Brink of civil war in Lebanon

[Moronic Max]

Speaking of tallying the dead, the ISG reports there's a great deal of underreporting of the violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_12_06_iraq_study_group_report.pdf

In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant

acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.

It's hardly news that that's happening, but the scale is shocking.

[Peter Cairns]

Moronic Max,

There is a good discussion of it here, it's on the YouGov polling site, that deals mainly with Uk polls, but as it uses similiar methodology to a poll it's worth a look...

Deaths in Iraq.

Oh and you might want to join the forum as you get paid ( a pittance) to vote.

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

More good news out of Lebanon...

Hezbollah vows end to Lebanon government

By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press WriterThu Dec 7, 5:03 PM ET

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah promised thousands of supporters Thursday that they would eventually bring down Lebanon's Western-backed government, but the prime minister vowed to stand firm against protesters.

It was the seventh day of street demonstrations by Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian parties aimed at pressuring Prime Minister Fuad Saniora to quit in a deepening political crisis threatening to tear the country apart.

In a rousing speech delivered on huge screens in two central Beirut squares, Nasrallah accused Saniora of conniving with Israel during its monthlong war with Hezbollah last summer. He claimed Saniora ordered the Lebanese army to confiscate Hezbollah's supplies of weapons — his sharpest attack on the prime minister since the August cease-fire that ended the fighting.

"Didn't the prime minister of Lebanon work to cut off the supply lines?" Nasrallah said. He added that government officials had asked American envoys to persuade Israel to destroy Hezbollah.

"Those are the ones responsible for the war, not the resistance," Nasrallah said.

Hezbollah has gained increasing political clout after the war, which began after Hezbollah guerrillas snatched two Israeli soldiers patrolling the south Lebanon border. It wants to topple Saniora's government because it has rejected demands for forming a national unity government that would give the pro-Hezbollah factions veto power in the Cabinet.

Ahmed Fatfat, who was acting interior minister during the war, dismissed Nasrallah's accusations as "false stories about the war." He told AP Television News the charges would strengthen the government's resolve.

Saniora's allies have accused Hezbollah of being influenced by Iran and Syria, which they claim want to destabilize Lebanon by supporting the militant group's plans to oust the government.

Nasrallah said protests would continue until Hezbollah's demands are met. But he also said he was prepared to negotiate and that the Shiite guerrillas would use arms only against Israelis.

"We are a people that will not be defeated in the battle of wills," he said to roars from the crowd. "We will not leave the streets before achieving the goal that saves Lebanon."

It was only the second time Nasrallah addressed a mass rally since the August cease-fire. For security reasons, he did not appear but spoke via video link.

He addressed warnings from politicians and the army commander that the mass protests could drag Lebanon back to the sectarian civil war of 1975-1990.

"We will not lift our weapons in the face of anyone," Nasrallah said. "We will defeat you with our voices.

The army, overstretched with keeping Beirut's streets clear of blockades and clashing protesters, called for calm for the second time in four days.

"Offering sacrifices for the sake of the nation is not a duty of soldiers only, but it is a duty of all the nation's sons, specifically their political and spiritual leaders," the army said in a circular to soldiers that also addressed the politicians.

Saniora, emboldened by international support for his U.S.-backed government, insisted he would not give in to protesters. He spoke to hundreds of supporters outside his offices, where he has been hold up, ringed by troops, riot police and barbed wire.

"We are standing fast, believing in the justness of our position," Saniora said.

Nasrallah's speech appeared to be an attempt to rouse supporters for a massive demonstration planned in Beirut on Sunday.

A Sudanese envoy, who arrived in Beirut on Thursday for talks with the rival factions, said the street protests should end, but supported the opposition's call for a broader-based government.

"The basis of a solution must be founded on the formation of a national unity government and withdrawal of dialogue from the street to parliament," said Mustafa Osman Ismail, the envoy of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Thousands of Hezbollah supporters have staged nightly protests in Beirut, and tents have sprung up in two city squares, shutting down shops and paralyzing the heart of the capital.

Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa, meanwhile, denied his country was interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs. Instead, he accused unnamed foreign powers of using Lebanon against Damascus.

He added that Syria will not send back its army to Lebanon "no matter what happens."

Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon last year under heavy international pressure, after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria's Lebanese opponents blamed Damascus for the killing, a charge it denies.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally by Grunt:

Lone Syrian, I would never risk my children if I could avoid it. I would send them to France, with my wife if that was possible. But then I would stay and try to make a positive difference. If I was not a soldier, then I would find some other way to help my Country.

I really wanna be polite here, I wanna heed Steve’s warning, acknowledge his graciousness and thank him for his hospitality. Yet, a little incendiary candor is good for America.

Grunt knows fully well that the quintessential US preoccupation is to maintain the “American Way of Life.” For example, you ask a young American Corporal, what are you fighting for soldier, his response will invariably be, ‘well, to maintain our way of life sir.’ God forbid some poor fella undermine the “American way of life.”

The Arab nuclear family is diametrically different from the American family, Arab Muslim wives refuse to separate from their husbands and travel to foreign lands on their own . Nor is it customary for Arab men to send off their women and children abroad regardless of the circumstances (there are always exceptions). In other words, the Arab family is like epoxy and the American family is like putty.

The American and Syrian ways of life are in constant divergence, that’s why you’re itching to invade, so you can impose your way of life with an Abrams à la Iraq; well look at you now.

When I went to college in the States, I understood that I must respect the American way of life, although I didn’t have to partake in it. Let me give you an example, I once knew one Maxine B, a fine college babe who wouldn’t put out unless she smoked copious quantities of cannabis. I thought who am I to disrespect the American way of life and not procure **** for Maxine so she can perform.

The moral of the story is, an American Grunt’s moral imperative isn’t necessarily commensurate to a husband’s and father 10000 miles away. How a Grunt reacts to an invasion isn’t a uniform, holier than thou behavioral blueprint.

To Syrians, it is God, Family, Duty, then Country. Of course King comes in the ass of a very long list of priorities. Besides, can’t I contribute something “positive” from France darn it? Must I be separated from the apples of my eye to single-handedly rescue Syria from America’s wrath à la Grunt’s machismo and bravado?

LoneSyrian would never ever pontificate to an American family man as to how he should or shouldn’t react to an invasion by foreign hordes. Nor will LoneSyrian ever chastise or judge the multitude of US servicemen deserters walking the streets of Pacifist Canada.

More good news out of Lebanon...

You must understand that historically there was no such thing as “Lebanon”, look it up. There was only “Billad El Sham”, literally translated into the countries of Damascus, amongst which was today’s Lebanon.

Syria will never allow Lebanon to fall into the American camp, Bush and Rice are fighting a lost cause, for as usual, the biggest enemy of a determined US administration are cyclical elections. Assad will be around long after them two primates are gone.

Look at it this way, would you give Mexico to Syrians? You’ll never again be able to escape the ole lady and get laid in Warez or Tijuana, where would your way of life be then?

[Stavka_lite]

"Look at it this way, would you give Mexico to Syrians?"

Absolutely!!!!

[MikeyD]

Ah, the "American Way of life". A nice nebulous phrase coined back in the days when American life scarely resembled American life nowadays. I wonder what Herbert Hoover would think of Walmart, Dr. Phil, and the entirely vanished family farm.

Listen, when any country goes to war they've got to tell the boys something, right? How many people would be willing to fight for the REAL reasons behind most wars? Imagine Napoleon announcing that he was marching everybody into Russian for... um... whatever it was, I bet it sounded like a really good reason at the time! What's the chance the most touted reason was for national honor, commitments to allies, and the French way of life?

About there being no Lebanon - Go back only a short while and you'll find there was no U.S. Texas or California either, no U.S. Louisiana or Hawaii. Saddam originally went into Kuwait (which started much of this mess) under the fig-leaf that Kuwait was an artificially constructed nation too. Not to mention Israel's 2,000 year-old national claims. Any grievance can be supported if you rummage far enough back in history (admittedly, some grievances ain't all that old). I expect to be forced from my Boston-area home by its rightful Mic Mack Indian owners any day now... and marched into Utah to starve.

[LoneSyrian]

Go back only a short while and you'll find there was no U.S. Texas or California either, no U.S. Louisiana or Hawaii. Saddam originally went into Kuwait (which started much of this mess) under the fig-leaf that Kuwait was an artificially constructed nation too. Not to mention Israel's 2,000 year-old national claims. Any grievance can be supported if you rummage far enough back in history.

