Patterico's Pontifications

11/30/2006

A “Third Way” on Fake Iraqi Cops?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:17 am

The military says it has no evidence that Jamil Hussein is a policeman or member of the Ministry of the Interior.

AP says: you bet he is!

Someone’s right and someone’s wrong, wouldn’t you say?

Not necessarily. Like Bill Clinton, I come to offer a third way.

I was discussing the issue of fake Iraqi cops recently with a military press guy who is (I believe) not involved with the Hussein controversy. He offered me a theory about what may be going on with some of these folks who aren’t showing up on police rosters, but who are being quoted as police sources by the press. I asked him if I could quote him and he sent me this:

After the Iraqi Army was disbanded in 2003 the police force was kept intact; however they refused to show up to work which is why Coalition forces had to recruit and train the new police force from scratch. So I am suspect of press reports that claim to have a source within the Iraqi Police, because there is a high probability that the source is most likely a Saddam era leftover who hasn’t walked a beat in years. Those individuals are not employed by the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The Iraqi MOI keeps accurate listings of verified police officers, for pay purposes.

— Maj. Jeff Pool, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Force) PAO.

So it’s possible that, in a sense, some of these folks are technically Iraqi police — but don’t represent the government, as readers would assume they do when they read a quote from an alleged Iraqi “policeman.”

Just tossing that out there for your consideration.

82 Responses to “A “Third Way” on Fake Iraqi Cops?”

  1. Could be, but folks like the ones you describe above aren’t cops. They are folks no longer on the force, pretending to be cops.
    Besides, it would have been very easy for the AP to call this man a former Police Captain. In which case their readers would have been able to figure out that he was a disgruntled Baathist.
    Additionally, didn’t the AP claim that its un-named reporters had been in this Captain’s office? I don’t think former Baathist officers not serving in the current government are afforded offices by the Iraqi government. Either way the AP, if it doesn’t produce a crrently employed Police Captin named Jamil Hussein, has ruined its crediblity permanently. I would think some one in the press corps other than Michelle Malkin would have the courage to point that out.

    corvan (0793a2)

  2. […] Update: Patterico thinks Jamil Hussein might well indeed be a cop — just not an official Iraqi cop. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » As promised: Iraqi spokesman says AP police source is phony; Update: NYT blog picks up the story (d4224a)

  3. Blind Mice…

    There’s a simple way to solve the problem. AP has to produce the guy. Let Hussein provide his bona-fides. If he is who he says he is, then we can take the story from there. If AP refuses to take this action, or other media outlets cannot find the guy….

    A Blog For All (59ce3a)

  4. AP could at any time bring this Jamil Hussein before a camera and show how real he is. They won’t – real Iraqi government people could identify him and expose the fraud. They’ve already made it clear that he’s not on the payroll. And MSM in general is exerting huge efforts to avoid any real investigation of such fake sources, since many of their own applecarts might be upset thereby.

    Partisan media are a menace to the Republic.

    Insufficiently Sensitive (01397c)

  5. […] More to come this evening when there’s time to digest, but in the meantime, read up: – Hot Air – Michelle Malkin – Patterico – NYT’s Blog (!) – American Thinker – Blackfive – Memeorandum — scroll down a little; Michelle’s post is the peg […]

    BizzyBlog » Jamil Hussein Update (34f45e)

  6. […] Patterico’s Pontifications Bookmark to: Filed in: The Iraqi War, MSM Bias, War On Terror | 2 Comments » […] Courtesy of Flopping Aces: […] NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Getting The News From The Enemy, Update IV — November 30, 2006 @ 9:17 am Blind Mice… […]

    Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Getting The News From The Enemy, Update IV (986d71)

  7. CENTCOM and Iraqi Governent say AP’s “Iraqi police source” isn’t Iraqi police…

    Continued from this postAs promised: Iraqi spokesman says AP police source is phony; Update: NYT blog picks up the storyAllahpundit Centcom said he’d mention it at today’s MOI presser, and so he did:[W]e have some of the respected news outlets…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  8. That would be “some of these folks are technically were formerly Iraqi police”.

