives of the Iraq war]

The president was elected under dubious procedures.
The other country was much smaller than his.
It had helped his country confront an earlier perceived ‘threat’.
He turned against it.
He invaded it under false pretexts.
He claimed he was freeing its people.
He bombed it and devastated it.
He encouraged looting its treasures and establishments.
He abolished the country’s police and army.
He caused the breakdown of law and order.
He encouraged chaos.
He caused the breakdown of all essential services.
He unleashed forces of darkness on that country.
Many people were killed at random.
Survivors lived in fear and misery.
He received words of gratitude from some of its people.
He instituted a government of cronies.
He tried to control it by force.
He failed.
He claimed victory.

Less than a year later, the Iraqi people rose up in arms against him.

The president was elected under dubious procedures.
The other country was much smaller than his.
It had helped his country confront an earlier perceived ‘threat’.
He turned against it.
He invaded it under false pretexts.
He claimed he was freeing its people.
He bombed it and devastated it.
He encouraged looting its treasures and establishments.
He abolished the country’s police and army.
He caused the breakdown of law and order.
He encouraged chaos.
He caused the breakdown of all essential services.
He unleashed forces of darkness on that country.
Many people were killed at random.
Survivors lived in fear and misery.
He received words of gratitude from some of its people.
He instituted a government of cronies.
He tried to control it by force.
He failed.
He claimed victory.

Less than two years later, the American people re-elected him with a higher majority.

Sunday, May 22, 2005


Invasion of Iraq: Declared Motives

America in Iraq – Why, Where and Where to? (2)

During the past two years, there has been much speculation regarding the US administration’s real motives in invading Iraq. In my previous post I categorized possible motives into ‘declared’ and ‘undeclared’ intentions. In this post, I will try and briefly address some of the more important ‘declared’ motives presented to the American and world public.

Original Declared Motives

The US administration’s official case for the invasion of Iraq rested on three main issues: Iraq’s weapon’s of mass destruction, links to international terror and the threat of Saddam’s regime.

What the US and British governments really thought of these claims has been recently revealed by an official document: Less than three weeks ago, on May 1st, The Times of London published a top-level British Government secret memo the authenticity of which is so far undisputed by the British government (and 89 Democratic members of the Congress took this memo seriously enough to write to President Bush asking for an explanation of the damning things it says).

The memo is available at www.downingstreetmemo.com is definitely worth reading in full. Also worth reading: article by Palast, an op-ed column by Krugman in the NY Times and an in-depth article by Juan Cole at Salon.

The memo summarizes a meeting attended by the British Prime Minister and senior cabinet ministers and security advisers eight months before the invasion of Iraq, following a visit by the British MI-6 intelligence chief to Washington. The memo states:

“… Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

“… It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action… But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

That was in July 2002, eight months before the war. This is the most damning evidence that has emerged from the British government itself so far.

With this background, it is truly bewildering how the official resolute conviction was presented to the American public. In March 2003, only a few days before the invasion, President Bush went so far as to say:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

These words portray so much confidence in that ‘intelligence’: “no doubt” (not even “little doubt”) … “some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”?? We now know most of that not-very-intelligent ‘intelligence’. We also know the facts.

The troubling question is: was the gentleman aware of all that effort to ‘fix the intelligence and the facts’? Was he himself misled or was he misleading people? Either way, the answer is not in his favor.

Present Declared Motives

Helping the Iraqi people, Freedom and Democracy definitely seem to be the current trumpeted objective of the Iraq war. We are repeatedly and persistently being told that this is the major objective of this campaign. The latest remarks I am aware of are Condoleezza Rice’s when she made a visit to Iraq last week:
"We are so grateful that there are Americans willing to sacrifice so the Middle East will be whole, and free and democratic and at peace".

Very noble! But was this what the Americans were told in the lead up to the war? The most reliable sources on official policy would be top figures of the administration: [I am grateful to Fast Pete of LSF for the link] So many people now pretend that it was all for Freedom and Democracy of the Iraqi people. However, senior administration policy makers are on record stating otherwise.

