To readers who are new to this story: You are now in part
XLIII of the
Birth of the Kweb, the Kweb is of course the KinkyWeb&is this
website. This website is good&strong, it's some fine piece of art.
Sometimes I write a bit rough on some subjects, but that's the way it
is. If you don't like that you get to some other PolitcalCorrect website
If you are new, you have to know that almost all things I do write on this
website do have some nasty habit of coming out. To avoid judicial shit
I had to place some disclaimers, here is the disclaimer
to this story.
05 March 2005: Part 43 already,
the world has changed a lot since I started part one of this long
story. Enough silly talk, lets start with a fine quote upon the
ways the Kurds in Iraq view reality:
|A February 17 report in the Kurdistan Observer, based on an interview with KDP leader Massoud Barzani, outlined the Kurdish demands:
* Ownership of any natural resources in the region including oilfields and the power to determine how the revenues are split with the central government.
* Control of the 100,000-member military force in the region, composed mostly of former guerillas of the Kurdish peshmerga militia. No other armed forces would be allowed to enter Kurdistan without official permission.
* The authority to appoint officials to work in and operate ministries in Kurdistan, including overseeing security and the economy.
* Authority over fiscal policy, including how much tax revenue goes to Baghdad. The central government would also not be able to raise tax revenue in Kurdistan without permission.
Let me comment on these four points:
*No ownership of natural resources can be allowed for
the next two decades, sorry if I sound a bit over the top
but I was the one who gave a long long time ago permission
to the Americans to start war against Iraq. So I simply
exercise my authority in this: Benefits of natural
resources need to be equally spread over all Iraqis, no
childish stuff like "it' s our oil".
*Military affairs in own hand is allowed, I gave up
building a solid Iraqi army a long time ago. It was a
silly fantasy I guess, I hoped all groups would unite in
killing Americans and form an army that way. This did not
happen so military stuff can be better kept in Kurdish
*With authority to appoint officials for overseeing
security and economy I have no problem either.
*Just like oil revenues (also ' tax like income' for the
state) this cannot be, a uniform tax code is better from
the economical point of view.
All in all: If I were some Kurdish leader I
would concentrate on military independence and the right
to interfere with the own economical development. While
things like taxes (national taxes could fund partially an
excellent weapon industry in the long run) could better be
large scale meaning countrywide. Military independence is
most important for the Kurds while the entire region could
benefit from a far better weapon factory environment, the
Arabs have become lazy from all those oil revenues.
The Iraqi fighters are the best! But is oil like drugs?
07 March 2005: One month ago an
Italian female journalist was captured in Iraq, later a nice video
popped up with her in it declaring that if Italia did not withdraw
it's troops she would be executed. Later it was was heard she
would be in front of some clergymen to judge her crimes and I had
fun, a wonderful video with propaganda (because she would not be
executed anyway) and all Western media outlets explaining the evil
nature of the insurgency.
No, although I have recently given the advice to kill more
journalists (just like in the year 2004) this one was a bridge to
far. A female that had studied the nice effects of US clusterbombs
upon children did not meet the criteria for execution.
That was the situation two weeks ago, and although my advices
were not written in Chinese my patience was tested. But I know I
can trust the Iraqis, by now we can go throw thick and thin as the
saying goes. Well finally she was released and some Italian secret
service guy helped her out on the way to the Iraqi airport.
The nice thing is: The car they drove in came under fire from
the Americans, this was good beyond borders because the US-led
fire was only standard application of the so called 'rules of
engagement'. These 'rules of engagement' are under the
responsibility of the US secretary of defense the honorable Mr.
Donald Rumsfeld. The way Rumsfeld understands the war on terror is
bound together with "Can we kill the
terrorists in a faster rate than the massandras spit them out?"
Yes, this is how Rumsfeld views the war on terror.
To make a long story short: The car they were traveling in came
under US fire, one person got killed the rest was wounded. The
Iraqis already suspected that the Italian journalist never should
make it home, quote from Mrs. Giuliana Sgrena:
|She then thought of something her captors had told her: "The Americans don't want you to go back."
Now what a beautiful quote is that isn't it?
So truly beautiful with all the low accusations that lie within
such a statement. Facts are that already since begin Jan last year
the operatives use the method of luring the US army into killing
journalists, a very efficient way to build support...