    Or they’re giving a noum-de-police to the AP. What name is the AP putting on the check?

    htom (412a17)

  9. Journo tunnel vision: Iraq body counts…

    For the first part of 2006, they reported Iraqi deaths of about 800 per month. In July, the UN released a bi-monthly reported that in May and June, about 6,000 Iraqis were killed….

    Can't See the Center (59ce3a)

  10. I nominate Dan Rather as the perfect journalist to track down and verify the identify of this “Iraqi police source”. He could take on the assignment as soon as he finished “breaking the story” on precisely who created those fake-but-accurate Air National Guard documents CBS broadcast just prior to the last presidential elections.

    In fact, has anyone asked whether Jamil Hussein owns a vintage IBM Selectric typewriter?

    JonSK (e2bff6)

  11. Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of a Rather Man. But at least Dan produced the doc., fbabuh.

    J. Peden (285ddc)

  12. I’m foiled yet again, JonSK. Curses!

    J. Peden (285ddc)

  13. The problem is that this approach doesn’t help.

    Emphasizing the “official sources” is playing directly to the prejudices of the Press. Their preconceived notion, amounting to Dogma, is that Official Sources always lie, and the only way to get the True Story is to seek out “dissent”. The inevitable result is that they will rely more, rather than less, on any sources they can dig up that are not “Official”.

    Regards,
    Ric

    Ric Locke (4754d9)

  14. Considering the guy who wrote most of the stories using this guy as a witness (Qais-something-or-other) used to write feel-good stories about Saddam, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hussein was IP under the Baathists. (In which case, of course the AP reporter visited the guy in his office numerous times–when Saddam was still in power.)

    Lornkanaga (a4182d)

  15. I don’t think former Baathist officers not serving in the current government are afforded offices by the Iraqi government. – corvan

    Exactly. The AP said Hussein “has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions.”

    This is where the story falls apart or stands.

    Now if Hussein was sacked 10 days ago and the MOI and military are playing footsie with this, screw ’em. The AP can’t be expected to re-confirm employment status every 24 hours. Baghdad ain’t Omaha.

    steve (435138)

  16. It may come down to pay stubs.

    steve (435138)

  17. Steve:

    The issue is who do you believe, the AP, or the US and Iraqi authorities. They have not been able to verify this guy’s claims of terrorist actions. No photos or video of the aftermath. Where are the bodies? Where are the blown up mosques?

    Davod (5fdaa2)

  18. I think Steve’s comment proposes a more realistic “third way”: That Capt. Hussein was a police officer but has recently resigned, been fired, etc. I doubt that’s what happened but it’s probably the only way the AP can salvage this source if the Iraqi MOI is correct that Hussein is not on the payroll.

    I still think this should be easy to verify. Where is the Chief of Police at Capt. Hussein’s station and why can’t he verify whether Hussein is a spokesman?

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  19. As far as “believing the US and Iraqi authorities,” Haditha was reported in a Marine communiqué from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi as a “roadside bomb killing 15 Iraqi civilians,” before some conscience-stricken soldier went to the media.

    The AP photos of the mosque show a blown out door and what they call evidence of burn damage. Haven’t a clue whether they were photo-shopped. Lots of mosques get bombed.

    I’m sticking with the pay stubs and those AP office visits. Hussein may have been a two-year hoaxster. Which would be a HUGE embarrassment.

    steve (435138)

  20. If he had resigned, been fired etc. The AP should have reported that too. It doesn’t seem realistic that his resignation would have come since the story had been filed, the times span is just too short. Also the AP could have certainly pointed out that he was in fact a former officer when they went back to speak with him again.
    I still think it’s one or the other. The man is a police officer or he isn’t. If he isn’t the AP needs to explain why they have insisted that he is. If he is the Iraqi government needs to explain why it claims he isn’t.

    corvan (0793a2)

  21. “Where are the bodies?”
    That really would end the controversy.

    Edward (0b6502)

  22. probably the only way the AP can salvage this source if the Iraqi MOI is correct that Hussein is not on the payroll.

    Well their credibility is in trouble if they described a “source” as a police officer when he was in fact an EX-police officer, even if the ex part is recent.