Take for example Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of Defense and the man who was in charge of post-invasion planning:
"Would anybody be thinking about using military power in Iraq in order to do a political experiment in Iraq in the hope that it would have positive political spillover effects throughout the region? The answer is no. That's not the kind of thing that leads a country like the United States to commit the kind of military forces that we're committing to this effort....There's no way. What we would be using military power for...would be the goals the President has talked about, particularly the elimination of the chemical and biological weapons, and preventing Iraq from getting nuclear weapons."

Or Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of Defense and one of the strongest advocates for the war on Iraq:
“There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people....The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk.”


1. The questions of WMD, Terror links and the eminent threat of Saddam’s regime… were only excuses. Furthermore, they were known to be excuses by those who presented them to the people as legitimate and compelling reasons to go to war.

2. People were frequently puzzled how that flimsy evidence was ‘believed’ by those prestigious intelligence agencies. Now we know that it wasn’t! It was intentionally “fixed”.

3. The American public and the world were deliberately misled (on these issues at least).

4. Freedom and Democracy were not primary objectives worth risking American kids’ lives for… but welcome ‘by-products’.

The last point still has a little problem associated with it: Democracy is indeed a noble objective. However, it seems that to some people in the USA the word ‘democracy’ is confused with ‘friendly’ (which is not a bad thing in itself… but quite a different concept). But this is another thing for another day.

Sunday, May 15, 2005


Why did America invade Iraq?

America in Iraq – Why, Where and Where to? (1)

I never addressed the motives for the US invasion of Iraq during the first year of this blog. I only addressed the aftermath, the mistakes and the horrible consequences. In fact, I only started writing after Abu Ghraib and Fallujah I (of April, 2004) and after it was quite evident that the management of this adventure was leading to disaster. But now, for want of a plausible explanation of what happened and what is happening… I repeatedly think of those motives.

There seems to be so much confusion regarding the motives of this war in the minds of most people. Looking back, a wide variety of motives and arguments for justifying the Iraq war have been presented by both pro-war and anti-war camps over the past two years. The spread of ‘declared’ and ‘assumed’ motives is certainly interesting. There also seems to be some shift in the relative ‘importance’ of these motives over time. That shift sometimes indicates an honesty that leaves something to be desired. Let us look at the full spectrum.

There were of course the publicly declared and trumpeted motives:

1. Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction
2. Saddam’s regime was a threat to the USA and to world peace
3. Saddam’s regime had links with international terror groups
4. The war on Iraq was part of the war on international terrorism
5. Freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime
6. Spreading Democracy in the Middle East.

And there were ‘other’ assumed or unspoken motives, usually contested by the opposing camp:

7. Securing control over a major oil resource
8. Creating a country to neocon design and to “Project for the New American Century” requirements
9. Avenging 9/11
10. Creating a haven for American investment in a rich country.

Ordinary people were, and many still are, confused regarding these issues. A major source of confusion is the desire by some people to pinpoint a single motive. One natural question is of course: are these objectives shared by the public, the administration and the special-interest groups within the USA? Has everybody been honest with the American public regarding these objectives? Has the American public, as a body, been honest with itself regarding these objectives?

After so much turmoil and loss of life, isn’t it time yet for some reassessment? Shouldn’t we all aim to be honest about an event that may have an enormous effect on international relations and on the world that we all live in, for a long time to come?

Perhaps one could start to address this question through some nagging and unanswered questions concerning the lead-up to the invasion:

1. Why was such an unconvincing case presented to the American public and to the world?

2. Why did so many Americans accept that unconvincing case so readily and enthusiastically?

3. Why would huge, professional intelligence establishments and powerful governments rely on questionable reports … to lead their countries to war? Reports based on things like: a student’s thesis written 10 years earlier, a vague report by Czech intelligence that a terrorist probably met someone who was probably with the Iraqi intelligence or German intelligence obtained from a drunkard of dubious credentials, code-named curveball, regarding Iraq’s WMD capabilities.

4. Why were the many challenges to those ‘intelligence’ assessments dismissed so lightly, and even attacked so vehemently?

