Fallujah: A Human Crime in the Making

#87 by escapist on November 15, 2004 5:20pm PT

Yes!! the Americans have no reply to this.


We should also ask who gave them the license to destroy and plunder muslims worldover in the name of getting Osama??
Aren`t we equally responsible for letting the Osama thrive worldover??? We need to do some introspection on our stupidity of tolerating these extremists to thrive in our backyards!!

tahmed32, ferozk, HP, and Romair

Thank You all for your interesting and meticulous comments. Am sorry that due to urgent pre-ocupations, I cud nt come on Chowk for the past few days. At this point it is difficult to respond/ comment in details to various interactors. However I would like to post the following points/ comments for your perusal please. I would also like to mention here that my viewpoint has a close sygyzy with that of Romair:
1. Tahmed 32, you have repeateded mentioned that I have been ignoring your point about the flattening of Fallujah; my friend that point is irrelevant in the broader perspective; therefore I hereby unconditionally concede that point:)
2. Again the same Q: Why are the damns in Iraq? There were no ``terrorists`` in Iraq, before the Americans invaded that country. ``Terrorists`` or resistance-fighters are the directoutcome of the US invasion/ occupation of Iraq. Period.
3. Americans had so logical raison d` etre or locus standi in Iraq. It is a blatant imperialistic invasion.
4. The US is not in Iraq to bring stability there. Enough has been said on this in the same forum. Democrary in the Muslim

---

specially in the oil-rich states is an athema to the USpolicy-makers. Remember the Algerian elections, where the fundamentalist FLN was ascendant ?
5. I think the US is in Iraq for the following reasons:
a. Implementing a 3 decade old agenda of world hegemony.
b. a. above requires control of scarce natural/ hydrocarbon resources, which Iraq has
aplenty.
c. To obviate the military threat against Israel.
d. To physically threaten Saudi Arabia and Iran. I agree with Romair that the most logi-
cal target in the aftermath of 9/11, from the US point of view should have
been Saudi Arabia, for reasons cited else where in this forum. But the US
could ill-afford a disruption of Saudi oil. The Saudi kleptrocracy could have
given way to a fundo-radical dispensation. So the US strategy is to threaten
Saudi Arabia by its indirect presence to desist from helping fundo-Islamists
by exporting its Wahabbism.
e. American invasion of Iraq also envelops Iran physically from two directions:
Iraq and Afghanistan.
f. But the supreme objective is world hegemony. The other elements of this plan are be-
ing enacted in the Caspian littoral-Central Asia and other parts of the world. Care to
consider what are the US troops doing in West Africa and the horn of Africa?
g. Even a cursory look on the world map will show that the 120 American bases created
in the 18 months succeeding 9/11 are coinciding with the existing/ potential oil and gas
pipelines.
5. There is no comparision between Falluja and Wana. The genesis of both the problems is different.
6. There is no reason to think that the US wil get out of Iraq in a hurry or even at all. Iraq is not an ordinary war, its the war for the maintenance/ sustainance of the American global pre-eminence.
7. Tahmed32, you must also keep in mind that all wars have a political objective, as distinct from a military objective. What is the political objective of the US.
8. Vacating Iraq without achieving its political objective, the US risks not only yhe failure of its global agenda, but also risks degradation of its already depleted military and diplomatic clout.
9. The only foreigners in Iraq are the Americans and its coalition partners.
10.One of you gentlemen has also mentioned here that the Japanese and the Germans are happy because of the US-stationed troops on their soil. I invite you to read the ``Blow-back`` by an eminent US scholar ( sorry cant just recollect the name of the author! ) and his sequel the ``Sorrows of the Empire``.
11. The US actions in the aftermath of 9/11 has instead of containing/ eliminating terrorism has indeed boosted it.
12. Yes the Americans are going to attack each and every city where resistance is active. After Fallujah, Mosul is already being victimized.
13. Al-Sistani might be quiet for the time being, but he will never acquiese in the results of the psedo-elections to be held in Jan 2005, a` la Afghanistan.
No I must run, have yet to interact with you ladies/ gentlemen regarding my other article!
So Long!
Naeem

re: tahmed32

I will let you have the last word on this discussion. I am sure, in the future, there will be another discussion on this topic. We will cross swords once more on this issue, I am quite sure.

I will only add a post-script.