    Michael (4793d1)

  23. This confuses my head. If the MOI can be confirmed by the AP to have no knowledge of its own police officers, isn’t that a big story? I myself would find it very, very demoralizing, and would most likely no longer support US involvement in the Middle East.

    happyfeet (3ed8b4)

  24. English versions of Iraqi names are just approximations…

    Jamil, Jamel, Jamal

    Hussein, Hussain, Hussayn

    etc.

    May be a search problem.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  25. The guy is fake. If not, the AP would have produced him by now.

    But it doesn’t matter, nobody will ever know. The election is over. The public believed every word. It’s too late.

    The house always wins.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  26. Still waitin’ for those WMDs and ties to al Qeada, Amp.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  27. Question:

    In April – Malkin asks: Where is BILAL HUSSEIN, the bogus AP stringer/photographer? Who as far as I can tell, is still “missing”??? AP reports the US has “detained” him?

    And lo and behold who shows up in – April – a new, unseen, apparently bogus AP stringer, one JAMIL HUSSEIN.

    Curious that.

    Enlightened (af3db1)

  28. A 4th way is that Jamil Hussein is a pseudonym for a legit cop, but he just wants to stay secret so he doesn’t get killed.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  29. Wesson,

    That one doesn’t make alot of sense. If that were the case the AP would have simply called him a confidential source, or admitted they were using a psuedonym. No, as time passes this is beginning to look like a case of the AP our right lying. Of course they could still produce Hussein or give some sort of explanation for their conduct. I’m still mystified that more news orgnaizations haven’t asked them to. Do journalists make any attempt at all to police themselves? Any attempt at all?

    corvan (0793a2)

  30. AP can easily authenticate a pseudonymous source by certifying them through a 3rd party – such as, having a trusted embed – Bill Roggio for example, to meet with the “source” and validate their authenticity.

    AP needs to step up with more than vituperation in lieu of said authentication.

    Enlightened (af3db1)

  31. Guys! Wake up! Please!
    Just consider these facts:
    1) The only source for “debunking” this story is the spokesmen of Ministry of Interior.
    2) The Minister of Interior is (or, at least, was) Al-Sadr’s follower.
    3) There were numerous atrocities attributed to the members of MOI. The famous kidnapping of 150 Sunni academics was committed by 25 people in MOI uniform, with Iraqi Police standing by.
    4) Al-Maliki said Al-Sadr is not a problem and suggested that his militias should be “included in the political process”.
    5) Bush just said that Al-Maliki is a “Prime Minister who’s saying, stop holding me back, I want to solve the problem”.
    6) One of Al-Sadr’s demands was that “Americans gave Iraqis more authority on the security matters”.
    7) MOI spokesman, essentially, called for censorship: I would like to thank some of the brothers in the media who are cautious and take the extra step to make sure the news he gets is correct or not, by contacting the ministry to verify _any news_ through us that they hear or receive.

    Don’t you think it looks like Shia’s extremists in the government starting a massive genocide of Sunnis with _all the reports_ suppressed? Don’t all the facts spell this crystal clear?

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  32. Uh – no.

    A censored genocide that coalition forces can not authenticate versus the AP (again) reporting insurgent propanganda than can easily be authenticated.

    It’s quite easy to decide which scenario is closer to the truth.

    Enlightened (af3db1)

  33. Nikolay it’s nigh on impossible to cover-up a genocide. True, Joe Stalin managed to, with the help of the NYT, but that was eighty years ago.
    I mean look at Darfur. No matter how hard the UN pretends its not there we all know it is. At least I assume we do. Do you thnk there’s a genocide going on in Africa, Nikolay?

    corvan (0793a2)

  34. Suppose the AP produced a video interview with a guy called “Capt. Hussein?”

    Would the skeptics believe the AP then?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  35. A censored genocide that coalition forces can not authenticate versus the AP (again) reporting insurgent propanganda than can easily be authenticated.
    Well, you know how the genocide goes on in Baghdad. People disappear, and then their mutilated bodies are found at morning around the city. Nobody is held responsible. Except that MOI spokesman calling for censorship (don’t you agree that the italicized quote in my previous comment is a call for censorship?) suggested that this doesn’t happen at all. If US stops holding Al-Maliki and his political partner Al-Sadr back, as suggested (you know, Iraqis stand up, US stands down), I don’t see any possible results except genocide.