5. Why did so many Americans believe that Iraq was linked to international terrorism… with so little evidence?

6. Why did so many Americans believe that they were avenging 9/11 by attacking Iraq?

7. Why were clear statements by Al Qaeda senior leadership that Saddam was an ‘infidel’ and a declared enemy so readily dismissed?

8. Why was a person like Colin Powell prepared to compromise himself in front of the whole world to present evidence that was ‘unconvincing’ to say the least?

9. Why didn’t America try hard enough to form an international coalition?

10. Why didn’t America care much about what the rest of the world thought about the invasion?

11. Why was there such frenzy in condemning the position of those countries that opposed the invasion, particularly old allies like France and Germany?

12. Why was there such an outrage about Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against his own people and against a neighboring country… more than 12 years after those events? Why was there no similar outrage at the time those atrocities were committed?

13. Why was there such an outrage about Saddam’s brutal oppression of the popular uprising in 1991 after 12 years… while the American, and other, armies were in the vicinity at the time and while those armies were already at war with Iraq? On the contrary, at that time Saddam was given explicit permission to use warplanes to quell that uprising?

14. Why was America in such a hurry… to the extent of jumping into war without proper planning? What was the eminent danger?


Other essays on this subject

Declared Motives

Possible Undeclared Motives:

1. Control of Iraqi Oil
2. Creating a Country to Neocon Design
3. Invading Iraq to Avenge 9/11
4. Creating a Haven for Investment
5. Eliminating Saddam’s Long-term Threat
6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq
7. Leading America into Perpetual War
8. Other Theories

All in one long article

Tuesday, May 03, 2005


Put My Son’s Name on a Bomb (2)

Dialogue with Super-Patriotic America

This post is a study of some of the debating tactics of misguided (and misguiding) American super-patriots. It stems from the discussion of my previous post. Amid all the noise of a lively debate, the main points of the debate were lost to most. This post is an outline of that debate without the noise… to illustrate those tactics.


Over the past year, I was frequently taken aback by the ferocity of the attacks (and, sometimes the abuse) directed at me when criticizing the policies of the present American administration in Iraq. I was fascinated by those people. I began calling them ‘American Saddamists’ because they cannot distinguish between country and government… or leader.

The Setup and the Case Study

It began when I became aware of the story of a retired policeman who wanted to put the name of his son, who was killed in 9/11, on a bomb going to Iraq.

After confirming the transaction and being convinced of the basic facts, I sent an angry letter to the father, Wilton Sekzer, and copied Gary Gorman, another NYPD retired officer who had forwarded Sekzer’s request to the army. My aim was to let Mr. Sekzer know the disastrous results of his action.

There were some discrepancies. So I published the original transaction, my letter and Mr. Gorman’s response and invited a discussion to find the truth.

The facts were all there. I gave a lead to the search. I wanted to see how people would react. I admit to being slightly “wicked”! But I hope that the ensuing reactions and discussion justified my action. I expected those American Saddamists to attack the story without verifying the facts first. From my limited experience with them, I knew that they blindly attack anything that smells of any criticism of their country, their administration… or even a fellow citizen. I know… because they have been pestering me for months. They did not fail me! The ability to predict is one of the most important criteria of testing a theory!

In the main post, I gave the following lead:

“I did a Google search of the term “put my son’s name on a bomb” and found several links. I followed a few of them to confirm the transaction which troubled me deeply. Please do your own search and follow the links for full details of the exchange of e-mail messages.”

That lead was ignored.

Judgment that the transaction was false or was an urban legend was hastily passed and I was the recipient of generous advice not to jump to hasty conclusions before checking the facts!

I had to give another, more specific lead. That produced similar results and more recrimination!

When, mainly through the efforts of one particular decent American, the story was confirmed to be authentic, there was still no admission of fault, no apology of any kind… but more attacks!!

Unbelievable? Well, it is the truth. The whole exchange is there in the comments section of the previous post. I have also placed a skeleton of the main threads in an appendix at the end of this post. It had the following characteristics:

1. Debate through “assuming and attacking” regardless of the facts: basically attacking the message (and sometimes the messenger) without any evidence… assuming that they can argue their way out of any situation by adapting the appropriate (moral, condescending, superior or patronizing) attitude.