This method goes more or less like this: When the car with the
journalists is in the neighborhood some guys fire a few bullets at
the brave American freedom fighters, after that the Americans turn
into their usual killing spree. It is a simple tactic all you need
is timing and the right guys in the right place.
Now we look at the official reaction of the US military:
|The U.S. military said Sgrena's car rapidly approached a checkpoint Friday night, and those inside ignored repeated warnings to stop.
Troops used arm signals and flashing white lights, fired warning shots in front of the car, and shot into the engine block when the driver did not stop, the military said in a statement.
Comment: According to Giuliana Sgrena there was no checkpoint
at all, the flashing light was only used to get fire on the car as
soon as possible and no arm signals have ever been observed (a bit
difficult in the dark to see arm signals but anyway). These
are the rules of engagement as laid out by Rumsfeld, waiving
arms in the dark and shoot direct after that.
This shootout was so beautiful, as a person I do not believe
that this was done on purpose. I think the lack of boots on the
ground is a far better explanation because even the road to the
airport is far from secure. The fact that the Pentagon perfumed
princes never dared to tell Rumsfeld this is of a breathtaking
beauty, it is common knowledge in the rest of the world but
Rumsfeld and Dubya just don't know and don' t see because they
have busy jobs doing important stuff...
Dubya and Rumsfeld only do the important stuff.
A bit more quotes from this lovely shootout:
|But in an interview with Italy's La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said "there was no bright light, no signal."
And Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather that the shots came from "a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight."
Comment: Again the Italians must stop complaining, these are
only standard rules of engagement. Do the Italians not know what
handbooks upon counter insurgency are used by the US military?
Have they never read these handbooks and only look at the Dubya
television advertisements stating "Freedom
is on the march"?
08 March 2005: The latest
Military Bloody Day (that was MBD number nine) was asked for at 30
January (during the Iraqi elections). It was meant as some Vietnam
Tet offensive reloaded and it definitely was. Results:
- A rocket attack at the US embassy resulting in two deaths,
- Within a time span of four days both the US and UK military
had their most bloody day, the USA lost 31 marines due to an
'accident' in the middle of the night with a Sea
Stallion helicopter while the British air force lost a
These were great works and once more I would like to thank the
Iraqi fighters for their help; THANKS!
Of course it was to be expected that it was indeed a missile
(or a pair of missiles), may be expected is not the right word.
Better would be desired or longed for and if indeed the Iraqi war
drags on for a few more years we can have big fun in the future.
Nothing would make the US and UK army feel it better then a few
days every now and then with one hundred fatalities, or not?
Today a tip of the curtain was lifted in the inquiry into the
Hercules plane (from the US Sea Stallion we likely never hear a
word anymore, that is how the Americans are you know). Here are a
few quotes from the inquiry:
|The Ministry of Defence said the board of inquiry was not yet in a position to say what had caused the crash.
But on the current evidence, "bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire/obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft's flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue", could be "ruled out".
The interim findings were backed by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch which said in a statement: "There remain a number of other possible causes that require further investigation."
The Hercules was adapted for special forces operations and the crew's squadron was attached to the SAS.
However, the MoD described the flight as "routine" and said the aircraft had defensive aids to counter surface-to-air missiles.
Comment: Especcially the last words makes the UK and US
army & air force feel the size of this last Military
Bloody Day. Is this a nice Vietnam Tet reloaded or not?
Like written before 19 March will be Military Bloody Day number
10 and this will be a contest day again, of course I have only
very limited view on what group / cell makes the best strike but
with a bit of luck the second Blue Footed Trophy can be rewarded
To the US military I offer the same conditions as MBD9 and that
is no use of air power on that day (only when it is absolutely
needed to set free a bunch of soldiers who otherwise will get
killed, only in that case air power is allowed.)
Now I have the US military at the line anyway, it would be nice of
you released those seven man that staged the rocket attack on the
US embassy on 29 Jan. I mean this, if you want they can sign a
paper stating that they will not stage actual attacks any more.
Take it as a sportsman, if you cannot confront me why not release
those seven guys?
Next subject: Statistics!
Just by sheer coincident I found a nice relation between the
coalition casualty rate and the number of days on which these
rates apply. Let me cut and paste from the homepage:
|Now do you believe this?
Just look at that beauty (it was just an hour work on my statistical
The left upper dot
means one dead US soldier during 183 days and the lower right dot means
37 dead US soldiers during one day. It looks like there is some
hyperbolic relation between the two variables and a bit of study with a
statistical package says this is correct, it is even significant at the
0.000 level so statistical figures know what I mean.