In my eyes, this war is illegal and it has no justification. There is nothing, which can be argued, which will change the nature of this war, in my perception, and make it legal. I am against this war, because I honestly do feel that it will not solve the problem of terrorism; in fact, I believe that it will make the problem even worse. As to Fallujah, I am against the United States` assult on the city, because I do not think that it will solve the problem. I am against the United States` Iraq policy, because I think it is deeply flawed and contary to the best security interests of the United States and for that matter, the state of Israel.

I am not averse from supporting military actions and I will, once more, support military actions in the future, if I can see a distinct resolution of the problem. Unfortunately, I do not see the military action in Fallujah as having an positive political impact and I think, that in the long term, it will have the effect of accelerating principles of diminishing returns for the United States` policy in Iraq.

I am against military based policy in Iraq, because I am of the view point that the problem in Iraq is a political problem, which can only be politically settled and not militarily resolved. In my opinion, destroying Iraq in order to safe Iraq, for democracy or what ever else the political logic du jour might be, makes no sense. I am against this war, because I see nothing good coming out it.

On this issue, we must agree to disagree, because we are of two opposite points of view.

You will not convince me of the wisdom of your cause and likewise, I will not convince you of the folly of your crusade in Iraq. You and I will disagree, but the war in Iraq is in reality an ideological war and rationales of democracy and economy are simply slogans to hide the truth. Ideological wars have no end in sight. Ideological wars are based on the notion of zero-sum struggles and such, will never end because they do not value political compromise as a necessity in ending wars. Ideological wars have another name, also, and that name is wars of nihilism. Such wars are a crusade because, once started, they will not end till one of the two parties to war is totally defeated and such wars, far from ushering in peace, only create the conditions for a next war and ideological wars have, thus, no end in sight.

You might win this war and the war after this and the one after that war, but you will not be able to convince your enemy of the correctness of your choice. A political ideology which demands death in order to be convinced is a politcally defunct ideology. I have said this in the past, and I will re-state it once more, because it is so true. There is no nation in the world, which will favor the good government of an occupier to the bad government of its own. People, will rather be ruled by the bad and inefficent government of their own than the most enlightened government of an alien power. Freedom must be given, to a people, as a choice and it should be left to them to decide, whether they opt for it or not. Freedom, which is forced upon a people at the point of a bayonet is not a freedom but it is tyranny and such a freedom will be resisted by all people wishing to live freely.

I hope you were able to understand my words, because I truly and honestly fear and am afraid that most people in the United States, who support this war do not understand what freedom means or what really is freedom.

Ciao

In a letter sent on 14 October to Kofi Annan, the Fallujah Shura Council, which administers the city, said: ``In Fallujah, [the Americans] have created a new vague target: al-Zarqawi. Almost a year has elapsed since they created this new pretext and whenever they destroy houses, mosques, restaurants, and kill children and women, they say, `we have launched a successful operation against Al Zarqawi`. The people of Fallujah assure you that this person, if he exists, is not in Fallujah... and we have no links to any groups supporting such inhuman behavior. We appeal to you to urge the UN [to prevent] the new massacre which the Americans and the puppet government are planning to start soon in Fallujah, as well as many parts of the country.`` Not a word of this was reported in the mainstream in Britain and America.

``What does it take to shock them out of their baffling silence?`` asked the playwright Ronan Bennett in April after the US marines, in an act of collective vengeance for the killing of four American mercenaries, killed more than 600 people in Fallujah, a figure that was never denied. Then, as now, they used the ferocious firepower of AC-130 gunships and F-16 fighterbombers and 500-pound bombs against slums. They incinerate children; their snipers boast of killing anyone, as snipers did in Sarajevo.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6632

ferozk #84 Always a pleasure writing detailed replies. :-) Here is my response to your basic points:

1. Actually law and order does require force. That is why all nations have armies and police.

2. You assume that the Iraqi population will be more hostile to the US as a result of fallujah, not less. In fact, the biggest - and legitimate - complaint of the Iraqi population has in fact been the inability of the US to maintain law and order, resulting in Karachi-style car jackings and kidnappings for ransom. No one in Iraq (other than his henchmen among the sunni arabs) was sorry to see Saddam go - he gave entire communities of people good reason to hate him (even tricked his own two sons-in-law into returning to Iraq and promptly murdered them). Of course, Iraqis are rightly concerned about remaining under US control indefinitely - and only time will tell if those fears are alleviated over time.