2. Refutation by association: discrediting a story by mentioning other ‘false’ stories put out by the enemy camp.

3. Oblique sense of justice: basically “We are humane, just and compassionate – but that only applies to our own… and to hell with everybody else”. In this case I was fascinated by the blame that was poured on me for sending such a harsh letter to Mr. Sekzer to avenge my friend in response to his sending me a bomb to avenge his son!

4. Never admitting defeat: This is so reminiscent of Saddam. There is no dignity in defeat. Therefore, always claim victory even when you lose miserably. Never admit to defeat.

I have expanded these points in the Appendix for those interested in some detail.


• If you state anything that super-patriots regard as an attack or even a criticism, they will take an attacking position and strike back, regardless of the facts. If you criticize their lot, you have to be wrong.

• It is an extremely difficult task to convince some American Saddamists of something even if you have irrefutable proof.

• It is unlikely that much of the body of American Saddamists will change their mind even in the face of emerging proofs and unavoidable evidence.

What is this? Tribalism? I happen to be quite familiar with tribalism. This is far worse.

This is so sad! I am increasingly getting the impression that such people do exist in large numbers in the States. What is bad is that they are more vocal than ordinary people. What is worse is that they seem to be quite influential in supporting the course where America is heading, particularly regarding foreign policy. (Whether it is heading where they want or whether they simply applaud where it is heading is an interesting question.)

But of course it is frequently said that these people do not represent America. True!

They only represent the self-centered, self-righteous America that most of the world can see and mistrust. They represent the ugly, incompetent and manipulative America that most Iraqis can see and hate. They represent the America that has devastated my country and killed and maimed many thousands of my people as well as a few thousands of its own… and feels justified in doing so.

A good minority of decent America can see what is happening but there is not much that they can do about it. The rest of America, watches Fox News and waits for developments!



1. Main Comment Thread:

Some people found it difficult to see the main arguments in that debate through all the noise! Some people intentionally did not want to see either the trees or the forest!

Here is a condensed version of the main thread within that debate. I have corrected linguistic errors and broken down long paragraphs to make the arguments clearer. If you feel that I may have taken the quotes out of context, you can read the original complete transaction in the comment section of the previous post.

All you need is some sense of humor to appreciate the ‘subtleties’ of this ‘debate’.

Brian H: Apparently you were the enthusiastic victim of an urban legend. You believed because you wanted to believe.
Anon: Don't follow the "urban legend" thought. If Gorman's reply is genuine, the basic facts of the story are confirmed…

Abu Khaleel: I probably believed because many other similar bombs killed many innocent people.

Brian H: … To start with, the bomb fell in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Which is, you may recall, where the Taliban and Al Quaeda were in charge? So the Iraqi's outrage is totally out to lunch, because he believed a "legendized" version of the story which transplanted the bomb to Iraq. Got it yet?

[Brian H disappeared without further notice after this authoritative interjection.]

Lynn in the US: Urban legends go both ways here's another:

[… quite a long post relating some silly, unbelievable story, to put it on the same footing as the case in hand]

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, I did a Google search on this as well. Google came up with 5 different links all originating from the same site http://www.albasrah.net/ ...
Hardly an unbiased news agency.

Don't be so quick to believe everything that you read.

Abu Khaleel: … I gave you a lead for an investigation. You saw albasrah.net and made important conclusions. BTW my Google gives not 5 but 59 links….

Here is another lead: the BBC documentary “Why we fight” interviewed the retired police officer. Please let me know if you need some more help.

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, … you believe and get upset by something that that website, albasrah.net put out for that very purpose.

I'm not saying that a version of it was not true but it was put out by that website intentionally to get your rage up just as that other thing that I had posted was put out in order to incite hatred for Arabs living in this country.

[still obsessed with that wretched website..]