The scatter plot above
is based on all days in Iraq with actual fatalaties, the war is now 719
days on and the 185 days without US fatalaties are left out. According
to my US-led American statistical program the model is as follows:
X = number of dead US
soldiers per 24 hours
Y = number of days in the war until now,
Y = -10.9 + 212 / X
Example: You want to
know how many days there were with five US dead? Fill in X = 5 and
calculate Y = -10.9 + 212/5 = 31.5 say 31 or 32 days with five dead US
soldiers. Easy or not? (The real answer is 29 days, the simple formulae
only gives an approximation of course... The model returns a number and
not a bandwidth)
Man oh man, with a few
discoveries like this I could win the Nobel prize for war!
An amazing simple
relation isn't it? There simply is an inverse rule
describing the relation between these two variables and
beside this we see that the most right dot in the scatter
plot above does fall out of the usual pattern. Thirty
seven dead US soldiers on 26 Jan was indeed a big one...
After the statistics we return to the Hercules crash, reported
were two missiles that took off. I hope they were able to strike
in concert. Well the US military is going for the same kind of
stuff, not missiles striking in concert but remote controlled
fighter jets. Quoting:
|COMPARED TO MANY AERONAUTICAL CURIOSITIES THAT have taken wing at NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center at California's Edwards Air Force Base over the years, the latest military test stunts did not appear very remarkable. Last April, a low-slung aircraft, about the size of a sport utility vehicle but with batlike wings similar to those of the B-2 stealth bomber, took off, flew at. 10,500 meters and then dropped a 110-kilogram inert precision bomb while nipping along at 700 kilometers per hour. Four months later, a pair of the aircraft took off and flew together. These were modest stunts, to be sure, except for this fact: the jets have no pilots. They are the future of warfare, the first working models of networked autonomous attack jets, and the U.S. Department of Defense would like
to start building them by 2010.
Comment: Please go on developing this, you can think it
is the future of warfare and you are right. I need stuff
like that to create a controlled battlefield outside civil
areas. Beside packs of jets in the skies to control the
air space, lots of robots on the ground are needed to keep
unwanted visitors on a distance. Also needed are ground
diggers in search of tunnels to prevent extra 'help' into
the battlefield (both armies are supposed to take their
own gear with them and resupplies are also 'controlled').
Wired uniforms and a lot of stuff more that is under
development right now, it is well needed in the controlled
form of warfare. It is well needed in the last resort
before there is a full blown out war inside the civil
Now the above mentioned project is the largest project
DARPA has running right now, isn't it interesting to
observe that already for one or two years I am reciting
for missiles that strike in concert? Now?
Is this striking in concert or is this propaganda my dear DARPA?
09March2005: On a website named
gunnerpalace dot com I found the next beautiful quotes, it is
about a ritual the Americans perform when they remember one of
their fallen heroes. It is so beautiful, enjoy:
|September 19, 2003
The LTC and the Chaplain invited me to a fallen soldier memorial at 4/27 FA. A young soldier named Kevin Kimmerly was killed by an RPG a few days before.
It's Army tradition to have a last roll call at a soldier's memorial. They call out roll and soldiers answer with "here" as their names are called. When they came to Kimmerly, there was no reply. His named was called twice more, answered only by the quiet sobbing of his fellow soldiers.
For the first time, I feel very far away from home. This isn’t a movie. It’s real. These guys aren't just names and numbers in the newspapers. Here, away from the loudness of the media, you begin to feel that this has very little to do with home. It's another reality with another set up rules. The worst is that war, if you want to call it that, begins to feel normal. The Iraqis go about their business--life doesn't stop, it can't.
When the memorial was over, the chaplain told me that he's been asked to come up with a format for memorials--a reality that few want to think about.
This is a lovely format for memorials, I mean that dear
Americans lets keep this format alive...
From the same guy (his name is Mike) we have from date 29 Sept
2003 the next lovely quote:
|This war, is unlike any other. Forget what you know, or what you think about war, this war is the ultimate culture clash. Take 130,000 soldiers with their technology and their pop culture and drop them into a country that has been largely isolated for more than ten years and you get something that even Hollywood couldn't dream up.