3. you ask ``What foreign terrorists are there in Fallujah?`` If you had read my post carefuly, you would not ask this question (I even named one of them). I am amazed that you find this basic point difficult to accept even though you have a similar situation wrt to foreign terrorists in Pakistan.

4. you write ``Wana was always a lawless place, and I can understand that argument, but Fallujah was not a haven of terrorism`` In fact, Wana too was not a haven for terrorists before the American invasion of Iraq (it was a haven for other kinds of thugs: the run-of-the-mill car theives, kidnappers, as well as for tribal rulers who were kept happy by free electricity and other freebies). `` And please dont blame the US for Wana or fellujah turning into a haven for terrorists - it is our own Pakistani government that was responsible for creating these terrorists in the first place. The US simply shook the tree and terrorists dropped out of it and went scurrying around looking for cover (as in Wana) or looking for a fight (as in Iraq). So, let me end by respectfully assuring you sir that Wana and Fallujah are indeed comparable.

HP #79: am not going to go into conspiracy theories with you. But I just have two simple questions for you:``

I am quite surprised you find what I stated to be a conspiracy theory. I was just refuting the info the USA govt. has passed on to everyone, i.e. the hijackers flew the planes themselves into the WTC and Pentagon. I didn’t come up with this info, the US govt did. There were scores of interviews and shows on how the terrorists trained on Cessnas in the USA, and then flew one or two hours on a Boeing simulator. They even showed the instructor they had in the simulator. Thereby telling everyone, the hijackers flew the planes themselves.

This is the conspiracy theory. And I am pointing out holes in it. You seem to agree with me that the US information about the pilots is incorrect, as well.

Now, to answer your questions.

``1. The pilots, who originally took off from several airports were genuine, certified and experienced pilots. were they not?
2. Why are you assuming that the same pilots were not forced to navigate the planes``

I am not sure how much knowledge you have about aircraft and about flying. I have worked with them for quite a while. I have more flying experience than the hijackers on Cessnas, etc. But there is no way in hell that anyone with my experience could even keep a 777 straight. It takes months to just learn where all the switches and systems are, in a cockpit. What to talk of handling the plane in the air.

One theory to refute the US claims is what you presented, i.e. the original pilots flew the planes. If that is true, then why didn’t the American govt. present this as the actual scenario? Why does it keep insisting that the hijackers flew the planes?

It is quite possible that the actual pilots flew the planes. But I don’t see how they could have, or would have, flow them into the WTC and Pentagon. Let’s consider this scenario, for a moment:

One hijacker could have been sitting in the co-pilot seat. The other could have tied the co-pilot up and threatened to cut off his throat with a cardboard cutter. Thereby threatening the Captain to fly from the Captain’s seat. The Captain could have flown the plane from Boston to New York. Then he could have pointed it towards Manhattan. Then what happens?

To actually hit the WTC in a 777 or 757, one has to plan the approach from a long distance. Did the hijackers tell the pilot to aim for the WTC and hit it, and the pilot complied? Why would he do that?

Suppose at that point they killed the pilot and the hijacker in the co-pilot’s seat started flying. Keeping a large airliner on a straight slope, without any ground instruments requires quite a bit of experience also. And the way, one of the planes made a perfectly co-ordinated turn into the last tower, hitting it in the center had to be the work of an experienced pilot.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose the real pilot had a death wish, and gladly flew into WTC himself. What about the plane that hit the Pentagon?

Hitting a flat building like the Pentagon from such a height, without any Instrument Landing System (ILS), from thousands of feet in the sky, is something even experienced airline pilots will not be able to do on a first try. Even when airline pilots land at airports, the aircraft is guided automatically to the final landing slope. That is where the pilot takes over, and he has thousands of feet of runway ahead of him. The approach to the runway, in the air, starts miles and miles away, over a neighbouring city, with well-marked pre-decided ground features. A pilot flying to Pindi starts planning his approach to the runway way outside Pindi. And most of all, he has flown to Pindi many times before.

To hit the Pentagon, the pilot would have planned a completely unpractised approach from far away, outside Washington D.C. What did the hijackers say to the pilot? Could you kindly plan an approach to hit the Pentagon? And please plan it perfectly?

Let’s suppose the hijackers told the pilot that they wanted to fly over the Pentagon to scare people. So the pilot plans the approach. Carries out the descents and the turns. The aircraft close to the ground is flying less than 1/3rd of its normal cruising speed. It is more difficult to fly at slow speeds. And though I am not an airline pilot, I doubt the pilot could even see the Pentagon, in such an angle.

NazarHayatKhan could probably tell us better, but I think even an experienced pilot would have difficulty placing a 777 on top of a flat building like the Pentagon, without any ILS and radio contact, without practice. The only way he could do it is if he had practiced it many times before in a simulator. Which, obviously the original pilot would not have done.

But let’s assume, the original pilot did do the above, and placed the airliner in a perfect crash course to the Pentagon, hitting the needle in a haystack. At some point, the hijackers would have had to take over, to ensure the original pilot didn`t deviate away from the Pentagon. So they kill the pilot 30 seconds before hitting the Pentagon, and fly it in. Even those 30 seconds of flying in such a configuration, close to the ground, at slow speeds, and hitting the Pentagon, dead-on would require a lot of experience.

It takes airline pilots decade(s) of flying to get to the point where they are qualified to fly 777s and 757s. It takes months of flying to just get the basic feel of the controls of a tiny Cessna, and learn to navigate and land it. How in the world, could Cessna-pilot qualified hijackers kill the Captains, gain control of the giant aircraft, and fly it in so perfectly (specially the one hitting the Pentagon)?

And why is the US govt. insisting hijackers had the skills to fly the planes themselves, and did fly them themselves?

``and at certain point planes were put in autopilot or the pilots were removed from the pilot posts once the planes were in position to hit the target?......``

Autopilots do not work quite the way you are suggesting. They are able to fly the aircraft on a pre-programmed course, getting it from one place to another. However, by themselves, they cannot land the airplane. The landing is done by linking an ILS system on the ground with the autopilot in the airplane. The ILS system requires certain transmitters to be installed next to the runway. This includes a localizer, which handles the lateral guidance to the autopilot, and a glide slope transmitter, which handles the vertical guidance. The autopilot, in essence, flies on a, ``beam`` produced by the ILS system, which is inline with the center of the runway, adjusted to a perfect glide slope.

Obviously the Pentagon and the WTC did not have an ILS system installed inside them. These are only installed next to runways, and have to be configured in detail........

I think experienced airline pilots like NHK could comment in more detail......

re: tahmed32 # 74

Thanks for a detailed reply!

You mentioned that Americans do not expect the insurgency to end. Then, what is the purpose? If Fallujah will not improve the situation, then why are the Americans so determined to make things worse for themselves in Iraq via Fallujah?

If the intention is law and order, then the American attempts at achieving it is a no-brainer! The Americans will only create more lawlessness and less order, because law and order cannot be maintained through military force; it needs the active participation of the population. The American actions have made sure that population will be more hostile to the Americans and not less hostile as a result of being bombed.

If the intention of bombing Fallujah is to establish law and order, then I hope that law and order is indeed created as a result of bombing Fallujah. If it is not, then the Americans will have failed miserably in their intentions in all of Iraq.

What foreign terrorists are there in Fallujah? When did the Iraqis become foreign terrorists in their own land? Does this now mean that the United States is willing to kill Iraqis in order to make Iraq safe for democracy? Are the Iraqis now considered as the greatest threat to Iraqi democracy? Who will benefit from a democracy in Iraq? Dead Iraqis?

As to Wana`s lack of obeying the writ of the government, Wana was always a lawless place, and I can understand that argument, but Fallujah was not a haven of terrorism as you have said before the American invasion of Iraq.

Can you tell me how it become a center of lawlessness and terrorism after the American invasion of Iraq and that too, 18 months after the end of major hostilities in Iraq with the American army in total control of Iraq?

Was Bush overly optimistic when he said ``mission accomplished``?

It seems that your comparsion between Wana and Fullujah is a case of comparing apples to oranges! :)

As to siege warfare, I still support that option. My objection to the bombing of Fallujah is simple. In a siege, the Americans would not be bending over backwards to show their morality in avoiding deaths. In this case, they going to great pains to mimimize the reality that deaths are occuring as a result of their bombings/actions in Fallujah. There is no morality to their actions, just as there is no morality in the actions of terrorists or a suicide bomber and that is what I am objecting against. I am not objecting against the methodology of the American military operations in Fallujah but I am objecting against the justifications given by the Americans for the conduct of their military operations in Fallujah.

Ciao

re: arjun-m # 63

Yes, I think that you are right. As long as the American public is willing to accept the explanations, Iraq will be bombed.

What is the goal? I think that is a problem, because the Bush administration has changed and moved the goals posts a few times before the invasion of Iraq and then after the invasion itself. Are the Americans trying to militarily defeat Iraq or are they trying to re-create it politically? Are the Americans engaged in nation building in Iraq? If the idea is to being about democracy, then how is democracy going to be possible by following policies which undermines it by fanning the insurgency?

There is a sharp perceptional difference between the Iraqis and the Americans. The Americans see themselves as liberators and the Iraqis see the Americans as occupying Iraq. Out of these possibilities, one has to be the right answer and the other one the wrong answer. There is a difference of opinion in Iraq and it is mostly about political representation. The Iraqis do want democracy but not a democracy tailored in the United States of America and the Americans, who wish to bring democracy to Iraq, are not sure what kind of a government the Iraqi democracy will end up electing. Neither side trusts the other party, with the ideal of what consitutes as an Iraqi democracy.

There is a very good probability that a shia theocracy will the next democratically elected government in Iraq, if Iraq is the given the choice. The United States will never accept this outcome and then the question becomes, how will the shias react when the United States denies them political power? Will there be a shia insurrection against the United States in Iraq?

I am afraid, that the worse is yet come in Iraq and when the shias and sunnis agree to fight the Americans first and settle their own political differences later, there will be a national insurgency in Iraq. I am afraid that the American policies might be actually moving towards this conclusion and in the end, the Americans will leave Iraq not because they were militarily defeated by the Iraqis, but because they politically defeated themselves in Iraq.

Ciao

Romair: You raise a fundamental question (that ikonoklast also raised), namely should the US have gone to war in Iraq to begin with.

In retrospect, I think it is clear to anyone who reads newspapers that the Bush administration made too many mistakes: not sending in enough troops to ensure law and order (and sending into early retirement the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shalikashvili who was the one I think who said the US needed at least 5 times the number of troops to maintain peace); dismantling the iraqi army rather than using it to help maintain law and order; creating conditions that permitted abu ghraib to take place. Had this been done, clearly things would have been vastly different in Iraq.

After all, the US does have an undeniably outstanding record as an occupation force - after 50 years, both Japan and Germany are perfectly happy with continued US presence and indeed have been very reluctant to see the US leave. After WWII, democracy was successfully introduced along with economic prosperity while remaining under US occupation. And no one will consider Japanese or Germans to be either fools or lacking in national pride (indeed, they may be faulted for too much of the latter). So, why was the US occupation of Japan and Germany a resounding success while it has (so far) been a mess in Iraq? That is the question you may wish to consider.

tahmed32 # 76 - you write ``You seem to consider abuse (or was that threats?) to be a normal form of communication. ``

that was pretty funny. not sure what in my post constituted a ``threat``. but it is funny that you, the brave warrior, who supports bombing of innocent people, is threatened by my reasonable rational discourse. you really are losing it. little value in having any conversation with you.

BTW - you are one of the few interactors on chowk who writes a lot, without saying much.

romair asks tahmed32 `` think it is impossible to convince you of the massive death tolls in Iraq that are the responsbility of the USA. I just provided you with assessments from an Attorney General, a President, Noble Prize Winner, Johns Hopkins etc.- all these from US sources, themselves. Did you bother to read any of them in detail? They have been accepted by international human rights organizations. But you will not be convinced.``

frankly speaking, i have come to this conclusion that Mr. Tahmed represents the most useless `opposition` interactor on chowk. He twists and turns and types a lot without adding much substance or value. He has perfected the art of creating smoke screens during debate and clearly comes across as uninformed (as opposed to misinformed).

There are a few ``opposition`` interactors on chowk who are clear and intelligent in articulating their support for Iraq war. Interacting with them is fun. Unfortunately, Mr. Tahmed is not one of them.

Romair,

“In addition, you can ask any airline pilot in the world (including our own NazarHayatKhan), and they will tell you that someone with 200 hours of Cessna flying experience cannot fly an airliner into the WTC or Pentagon. And that too, without radar help, radio help, ground control, landing instruments etc. I have more flying experience than that, and I doubt I could keep a 777 straight and level. Much less reach D.C. from Boston, and then hit a building in the ground. Even very experienced pilots would have difficulty hitting the Pentagon, without computerized landing systems. Very experienced pilots would be able to hit the WTC, without ground control, at best. Certainly not Cessna pilots. They would have difficulty finding Manhattan from Boston, with only 250 hours of experience.”

I am not going to go into conspiracy theories with you. But I just have two simple questions for you:
1. The pilots, who originally took off from several airports were genuine, certified and experienced pilots. were they not?
2. Why are you assuming that the same pilots were not forced to navigate the planes and at certain point planes were put in autopilot or the pilots were removed from the pilot posts once the planes were in position to hit the target?

Romair, it is normal in all Hijacking that Hijackers force the “original” pilots to continue navigating the plane. Why in this case you are assuming that the Arab terrorists took over physical control of the planes? There is no evidence to suggest that anywhere.

Until you can find another creditable conspiracy theory on the net, I would remain pretty confident that Cessna pilots were not piloting those four fateful planes.

In fact, accounts of flight 93 suggest that the original pilots were still at helms when that plane went down.
Let us not start another conspiracy theory about flight 93 here.

What in your opinion is the most plausible reason for WTC attacks? Now please no more conspiracy theories…

> if the US fails in Iraq, we will have to fight that battle in Pakistan.

So well said.

Some appear quite willing to make Pakistan pay that price if only the hated America would leave Iraq.

HP #70: ``If we accept that WTC was a revenge for first Gulf War then we must admit that Iraq has a HUGE symbolic value in the war against terrorism.``

WTC had nothing to do with Gulf War 1. There is no evidence, nor statement, pointing to this. A reference to a tower in Lebanon cannot be used as a basis for the argument you have presented, in my opinion.

One needs to keep in mind that Saddam was a very secular leader. He chased down mullahs and Ayatollahs, left and right. He is accused of killing Al-Sadr`s father. And he sent Sistani into exile in Iran. Infact, the religious leadership of Iraq was on the run, under Saddam. Iraq is actually the headquarters of the Shia faith. However, due to its secular and anti-maulvi leadership, the headquarters shifted to Iran.

Saddam was, thus, anti-OBL. They were adversaries, not allies. For a long time, the USA was allied with Saddam. Uptil the Gulf War. Before that, the Brits and Americans actually provided armament to Saddam, including materials with which Iraq built its chemical weapons.

I don`t think any of the pilots of the WTC airplanes was Iraqi, nor Afghani. Yet these are the two countries that were bombed. Fourteen out of the nineteen were well to do, Westernized Saudis. Saudis and Saddam are also adverseries. And the Saudis were dead scared, that in Gulf War 1, Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia. That is why the USA came in with such force. No one, other than Saudi Kings, can be allowed to control 24% of the world`s oil. I am actually surprised Saddam did not invade Saudi Arabia. Had he done so, the Americans would not have been able to set up their bases for the war, there.

The terrorists of WTC also do not seem to have much in common with OBL. I cannot imagine OBL being at a bar in the USA, where the terrorists went. I am not even sure how a guy sitting in Afghanistan can mastermind an operation so super-sophisticated. One cannot even send an email to Afghanistan.

In addition, you can ask any airline pilot in the world (including our own NazarHayatKhan), and they will tell you that someone with 200 hours of Cessna flying experience cannot fly an airliner into the WTC or Pentagon. And that too, without radar help, radio help, ground control, landing instruments etc. I have more flying experience than that, and I doubt I could keep a 777 straight and level. Much less reach D.C. from Boston, and then hit a building in the ground. Even very experienced pilots would have difficulty hitting the Pentagon, without computerized landing systems. Very experienced pilots would be able to hit the WTC, without ground control, at best. Certainly not Cessna pilots. They would have difficulty finding Manhattan from Boston, with only 250 hours of experience.

So the pilots were certainly far far more experienced than what the USA govt. is letting on. Where did they get this experience in flying?

My guess is that this whole network is based in Saudi Arabia. It is something separate from OBL, who is now just the mascot. OBL was just into small time terrorism like blowing a bomb in embassy or in a ship. These guys may be trying to overthrow the Saudi govt., from the inside.

Based on all this, the one country that the USA should have bombed is Saudi Arabia. The terrorists were Saudi. All the funding for Taliban came from Saudis. All the madrassh funding comes from Saudis. The Saudis are easily the most (and perhaps only) true fanatically fundamentalist Islamic state. Women cannot even drive there. They are a true dictatorship. They chop of people`s heads and hands. They are the ones who have funded all the mess in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nor Saddam. etc. etc.

I think the Americans were (and are) afraid that the Saudi monarchy will be toppled, and they will lose control over the oil. OBL wants to raise the price of oil from $30 to $300. For those who don`t believe this can happen, oil was at one point $3/barrell. This would be catastrophic for the West. In addition, Saddam, Iran and eventually a democratic Saudi Arabia would start trading in Euros and not Dollars.

All of this combined with the neo-con desire to rid Israel of its nemesis Arab govts. (many neo-cons, like Perle, worked for Israel, at one point), and Bush`s naivette, led to an invasion of Iraq. Control of Iraq oil, under a Challabi govt., would free the USA of Saudi monarchy. Then it could go after Saudis or not worry about them being toppled, internally. The next aim was, of course, Iran.

A reason had to be developed to attack Iraq. It was WMDs. That proved false. Then it was link with Al-Qaeda. That proved false. Then it was liberation of Iraq. That has proven false, since Iraqis are fighting and over 90% consider this an occupation. Then it was, ``at least it is better than Saddam`` argument. That has now proven false, since Iraq was safer during Saddams` rule, with better infrastructure than today. So now it is back to getting rid of terrorists who have gathered in Iraq. Which they seem to have, but only due to the USA invasion.

The USA is stuck, big time, in Iraq. Even American Republicans recognize this. Its a damned if you do, and don`t situation, for them. If they leave, insurgents and anti-US forces take over. And Iraq will become an Afghanisan. If they stay and hold real elections of some sort, Ayatollahs take over, and insurgents continue attacking Americans, until the Americans leave.

Americans are planning to stay there for years to come. For that, they need an Allawi type person there. I wonder how they will pull that one off. They have lost the Iraq war. Now it is just damage control for Bush. In the process, Iraq will be destroyed..........

The beneficiaries are Iran. Since now, no one in the USA (perhaps not even Hamid and tahmed) have the stamina to attack another country. Hats off to the Iraqi insurgency, is what I would say. I didn`t think Arabs had it in them.

Pakistan would only have been on the target, if Mush had not done a U-turn. And even then, you need to keep in mind that a country with nukes has never been attacked in its history.......So Pakistan is safe.........with or without Iraq.......

ferozk #59 You make the following basic points I think, and here are a few comments to each:

1. Purpose of fallujah: You are incorrect in your assumption that the americans see that this will be an end to the insurgency, and a number of US government reps have said explicitly that they do not expect fallujah to end the insurgency. The purpose of the attack on fallujah is in fact a no-brainer - law and order (as discussed more in 2. below).

2. Fallujah as a symbol: I think you are comparing apples and oranges, my friend, and no one will mistake fallujah for Stalingrad. The rational comparison is with the tribal belt in Pakistan - In both places the government allowed a part of the country to remain outside its control for too long. In Pakistan, over the years the tribal belt became a haven for kidnappers and car thieves and ultimately for foreign terrorists. Fallujah, over the months also became a haven for foreign terrorists. Indeed, I think the Bush admininstration is to be faulted for allowing law and order to disintegrate after the fall of Saddam. It could and should have done better. (and btw, just to keep things in perspective - in Pakistan successive governments allowed thugs to fester in the tribal areas, and even in Karachi, despite the grave insecurity to the life and property of the average citizen.).
In purely military terms - it took the US a few days and a few thousand US and Iraqi troops to take over fallujah, while the germans could never go beyond the outskirts of stalingrad despite a full army of over a 100,000 men and 6 months of fighting.

3. On seige warfare: I thought this was your recommendation in your earlier post!! You now say that the US did not go for seige warfare because it would be easier to hide civilian deaths. Regardless of the reason, the fact is that as a democracy the US cannot indiscriminately kill civilians the way the insurgents have been doing. There is no escaping that one and simple fact.

ikonoklast #60 You write ``we must in the process respect each others` view-point and not indulge in calumny or denigrate each other. `` I see we are in full agreement here. That is indeed the only way to have an intelligent discussion. And I wish you Eid Mubarak too, sir.

hamidm: One more thing (I wrote my initial response a bit hurriedly, between eid visits) - I did appreciate your moral support in writing that post. I should also say that while you and I can agree or disagree on issues - but you have always been the gentleman, your posts are always interesting - and sometimes very funny - to read, and you are often on the mark anyway.