Of course Google came up with more than just five hits. But the majority of them were only related because they contained the words son or bomb or name…

[Obviously Lynn did not Google the “phrase” (“put my son’s name on a bomb”) but the string (put my son’s name on a bomb) in which case Google gives about 100, 000 results… yet Lynn manages to look through them and finds only 5 links all pointing to albasrah.net… Still making conclusions based upon that fact and offering free advice. She still does not bother with the BBC lead I gave.]

[After some verification of the main point is established by other contributors, most notably Bob Griffin…]

Abu Khaleel: So far, I hope that the existence of the main characters, as well as ‘some’ original request letter, have all been established. I hope that we can discard the ‘urban legend’ scenario.

Lynn in the US: I'm sorry Abu Khaleel but it WAS an urban legend. Wasn't it? Urban legends do not have to be totally false in order to be urban legends.

[Almost an irrational insistence on the ‘urban legend’ scenario in the face of damning proof]

It was proven to you that that bomb was not being sent to Iraq but to Afghanistan and Osama.

[ “proven”!!!! I have no idea what constitutes “proof” in pro-war America these days… but something sounds extremely wrong here!]

and then when your friend e-mailed you this "urban legend" version of a factual story you believed it and "Almost immediately I wrote an (extremely) angry message" to this grieving father. Had you been a bit more skeptical about things you might not have worded your letter in such a manner.

[Forgetting that in the original post, a few paragraphs above I clearly stated that I had verified the transaction.]

… You do realize that that kind of temper, judging too quickly and becoming immediately angry, is detrimental to civilized society?

[Based on these profound conclusions… another free lecture about civilized society. I must say I loved this one.]

Bob Griffin: Lynn, It appears based on the various references I found that it wasn't an urban legend, and at the time we were about to go into Iraq and were no longer focusing on Afghanistan.

Have you checked the references I posted? You might take the time to do a Google search on Officer Wilton Seckzer, the man whose idea is being discussed… From one item… http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/04/10/sprj.irq.ny.rally/

NY rallies at Ground Zero for troops…

'Construction worker William Sekzer's son, Jason, died September 11. He attended the rally because he believes the terrorist attack is connected to the war on Iraq.

"What do you want as proof?" Sekzer asked. "Do you want Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Osama bin Laden?"

So Lynn, given the attitude shown by Officer Sekzer in April, 2003, it seems quite likely that Officer Sekzer was happy with the idea of targeting Iraq…

Abu Khaleel: Lynn, In addition to Bob’s links, may I suggest that you follow the link I have already given you. The procedure is quite simple: On Google search [ bbc “why we fight” iraq ] The FIRST item on the list will be:


Wilton Sekzer, Retired officer, NYPD

Wilton's son died on 9/11. After George Bush explained that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks, Wilton emailed all branches of the armed forces to ask if his son's name could be written on a bomb to be dropped on Iraq.

May I respectfully ask you again not to be too hasty.

Charles: Why doesn't someone just watch the documentary?

Abu Khaleel: Charles, Thank you for finally getting there! I hope that we have just shown that Mr. Zesker actually asked for the bomb to be dropped on IRAQ. The man is on tape!

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, You ask me not to be too hasty yet that is exactly what I am saying to you.

[No apology, no retraction; just more attacks]

Had YOU researched this story I don't think that you would have sent off that e-mail to the man. My being too hasty did not cause any pain to anyone. Other's hastiness leads to WARS.

[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

The link that you gave me for the BBC documentary did not give enough detail about the documentary… I haven't seen this BBC documentary so I will not pass judgment on it. However, just because something is labeled a "documentary" does not automatically make it an unbiased piece of journalism.

[Conveniently forgetting that the issue was not the bias of the documentary but the fact that the gentleman in question was on record saying these things. Is this simple, confused thinking or a sinister nature?]

[… And finally… ]

I am a very skeptical person. I try not to pass judgment until I have clear and absolute evidence and that isn't always an easy thing to find especially on the internet with the number of sites that are so totally one sided.

I do research before I come to conclusions but some things are really not worthy of the time spent researching because it just doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things.

Charles: … touché to Lynn – eh? Abu?

Touché indeed! I am speechless!

2. Refutation by Association

This tactic is basically attempting to discredit a story by mentioning other false stories… and not considering the possibility that the story may be verifiable.