Comment: This Mike wrote this down two weeks after the first
Military Bloody Day, there were only three reported dead US
soldiers on that first MBD but it was an upscaling in
sophistication for sure! (Relate for example July 2003, only 26
dead US soldiers in the entire month so three on a sharp given
time was a real upscaling...)
Is this striking in concert or is this propaganda my dear DARPA?
10 March 2005: There are some
weird media reports out, not that many only a few dozen. But they
say the Saddam capture was a staged capture, this is only
confirmed by one person.
Since Saddam was captured on 13 December at 08.15 hours (and
just by coincidence this was also Military Bloody Day number six
this might be of interest). Needless to say MBD6 completely
failed, not one US soldier killed, if it was indeed one of those
psyop operations it was a big win for the opponent. My compliments
First a bit of quoting:
|BEIRUT -- A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.
Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted Wednesday in the Saudi daily al-Medina as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.
He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."
"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.
Comment: Another marine explained why this was
definitely a hoax, he found the next results:
__ There was no killed Sudanese origin killed in the
__ At that date there were no marines in Iraq, he himself
had left before and he was on the latest convoy leaving
Iraq, later the marines returned he said;
So these are the contradicting 'facts' as found, but
there are also suspicions that green card soldiers are
left out of the official fatality count. That could
explain the lack of a Sudanese in the official files.
(Just like for example constantly all dead and wounded
arrive in the middle of the night in America, the tar
American souls cannot stand it during daylight...)
After all there are constantly 60 thousand green card or
special contract soldiers in the US military and a 20
person team with 8 Arabs in it wouldn't do it very good on
the American television.
Another quote from a guy who has investigated the
The UPI story is unattributed. Nadim Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon. He needs to prove he was a U.S.Marine. He needs to prove he was a member of any special unit.
Comment: I truly hope some journalists find this a nice
try, can Abou Rabeh deliver some paperwork? Can he deliver
some contracts? And what do the details of those contracts
say about entering the official body count?
Again: I could be completely wrong and may be there are
only daylight flights of wounded and dead to America. Lets
do a bit of math:
One of the official reasons for landing in the middle
of the night is that the wounded need a good night sleep.
So lets say the plane from the Germany hospital gets
filled between 10.00 and 12.00 in the morning. The flight
takes 10 hours making 22.00 hours at last, this in German
Well 22.00 hours German time is 16.00 US east coast
The math is simple or not? Now for the Sudanese dead
from 12 Dec 2003 please...
14March2005: A few words to the
Iraqi Sunni clergy:
|In the weeks after the election suddenly all kinds of
arguments popped up why the boycott would have been
unwise. Arguments for example it was an emotional decision
or that everybody was intimidated by the insurgents.
This all is a bunch of crap, it was the only serious
'weapon' at hand to avoid the Fallujah raid. Of course
this was an emotional decision to boycott the elections,
but stubborn people in Washington and Baghdad thought they
were the wiser ones. In case you have noticed: In
Afghanistan it was no problem to postpone the next
elections, all that was needed were some 'technical
Right now it is important to enter the political
process, if the future developments make clear this was a
fake political process anyway let that be. But the Sunnis
have to take part to and there must be a unified message
go out via the mosques that the people who do this
participation of the political process are no traitors. I
do not know the details but somewhere I fished up the
information that the constitution can be vetoed by a block
of three provinces. (But I do not know the details.)
There is a second thing I want to share with you: I
need long term reliable information upon birth defects in
Fallujah, it is a pity the Americans bombed the past out
with bombs on hospitals but the future facts must be
recorded in a reliable way. This of course in relation
with the depleted uranium, upon radioactivity one does not
have to worry with depleted uranium as long as you are
having chumps and large parts of that stuff. It is the
dust that worries me.
Until now I have no statistics observed upon the number
of tons of depleted uranium used in the Fallujah raids,
but creating good statistics upon the health of the
Fallujah citizens is advised.
Uranium is just one of the heavy metals like we have lead
and plutonium too, below you see a picture of a baby that
is related to a heavy metal overdose.
To the Pentagon pussies I can say that the above might be a
classical case of propaganda, but is it true that there are
billions spend on the cleanup of uranium inside the USA? I simply
don't know, here is a quote:
|Health Concerns Remain
Concern about the health effects of depleted uranium is not limited to overseas countries. The
Defense Department's contention that depleted uranium has not been shown to affect health
adversely and therefore doesn't need to be cleaned up is contrary to its own rules for handling
it. Those rules mirror the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's and
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's treatment of depleted uranium as
an environmental hazard and danger to public health. Federal regulators
have shut down some U.S. nuclear weapons and uranium processing and
munitions plants, found to be contaminated by depleted uranium.
Billions of dollars are being spent on its cleanup in the United
Comment: I have no comments because I lack insights in
the statistics reported, I know almost nothing of heavy
metal poisoning and even less upon cleanup budgets.
16 March 2005: May be the health
situation in Fallujah is even worse then I expected. A quote from
|This time, in addition, reports from families inside the city, along with photographic evidence, point toward the U.S. military's use of chemical and phosphorous weapons as well as cluster bombs there. The few residents allowed to return in the final week of 2004 were handed military-produced leaflets instructing them not to eat any food from inside the city, nor to drink the water".
Comment: I have never seen such documents but it is
clear the Americans would not pass leaflets like this if
there were just a few poisoned places in Fallujah.
Concerned the chemical weapons there are rumors like that
going on for a long time but I never came upon any kind of
proof until now.
If stuff like that is confirmed it is
not only the agadium a city for a city but for example a
chloride attack against a US city becomes more or less
obligatory. There never has been solid military need for
stuff like this, madness must be countered with madness
Lets this be a long term project, say at most two decades.
But a large US village or a small city wiped out has it's
own logic now. After all the Americans avoided some simple
truth out when the war on terror started and all they
wanted was a so called military solution to this.
The US media are to blame too but killing US journalists
has been allowed for a long time already.
Now can we
really expect the US military to use chemical stuff after
the old Halabja gassing? This is hard to swallow, yet when
proof is found we'll see again.
In another development it was found that the head of the World
Bank is traditional an American, the present head will finish his
term in the short run. Now Dubya wants deputy secretary of defense
Wolfowitz on that place:
|President Bush on Wednesday tapped Defense Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, who has been a lightning rod for criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other defense policies, to take over as head of the World Bank.
Comment: No, I am against this. In the first place
because I would like to continue the war with the team
that started it. And in the second place Wolfowitz might
be a very decent man and an outstanding former dean of a
American university but has he suffered enough in life to
be a good chairman of the World Bank?
If he has had hefty suffering in life for at least one
decade and was capable of recovering from this it could be
ok but I still prefer to proceed the war with the team
that started it. So if I could vote in this I would vote a
Update: One day later I found that the honorable defense deputy
was moved by the big tsunami thing, this all is very
understandable but it is better to have someone who has suffered
for a long time and has recovered (this beside the rest you need
for that job). One could also look for someone with proven 'Bill
Gates look alike' investments combined with a few remnants of the
famous Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Well I am mild mannered on the criteria for the next World Bank
prez but I still would like to proceed the war on terror as it
unfolds in reality with the same team that started it. A so called
stop loss order is reasonable.
End of discussion as far as I am concerned.
17 March 2005: There is some
important military news found, last year I did not understand why
the US military did not have more recruiting problems. As far as I
know societies they just had to have more trouble with new
recruits. I did not understand that and to be honest I doubted
myself a little bit, I just did not understand.
Lately I found that in 2004 the US military has sucked up a
pool of future recruits, these are people who already have signed
some contract but are supposed to serve with honor in the
future... The numbers reported explained my lack of understanding
for the fullest, there was indeed decline in recruitment but it
was compensated with these future contracts.
Now we have this lovely news, it is not enough decline of
course but we don't live in paradise yet:
|The Army reserve and Army National Guard respectively met only 87 percent and 80 percent of their overall recruiting goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, according to the study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
The Air Force Reserve attained 91 percent of its target, the Air National Guard 71 percent and the Navy Reserve 77 percent.
Comment: This is the decline after the money reward for
enlisting or reenlisting was significantly higher compared
to old practices. If the situation stays as it is the US
military will be significantly exhausted in about a year
or so, to use an old phrase: A wounded animal is the most
There is more to say upon plans over there:
WASHINGTON, District of Columbia, United States of America -- The US Army has asked Congress to allow it to extend enlistment contracts offered to future soldiers by two years in order to "stabilize the force," as top defense officials warned that key recruitment targets for the year could be missed.
"In the manning area, we need Congress to change the maximum enlistment time from six years to eight years in order to help stabilize the force for longer periods of time," Hagenbeck went on to say.
This is only the fighting against symptoms, one can also
offer 20 year contracts or indefinite time contracts. Will
this all help? We already have stop loss orders and so
called back-to-back deployments, will this all help or is
a draft needed?
Next subject: The leaked 'communication' between Osama bin
Ladin and Iraq's Zarqawi, quote from Bill Gertz:
|U.S. intelligence and security officials yesterday said new information indicates that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has asked Iraq-based terrorists to focus future attacks on targets inside the United States.
Recent intelligence reports showed that bin Laden contacted Abu Musab Zarqawi, al Qaeda's senior operative in Iraq, and urged Islamists there to shift from attacking U.S. targets in that country to targets in the United States, said officials familiar with the reports.
This is perfectly in line with my requests done a few
times at the Iraqi fighters, or better at the Iraqi
perfect cell structure. So why mention it? Well the same
info also contained stuff like Osama thought it was a lack
of willing martyrs while Zarqawi stated that people determined to strike and enough money always will make it.
There can be said more upon this: Put yourself in the
shoes of that man or that team that will strike in
America, you need certain psychological traits to succeed
anyway. They must be a little bit megalomanic without
losing touch with reality, they must be able to operate
alone for a long time, they must have a good plan and
flexible enough to bring it to a good end.
And most of
all, since in America everything is bigger, it must be
9/11 scale or better. Now this all is hard, you definitely
need a few megalomanic traits plus a clever set of brains.
It is also possible that good teams are at the scene
already but they just bide their time until they receive
some kind of signal.
Upon this, just like the last time will not work. When now
I would strike hard at the Muslim faith with horrible
propaganda the operatives just look right through and
Yes they look right through and smile, when I now ask what
stupid religion dresses it's woman up like walking blue and black
tents they know I am kidding. So for the anger in the deed one has
to look at other focal points...
The Bill Gertz article contained another detail of interest,
|"The insurgency in Iraq, as insurgencies are classically defined and assessed for accomplishing their goals, has been far more successful than most imagined it would, or could be," said Dan Gallington, a former aide to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and now an analyst at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
"What the insurgents fear is a series of Fallujah-type operations," he said. "Why we are not obliging them is not clear.
Comment: What a bag of rubbish, it is completely clear
why the US military cannot win this. After all the whole
concept of war on terror was a fraud from the beginning,
but it is sad to see that US officials still do not have a
The phrase "more successful than most imagined it would, or could
be" is completely pathetic. It is Dubya that
bluntly refuses to make some kind of excuse for the fine
results of the economical sanctions, it is on Dubya's
watch that only a few weeks after he became president
there were plans to redistribute the Iraqi oil. It is
Dubya this and Dubya that and after that all wondering why
the resistance is stronger than expected? Asshole!
21 March 2005: Now we have the
honorable US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld explaining why
the Iraqi resistance is so strong: Lets blame Turkey! You don't
believe it but he said it himself, quote:
|The insurgency, he said, is continuing but it is at a lower level than previously.
He reiterated his view that had American troops been able to move into Iraq through Turkey as well, the level of insurgency today would have been far less as more supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime would have been captured or killed.
Comment: As far as I know there are still many dozens
attacks a day, so is it declining? No.
Secondly it is an age old military knowledge that a front
that moves to quickly often gets a backlash after some
time, don't forget the original warplan as crafted by
general Tommy Franks foresaw 120 days of fighting. It was
only 19 or as others say 21 days to Baghdad. The backlash
has happened in the form of the insurgency although there
are more factors that are involved. (See above.)
In short: The five hundred billion / year military messed
Suppose the democratic elected Turkish parliament would
have given approval for entering Iraq via Turkey the 19
days would even have been shorter, it is very simple: As
the original warplan was followed we would be in a
different situation right now.
Now who messed up the original warplan?
Rumsfeld had more to share on the same subject:
|With the Fourth Infantry blocked from entering from the north, "by the time Baghdad was taken, the large fraction of the Iraqi military and intelligence services just dissipated into the communities," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "And they're still, in a number of instances, still active."
Can anybody explain to me why entering via Turkey would
not result in the 'dissipating into the communities'? Of
course a few more Iraqi fighters would be killed in those
long gone days but that does not explain the level of the
insurgency right now.
No, this is one more example of the 'perfumed princes'
attitude at the Pentagon.
It would be tempting to think about how the Iraqi war would be
different if the 120 days from the warplan would have been
respected but that is hard to validate and you end in speculation.
Less hard to see is the nice holes in the plans, the lack of
guarding of the arsenals of Saddam is also of interest for future
Once I read a nice nickname for those improvised bombs, they were
named LSA's for Looted from Saddams Arsenal...
After all this armchair analysis it is time for a bit of fun,
we create a new television program (just as an idea, a script so
A very short television program (10
minutes or so) and once a week.
Two skilled marksmen or snipers (from the local army or a
police hit team) indulge in a ten bullet contest, distance
depending on the kind of weapon and an element of chaos
like depending on rolling dice.
The snipers have to put up one of those plastic carnival
masks, one Osama bin Laden mask and one Dubya Bush mask.
The Osama mask has to shoot on a
large poster (bulls eye on the foreghead) of Dubya Bush,
the Dubya Bush mask has to shoot on the large Osama
That's all in principle but there are
all kinds of hilaric elements to add. For example if the
Osama mask wins there is won a replica of the twin towers
with half a jumbo jet still visible. If the Bush mask wins
a similar replica of the Tora Bora complex.
End of format.
Now that would be funny television, a pity since the society is
fed with all that 'Islamo fascism' that this cannot emerge in
practice. That is a pity...
24 March 2005: There are all
kinds of plans to reform the United Nations, that is a good thing
because the present constellation with that Security Council is a
bit weird. In this all the secretary general of the United Nations
asked for a uniform definition of terror.
Now if you ask a bunch of countries to come up with a good
definition of a terrorist attack you are asking for trouble if you
ask me, that comes because most countries have this strange habit
of understanding war on terror only in the own field of interests.
This is understandable in the light of a previous observation:
Countries communicate with each other just like four or five year
The only definition of a so called terrorist attack is:
A deliberate attack on a soft target.
That's all, if the attackers do have a uniform or if they
handle spontaneous or in order of a government is all not
relevant. In essence all terror attacks boil down to some
deliberate attack on that what is known as a soft target.
Any idiot can understand that, even the Pentagon pussies can
understand a definition like that.
Also not relevant is tying this definition down to the so
called purpose of the attack, let me give you a few examples of
- The 9/11 attacks in New York,
- Bali bombings,
- The Madrid train death project,
- The Chechen school hostage taking,
- And so on.
You see: When you observe a certain kind of attack it is often
clear that it is a terror attack and they all fall under the easy
to understand definition. Even a five year old kid could
Yes, even five year old kids
can understand this.
25 March 2005: On a website
armscontrolwonk dot com I found that lovely quote from a guy named
Douglas Feith, I do not know the actual status and standing of
this Douglas thing. Lets quote from the unclassified part from the
US national defense strategy:
|Our strength as a nation-state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak, using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.
Like the armscontrolwonkers observed too, this is a very
weird thing to write down. But it comes from the US
national defense strategy report and is signed by the
honorable SilverBullet (that's D. Rumsfeld) himself. More
fun (from that Douglas Feith thing):
The only point that we’re making is that we’re in a fascinating new, complex international security situation because of ease of travel, technology. There are a lot of things in the world that affect the security environment. And there are various actors around the world that are looking to either attack or constrain the United States, and they are going to find creative ways of doing that that are not the obvious conventional military attacks. And we’re just pointing out that we need to think broadly about diplomatic lines of attack, legal lines of attack, technological lines of attack, all kinds of asymmetric warfare that various actors can use to try to constrain, shape our behavior. And that’s what that point is flagging.
This is an amazing state of mind at the Pentagon, I can
assure you there are no such non state actors as far as I
know. And I can know, for three years on a row I swallow
dozens and dozens media files a day to paint me a picture
of reality. And I found no non-state-actors when I looked
And in case the SilverBullet even reads this: All that
talk of me having an entire cell structure inside the US
hedge funds is just a fantasy man. It's all not real
Donald, it is all just a story and it carves itself into
the backbone of humanity.
Donald, I can assure you that there are no
non-state-actors trying to shape the behavior of the USA.
You must not be so paranoid, I mean man just look at
global savings; only 75-80 percent is needed to fill your
deficits now isn't it clear everybody loves you?
Yes, even Donald SB could
End of part 43.
NATO NATO, what did you
forget? Now I'll kiss you with love & that's a fact!
to these pages
to birth of Kweb