I can't argue with that. The expansionists should listen to MikeyD too.

[Battlefront.com]

The whole casualty assessment process is flawed, so no matter what the number is it is likely to be wrong. It also needs qualification. The IBC link counts only those deaths that are directly attributed to the conflict between Coallition and the various Insurgant groups. As stated before, it is a baseline and does include attacks that have nothing to do with Coallition forces (in fact, that is the bulk of the reporting). These deaths have been confirmed by at least 2 sources, and therefore act as a decent, scientific MINIMUM basis.

The real number is obviously higher. Much higher. How much? Nobody knows. The report that stated the number was roughly in the ballpark of 500k might be correct, but again this includes all sources of death in excess of what the normal death rate would have been (I think this included Saddam's murder rate). And as stated it was largely done by extrapolation. They did some surveys and then multiplied it up to get the total figure. This is an acceptable way to sample data and the reporting group did put in a major margin of error (nearly 50%!).

The only thing for sure is that a lot of people are dying that need not be. This goes back to my original point that if the Insurgency stopped today there would be a massive drop in the death rate. And if that were maintained, it would drop further because the rebuilding process would be able to restart. The decline of healthcare and what not has been in large part due to the security problems caused by the Insurgency, for example. Doctors have fled the country and some have been murdered because of who they are.

Anyway, the point is that what is going on now in Iraq helps nobody and hurts a lot of people. The US would love nothing more than to have that stop, even if it is largely for the obvious selfish reason -> it's the only viable way to pull out its military forces.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

"Grunt knows fully well that the quintessential US preoccupation is to maintain the “American Way of Life.” For example, you ask a young American Corporal, what are you fighting for soldier, his response will invariably be, ‘well, to maintain our way of life sir.’ God forbid some poor fella undermine the “American way of life.”

-Actually the corporal would probably say the kind of things that they have said in all wars, as in Iraq, maybe something about protecting America, more likely about serving with their buddies, and something direct about the task at hand, like bringing down a dictator (Saddam Hussien) or a despotic regime (Taliban). And 99% of them do cherish the "American way of life" that you seem to despise.

"The American and Syrian ways of life are in constant divergence, that’s why you’re itching to invade, so you can impose your way of life with an Abrams à la Iraq; well look at you now."

-The American and Arab ways of life are opposites from the family level all the way up to strategic politics. It is not so much we want to impose our way of life on you, it is that we do not want the Arab way of life and the problems that the Middle East has. We do not like dictators that support terrorists and threaten our allies. The US and the American way of life is far from perfect, but I would not trade it for anything else.

"When I went to college in the States, I understood that I must respect the American way of life, although I didn’t have to partake in it. Let me give you an example, I once knew one Maxine B, a fine college babe who wouldn’t put out unless she smoked copious quantities of cannabis. I thought who am I to disrespect the American way of life and not procure **** for Maxine so she can perform. "

-Well, if what you say is true, then you obviously did partake in the "American way of life". And being a good Muslim first must only apply when home in Syria.

"Must I be separated from the apples of my eye to single-handedly rescue Syria from America’s wrath à la Grunt’s machismo and bravado?"

-Only if you believe that the current Syrian regime is worth defending against the "wrath" of America. I would not. But I do believe that there are things worse than war and I do believe that my country and its "way of life" are worth fighting for. My family and their future is definetly worth fighting for.

"Nor will LoneSyrian ever chastise or judge the multitude of US servicemen deserters walking the streets of Pacifist Canada."

-That multitide must be a state secret. Glad you are here to inform us about it. Actually re-enlistment rates are very high, especially for units that have seen duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"You must understand that historically there was no such thing as “Lebanon”, look it up. There was only “Billad El Sham”, literally translated into the countries of Damascus, amongst which was today’s Lebanon."

-Well, everyone can go back into history to find when a certain place developed into a nation and why and then dispute the justice of that history. That is a never-ending story of human history. But what matters most is the reality of right now and what the future may become. Lebanon could become a democratic state that has freedom of religion, a thriving economy (which it used to have), the rule of law, rights for all its citizens,...all those things that Baathists and Ayatollahs hate. Sure with freedom there comes problems...too much commercialization, etc...but the alternative of having a dictatorship like Hussien's or Assad's..or a religious government like the Taliban's or Iran's has zero appeal to most people. If you want to go back into history, then go to 492–449 BC. The Greco-Persian Wars started because the "buffer" states between the Persian Empire and Greece City-States wanted the Greek way of life and maybe all this goes way back to the same set of problems.

"Syria will never allow Lebanon to fall into the American camp, Bush and Rice are fighting a lost cause, for as usual, the biggest enemy of a determined US administration are cyclical elections. Assad will be around long after them two primates are gone."

-I am sure Assad will be in his "office" longer than both Bush and Rice, that is the one good thing about being a dictator-no people to be accountable to. And I agree with you that Syria is doing everything it can to keep Lebanon from being a stable country, especially a democratic, Western one. Hence the bombings, assassinations, assisting and financing Hezbollah etc... Cyclical elections are a good thing and are another key part of that "American Way of Life". It is the antibody for dictators.

"Look at it this way, would you give Mexico to Syrians? You’ll never again be able to escape the ole lady and get laid in Warez or Tijuana, where would your way of life be then?"

-The Mexican people wouldn't allow Syrians to take over in the first place, so its a non-issue.

[ December 09, 2006, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Imperial Grunt ]

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

We do not like dictators that support terrorists and threaten our allies. The US and the American way of life is far from perfect, but I would not trade it for anything else.

Oh pallllllllllease, tell the above to those NOT in the know, you kiddin'? You adore dictators. Your naiveté is well received however.

Who are your allies? the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians? Respectively, these allies you’re so protective of form a cordon of terror, they’re the matriarchs of all dictatorships. Who do you think is stoking and financing the Sunni insurgency in Iraq to counter Iran, Syria? The entire Syrian state can’t afford a single TIVO.

The whole of the 911 tragedy came from Saudi, your beloved ally. Bin Laden’s family was rushed in protective mode outa the US by the Bush Dynasty in the wee hours of the morning.

Enter the US’ favorite, scum of the earth, king of all dictators, General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, the darling of America. This two faced serpent giggles with that moron Bush then sticks it in Afghanistan, he’s reviving the Taliban, the Czars of terror, to let the US know he has leverage.

The US and its dictators is a legendary tale, let me start with Saddam and the infamous Rumsfeld handshake photo. You’re not gonna tell the board the US didn’t know that Saddam supported terror in the 80s are ya? You’d be committing a crime against humanity if you did.

OK, how about fairly recent history, Batista, Pinochet, Noriega, Zaire’s Mobutu, Nasser of Egypt, the Muslim dictators of Central Asia, one of whom visited the white house a few months ago and was awarded a medal for asfixiating his own people. the US likes this Central Asian Stan dictator because he allows her to maintain a base there.

In fact, the US is known for spoiling its dictator so badly that they blow up in her face at later dates. Who do you think gave Lebanon to Syria in the first place? That’s right, Reagan and Bush Sr.

You wanna know what’s tragic in the region? The shunning of Hamas in Palestine, for it’s the only administration in the entire Mid East that won an election fair and etched in blood square. This Hamas election was certified by the who’s who of observers as the cleanest election ever undergone in the history of the Mid East. Yet alas.

The Mexican people wouldn't allow Syrians to take over in the first place, so its a non-issue

But that’s what I’m saying, we’re not in disagreement on this one. The millions of Lebanese Christians and Muslims on the streets today, at this hour, won’t allow America and France to take over their country and impose western puppets, it is a “non-issue.”

The issue is America is losing Iraq and it will lose Lebanon, Georgia, the Ukraine and South America, you’re no longer winners, you’ve allowed yourselves to become losers by electing apocalyptic leaderships twice in the row. You're guilty because you have a choice, Syrians don't.

[ December 09, 2006, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: LoneSyrian ]

[C'Rogers]

Oh pallllllllllease, tell the above to those NOT in the know, you kiddin'? You adore dictators.

I think you should look at his full quote.

We do not like dictators that support terrorists and threaten our allies.

The latter part of the sentence you seem to be missing.

Iraq and it will lose Lebanon, Georgia, the Ukraine and South America, you’re no longer winner

With the exception of Iraq no one in America will really care. I'm sure a random poll on the street most people would be hard press to name how the US is involved in those regions (or that such regions even exist).

[LoneSyrian]

I did read everything, did C'Rogers? No? Then read again.

Pakistan aids and abets terror, yet you turn a blind eye, Saudi aids and abets the Iraqi Sunni insurgency, yet you placate it.

If every other country but Iraq seems marginal to you, that doesn't mean they're not there and the US isn't actively involved.

It's not important for the common man to be concerned about geopolitics, but Condi Rice is willing to strip, mudd wrestle and brake limbs to have it the US way.

[C'Rogers]

Lone Syrian, the vast majority of your replies in evidence for American supported dictators who, for the most part, leave American interests alone. Long run they may damage American interests (Wahhabism as an example) but not necessarily directly.

If every other country but Iraq seems marginal to you, that doesn't mean they're not there and the US isn't actively involved.

Of course, but this goes back to your earlier assertion about these issues polarizing the American people. They really aren't. For all of the geopolitical involvement of the US it really doesn't put really any strain on the US economy and the amount of people involved in comparision to overall population if fairly minor.

Also the concept of America not being an interventionist power is pretty much a dead issue in the country. Both parties just disagree with how the other likes to go about being involved.

[Imperial Grunt]

LoneSyrian, in the interests of making realistic game, can you post some pictures of some towns, government buildings, mosques, etc...maybe of that bar that you go to visit the Damascus Marines at? It is hard to find pictures of places in Syria that show stuff other than landmarks, like this site only has:

Damascus Online

[Cpl Steiner]

LoneSyrian,

Having read many of your posts to date I have to say I am getting a little tired of your blinkered anti-westernism. You seem to believe that the World would be a wonderful place if it wasn't for America and her allies meddling in things that don't concern them.

Only a couple of days ago I read in a newspaper that in a town near Mogadishu, Somalia, a local religious official has issued an edict that anyone caught not praying 5 times a day will be beheaded.

Surely even you can see why this sort of thing causes alarm in the West? If the Islamic World finds itself under the spot-light of Western disapproval, it isn't hard to see why.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

LoneSyrian,

Having read many of your posts to date I have to say I am getting a little tired of your blinkered anti-westernism.

Don't read any of my posts anymore, this way you'll stay fresh and won't be tired.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

It is hard to find pictures of places in Syria that show stuff other than landmarks.

There's a reason for that, posting English words is one thing, posting pictures from here is another.

Although those who monitor net traffic can't read and understand more than basic English, they've 20/20 vision. I know many who were careless, foolish and wanted to impress Imperial Grunts, let's say they're no longer at liberty to post anything anymore.

If you think a bar or a disco frequented by Marines is trivial, can be photographed effortlessly and have its photos disseminated, think again. Or better yet, think back to the La Belle Disco in Berlin circa 1980, where a multitude of Marines perished after such photographs were snapped.

All the pictures you see online are uploaded by either the state-owned press or sanctioned publications, tourist institutions and licensed sites.

LoneSyrian won't endanger his security in the interest of fun and games.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by C’Rogers:

Of course, but this goes back to your earlier assertion about these issues polarizing the American people. They really aren't. For all of the geopolitical involvement of the US it really doesn't put really any strain on the US economy and the amount of people involved in comparision to overall population if fairly minor.

Again C’Rogers, you’re betraying the record and blatantly concocting an “assertion” I never made, look at the record again and again.

LoneSyrian said ONLY IRAQ is polarizing and taxing the American people, NO other. You may differ on that, but not without impersonating an ostrich. The entire mid term elections last month were about Iraq, and they were roughly 60/40 against and in favor.

Look at the US current account and budget deficit, the US GDP growth for the last two quarters from the stand point of projected growth and actual numbers. Look at the US dollar, it’s in the toilet (Syria adopted Euros years ago). I know your administration favors a weak dollar to boost US exports, but your currency is in a free fall which is mocking your prestige. Iraq will yet bankrupt your country, some Americans I spoke with said it already has.

You’re telling this board the Iraq conflict has nothing to do with crude oil prices? Are you? I was in Orange County California July last and the gallon was at $3.50, even the movie stars of Dana Point and Monarch beach were complaining. I went to restaurants, gatherings, functions and all I could hear is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq; ‘our boyz are dyin’ for nothing.’

Now C’Rogers will come back to me and say, it’s not true that Papua New Guinea is polarizing the US, for once, I’ll wholeheartedly agree with him.

[C'Rogers]

Look at the US dollar, it’s in the toilet

Many African and South American currencies are in the toilet, the US dollar has had some better days.

I'll agree with you on your post as you put it in relation to US and other nations. If someone mininterpets you you really don't have to spend three paragraphs hitting the issue over and over again. You say 'that isn't what I mean, I mean ...'.

As for the midterm elections, they were mostly about Iraq, but I doubt that it was far from a major factor, just the most easily definable one.

As for crude oil prices it may get a lot of attention but even when prices where at there high (which they were for only a short period of time) they were still less of percentage of GDP and family salaries then they were in the 70s.

Also if you were getting any kind of opinion then what you heard in California I would be surprised, especially from movie stars.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

If someone mininterpets you you really don't have to spend three paragraphs hitting the issue over and over again. You say 'that isn't what I mean, I mean ...'.

Also if you were getting any kind of opinion then what you heard in California I would be surprised, especially from movie stars.

Very well, what I mean is both movie stars and common folk were complaining about gas prices. But only common folk and NOT movie stars were complaining about Iraq.

I personnaly don't know any movie stars, but I saw and overheard Sharon Stone at a Monarch Beach gas station (where she owns a home) say to her companion "$3.50 a gallon! Go figure."

It's not important that you're surprised at an event a board member witnessed, what's important is what was witnessed be true and real to the wintess.

[C'Rogers]

It's not important that you're surprised at an event a board member witnessed, what's important is what was witnessed be true and real to the wintess.

It also doesn't really speak much to an overall image of America though. Also, people are pretty much always upset about the price of gas, it is a fair constant that can be groped about. People are happy when it goes down, upset when it goes up, pretty much regardless of where it is at.

In addition US support for the Iraq war is much harder to gauge then simple for/against question. A majority of people disagree with the current process of the war, but those within the disagrement also disagree about what course should be taken.

Also I am going to bow out after what I think is a non-confrontational post. I realize I got off on politics above which for good reason is against forum rules.

[ December 10, 2006, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ]

[Dogface]

Originally posted by LoneSyrian:

Although those who monitor net traffic can't read and understand more than basic English, they've 20/20 vision.

Um, I would have to call bull**** on that statement. So am I to believe that you lonesyrian, are the only person in Syria who reads/speaks english beyond a basic level? And that Syrian Inteligence wouldn't hire some person like yourself that has been educated in the western world? Some how I don't think so. Or is it more like " Them damn brown people can't be smart enough to read american english" ? Cause that is how it comes across.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by LoneSyrian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

It is hard to find pictures of places in Syria that show stuff other than landmarks.

There's a reason for that, posting English words is one thing, posting pictures from here is another.

Although those who monitor net traffic can't read and understand more than basic English, they've 20/20 vision. I know many who were careless, foolish and wanted to impress Imperial Grunts, let's say they're no longer at liberty to post anything anymore.

If you think a bar or a disco frequented by Marines is trivial, can be photographed effortlessly and have its photos disseminated, think again. Or better yet, think back to the La Belle Disco in Berlin circa 1980, where a multitude of Marines perished after such photographs were snapped.

All the pictures you see online are uploaded by either the state-owned press or sanctioned publications, tourist institutions and licensed sites.

LoneSyrian won't endanger his security in the interest of fun and games. </font>

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by LoneSyrian:

Not sure where you're getting this impression. Whatever the case, I think it is false.

From the very beginning of the Iraq War, substantial numbers of American celebrities have spoken out against it. In fact, quite a number of American Movie Stars caught a lot of heat for speaking out against the war in the domestic press. Off the top of my head, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, and and Alec Baldwin come to mind. There were others as well.

Perhaps this aspect of the debate about the war wasn't covered as much internationally? I have noticed that, in general, the major international news services tend to whitewash things, and portray American public opinon as being more unified than it really is. Where I live, in New York City, the Iraq war never enjoyed broad public support, even at the start before it became abundantly clear that that there were no WMD in Iraq, W's supposed casus belli . . .

Regards,

YD

Regards,

YD

[Homo ferricus]

LoneSyrian seems to have abosrbed too much propoganda from his government, what with all his massive exaggerations of "disapperance of a multitude of Marines" and other bull**** statements. A good, honest, thoroughly analyzed and introspective conversation is most definitely hard to have with a man who is obviously brain-washed.