Since I did not give references, these people thought none existed and they were therefore safe. This is hilarious!

Brian H: Apparently you were the enthusiastic victim of an urban legend. You believed because you wanted to believe.

Lynn in the US: Urban legends go both ways here's another: …

Charles: Some of you may recall that snapshot of a US soldier laughing with an Iraqi boy and holding a cardboard sign saying something like: "I bombed your dad, I raped your sister, and look how happy I am..." … Anyway, the pic was a sham. I never did see the original, but he sure didn't write what a clever left wing photoshop editor propagandist wanted us to think he wrote.

Lynn in the US: I'm not saying that a version of it was not true but it was put out by that website intentionally to get your rage up just as that other thing that I had posted … So who do you think it was that put the Iraqi spin on the letter?

[Now that we are certain that there was a spin on the letter. The next questions is whodunit!]

Charles: The only reason I brought it up is because there was a very similar story with picture circulated right after the war showing a grinning GI bragging about murder and rape. That WAS a fake but I know it caused tens/hundreds of thousands of people across the internet to curse those dirty yanks. The image fit right into what they wanted to believe and no one questioned it. Many probably still have the image seared into their minds. Propaganda works.

Mentioning other ‘sham’ stories is regarded as constituting a valid argument against a claimed incident!

3. Patriotic Sense of Justice
Those people were blaming me for sending a harsh “letter” to Mr. Sekzer to avenge my friend in response to his sending me a “bomb” to avenge his son! Such a sharp sense of justice!

Charles: My point was that Gorman forwarded the request from a very upset father whose son had been deliberately murdered by terrorists. It had nothing to do with patriotism. The request is not so surprising. This man was just lashing out irrationally. That often happens when your son gets murdered.

[Do Iraqi fathers have that right too? Would they receive the same understanding if they send bombs to America… given that they would not be misguided about who killed their sons?]

Lynn in the US: That bomb was going where it was going whether that man had asked for his son's name to go on it or not. The name being on it was only symbolic and as the man told you it was aimed at Osama not innocent Iraqis.

Lynn in the US: I wonder what would have happened to that father had he been visiting Iraq when that e-mail was being sent around?

[No concern or even a word about the countless civilians who were killed by the thousands of similar bombs. What if the poor gentleman visited Iraq and people knew what he had done!!]

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, Further research would have shown you that the man has a completely different view now and is upset that he was misled. Therefore, it would have been completely unnecessary for you to send him a scathing letter.

[If one day OBL has a change of heart and shows remorse, it seems that he may have some sympathizers in America]

Mr. Wilton Sekzer

At the end of all this, I have to give credit to the hero of this story, Mr. Wilton Sekzer, who seemed to regret having asked for his son's name to be on a bomb.

Unfortunately, he was one of the ones who fell for the Iraq War = Al Qaeda-fight reasoning.. but when they interviewed him, at the end of the documentary he seemed pretty irate with Bush for lying about the war. He was disillusioned and felt that the government "exploited my feelings of patriotism for the death of my son."

I must add that I do not regret sending the poor fellow that rather harsh letter. Having one’s innocent son killed does not give one the right to kill other people’s innocent sons… on misguided suspicions.

His regret did not bring those sons who were killed by similar bombs back to their grieving fathers. I want him to fully realize the results of that action. I want him to be even angrier at the people who misled him.

Would it have been possible for your administration to drop more than 3000 bombs in a single day on a city of more than million people and get away with it were it not for a supportive American “misinformed” public like poor Mr. Sekzer?

Would it have been possible to drop 2, 000 lb. bombs on a congested urban areas in Fallujah and elsewhere (more than a year after the end of “major operations”) to target “suspected” terrorists when it was certain that the place was full of innocent civilians (including women and children), without such public apathy?

I am gratified that Mr. Sekzer has regretted that request. I am delighted that Mr. Gorman seems to be a decent man. I want them to read my letter again and again to know the result of that action. Perhaps they will be angry at whoever misled them to believe that bombing people in Iraq was a good revenge for 9/11… angry enough to do something about it.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise