Originally Posted by bulldogg

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKe y=cmpIntel&htmlId=3869

Have a read before you dismiss the allegations from the hip about this being a "dirty trick". Not saying I agree but it is info from a reliable troop friendly source. Personally I think the jury is still out.

Rather than "Troops For The Truth", Bulldog, it seems to me that this is Troops For Misinformation. I mean of course everything adds up to freedom of opinion and information, but I barely believe this one contributes to open people's eyes.
I mean, how can one really believe that today's situation in Iraq helps Bush or Blair or Berlusconi or Howard re-gain public support for the war when main stream media only show us terrorist attacks every single day? I mean nobody really needs to see some more attacks to be persuaded of the nature of the enemy we are facing. A hundredth of that was enough.
I think terrorist attacks in Iraq are a weak point for Bush, every one more attack that is carried out makes people think "Then the mission is a failure, our troops are not doing a good job, we've been there for years and haven't settle things down yet". No, I do not think it would be a wise move for British or American intelligence to stage terrorist attacks and sabotage the very pipelines we are rebuilding or killing our very soldiers or the soldiers of an Amry we are trying so hard to rebuild. Sounds BS to me.
The article goes:

The policy in Iraq is to keep the country destabilized and on the verge of civil war to show that it cannot govern itself and that it therefore requires the continued presence of American and British forces. The man accused of being behind much of the bombing going on there is Al-Zarqawi, a man known to be dead for some time now. Also, because he is (or, rather, was) a Sunni, bombings against the Shi'ia population, if blamed on him and the Sunni insurgents, can keep the pot of civil war simmering, thus giving further justification to keeping American and British forces there.

"A man known to be dead for some time now?? Well hi Mr Moore, how're ya doing? Come on, some sources say he might have been killed already, but 99% of the information we have lead us to believe he is still alive after sneaking out of Falluja. Like I said, all that Bush does not need now is a "country destabilized and on the verge of civil war to show that it cannot govern itself and that it therefore requires the continued presence of American and British forces". If he got reelected is also thanks to the improvements we are witnessing in Iraq, not the other way around.

I mean, the article says:

So, who is behind many of the bombings against the Shi'ia and Sunni populations? It is quite possible, even probable, that many of them are being carried out by American, British, and even Israeli Covert Action operatives.

Yes, we keep spending billions to rebuild a country, protect hundreds of elected politicians, uhm train a nation's whole Army, but at the same time we are frankly doing our best to destroy infrastructures, target and kill politicians, murder as many soldiers as possible and possibly as many American soldiers as possible. Gimme a break, "Soldiers for Truth". Now that is Misinformation.

So, when you watch the news, think more deeply about what you're seeing; and when you read your newspapers, try reading between the lines

Exactly what is to be done with this article. And with our liberal-biased media (in Europe too).

J.V. Grady is a former member of US Military Intelligence.

Grady himslef would suggest: Think more deeply about what you're reading. Why is the author a former member of US milint? Why did he leave?

1. Remember the thread awhile back about death squads in Iraq? Why is it that notion received a great deal of praise in that thread but here it triggers disbelief?

2. Soldiers for the Truth is an organisation with a great deal of integrity. You will not find a group of inviduals more committed to soldiers anywhere. It was founded by the late David Hackworth and if you don't know who he is I suggest a quick primer on the man, ask any of the American veterans in here. My guess is you figured anything coming from Bulldogg must be "liberal" or "anti-US" well mate I have a lot of complex opinions on a lot of issues and as I get new info I question things deeply and am always re-assessing what I believe. So don't expect a lot of consistency and don't assume what my view will be without checking it a bit deeper.

http://globalsecurity.insightful.com/jsp/rs.jsp type in Hackworth and have a read mate.

Or here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackworth

I can't say anymore right now because your short-sighted belittling of the organisation has me friggin livid right now mate and I am trying to turn over a new leaf.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

1. Remember the thread awhile back about death squads in Iraq? Why is it that notion received a great deal of praise in that thread but here it triggers disbelief?

I didn't devote a "great deal of praise" to that notion either.

2. Soldiers for the Truth is an organisation with a great deal of integrity. You will not find a group of inviduals more committed to soldiers anywhere.

I never questioned it, I just ironically stated how that article sounded like a hardcore conspiracy propaganda with no evidence.

It was founded by the late David Hackworth and if you don't know who he is I suggest a quick primer on the man, ask any of the American veterans in here.

Ok interesting, thank you.

My guess is you figured anything coming from Bulldogg must be "liberal" or "anti-US"

Oh no man, wrong guess, I must have been mistaken: I never figured your views would be always anti-USA. How could I ever consider you a fanatic leftist when you say things like: "It is not possible for Israel to have peace. These groups attacking her have no desire for peace. They have one aim, the complete destruction of the jewish state and all that live within her. This has given Israel the moral high ground and is taking away the excuses of the terrorists within the Palestinians". (You said that here http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ic.php?t=15630). You don't know many European liberals, I tell you ) I appreciated the fact of your bringing out new sources, I also said that, what I discarded was the content of the article, and of course I might be wrong, that is just my opinion.

well mate I have a lot of complex opinions on a lot of issues and as I get new info I question things deeply and am always re-assessing what I believe. So don't expect a lot of consistency and don't assume what my view will be without checking it a bit deeper.

So are mine: I constantly check my views too, and I never thought you were narrow-minded in any way, really.

http://globalsecurity.insightful.com/jsp/rs.jsp type in Hackworth and have a read mate.

I will, although I never questioned that.

Or here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackworth

Ok, please.

I can't say anymore right now because your short-sighted belittling of the organisation has me friggin livid right now mate and I am trying to turn over a new leaf.

Don't make this thing bigger than it is, come on. I'm sorry if I left you livid, never meant to. You know, if you knew me a bit better like others on the boards do I'm sure you would know I rarely raise provocative issues or posts. I'm quite an easy going person, I just said I disagree with the content of the article, in that it seemed more misinformation that information. The article gives it for granted that Zarqawi is dead. Isn't that a personal opinion? Isn't that a personal opinion that the US and UK and my country are constantly staging terrorist attacks in order to put the blame on others? Isn't that a personal opinion of the author that we are deliberately and deceitfully killing children, innocents, Iraqi policemen and our own brothers in Iraq? Yes it is, and I happened to disagree with that, if I may. Don't feel livid about it, trust me. I respect you and cherish your intelligence as much as I did before. Or else I wouldn't have replied.

Ok, I will not make more it than it is.

The article appears on a US Navy SEAL website and has a disclaimer about being unable to verify many of the details. But the author is known to people on the board and is a trusted source. They rarely put up anything that is remotely disinformation. They vet this stuff but from what I gleaned they cannot verify or vouch for the content of many articles owing to OPSEC and PERSEC issues.

As for why he is no longer with the US government I don't know. I forgot to ask when he dropped by for a cuppa last week.

Agent provacateurs are common enough that it is more than just a personal opinion. I do not believe they are the only ones blowing things up, if indeed they are. But when the leaders of certain sects unfriendly to the new government get cratered would it or would it not be in the interests of the US and friends to avoid any connection to said event? It is sound reasoning to make it look as though it is an inter-islam struggle and avoid further blowback from this action. I highly doubt that if this tactic is being employed by coalition forces that they are targetting friendlies but in fact are carrying out extra-judicial killings in concert with goals of ending the insrugency by cutting off the head of the snake.

Taken in this context it is plausible I think.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

As for why he is no longer with the US government I don't know. I forgot to ask when he dropped by for a cuppa last week.

Yeah remember to ask him next time

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Agent provacateurs are common enough that it is more than just a personal opinion.

Oh yes of course. But "Agent provocateurs" is one thing, "terrorists" another. If you say some of our agents make small devices blow up without killing innocents, well yeah of course that may happen.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

I highly doubt that if this tactic is being employed by coalition forces that they are targetting friendlies but in fact are carrying out extra-judicial killings in concert with goals of ending the insrugency by cutting off the head of the snake.

And they do a great job if they do so. They are paid to do that. Targeted killings of insurgent leaders are extra-judicial, but it is a whole different cattle of fish than saying

Originally Posted by article

"many of the bombings against the Shi'ia and the Sunni populations are carried out by Americans and British"

, as the article explicitly asserts.

Hey we can disagree, that won't make me think less of you anyway.

Indeed Italian Guy, indeed.