    And I see absolutely no reasons for MOI not to murder this guy.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  36. I doubt the problem in finding the officer would be proper spelling. There would only be a limited number of pay stubs to check for the office location in question.

    seePea (adaca1)

  37. Do you thnk there’s a genocide going on in Africa, Nikolay?
    Do you think there’s a genocide going on in Baghdad? You know, just some random mutilated bodies found on the street every day?
    That’s a tough question, really.
    Some people say that there is a (not yet full-scale) genocide, and much of it is perpetrated by the death squads that belong to MOI. But MOI says that these reports is the overblown enemy propaganda, and to counter this it well try to censor further reports.
    So the question is simple: do you believe MOI or not? Keep in mind that the head of MOI was a member of Sadrist movement, that Al-Maliki talked about including Al-Sadr’s militias in the political process, that Al-Sadr is Al-Maliki’s main political supporter, that the first thing that Al-Maliki had to say about Saddam’s verdict was that Saddam was not worth a drop of blood of Al-Sadr’s martyred father, that reports about death squads in MOI are numerous, that Al-Maliki never stated that he wanted to disband Al-Sadr’s militias, that he meddled in US troops business on Al-Sadr’s behalf many times, that the famous kidnapping of 150 Sunni academics was done by 25 men in MOI uniform and when it was reported Al-Maliki was eager to appear on TV to announce that “this was not terrorism“.
    Anyway, I can’t force you to disbelieve MOI. So, I guess, there’s nothing like genocide in Baghdad.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  38. Actually Allah raises a pretty cogent question over at Hot Air. The guy that gave the press confernce today saying Hussein is not a cop…he was on the list as being an unverified source himself. The use of Arabic names create all sorts of problems for westerners. I still think the AP is lying, but there is the possiblity that Centcom and the MOI are all fouled up, too. Either way we need to know for certain…right now. Centcom needs to send someone out to that police station super pronto.

    corvan (0793a2)

  39. Did they announce themselves as police? Were they wearing vests with the words “Police” on them?

    If so, I don’t understand why you’re being so hard on the AP for believing them.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  40. Jaybird,
    Because the media has a responsibility to verify their story.

    If they can’t do that, they accepted a lie without proof and reported it.

    It is a violation of the public trust.

    Is your real name Jayson Blair?

    Kathy (c02b80)

  41. Nikolay, forget the MOI, if you can, for a moment. Why should we take the AP’s word for the existence of someone that they are willing to name and quote but cannot seem to produce? Whose “office” is five miles away, in a different jurisdiction, from the location of the supposed incident? For an incident where they cannot produce any concrete evidence of the crime that they claim happened except a blown off door and evidence of a fire inside the mosque? (Remember, the supposed immolations occurred in the street not in the mosque.)

    The point of journalism isn’t to disbelieve all government sources and credulously quote all others. It’s to report the facts, carefully confirmed by multiple sources and balanced with the objections of those who state otherwise so that the reader can judge for themselves the veracity and the importance of the story.

    antimedia (0f1e9e)

  42. anti,

    Why should the AP go out of their way to please people who would still laughably believe they are part of some liberal conspiracy no matter what they did?

    If the people who actually pay for their service complain…that’s a different matter, though.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  43. “Why should the AP go out of their way…”? No reason at all – their job is to make everyone else (that they don’t like) justify everything they do and say to the nth degree – not to do it themselves. You’re right NC, we are just being unfair to our betters.

    Sherlock (790917)

  44. Neville Chamberlain,

    I used to indirectly pay for the AP, by subscribing to The Kansas City Star. Now, because I cannot trust their reporting, I no longer subscribe. I don’t buy New Coke, either. Coke Classic is great!

    Yours,
    Wince

    Wince and Nod (966b00)

  45. someone that they are willing to name and quote but cannot seem to produce?
    What do you mean, produce? You mean, print a photo? They gave the guy’s working address, what else do you want? If Centcom wants to prove this guy doesn’t exist, why can’t they publish a statement from the chief of that police station, instead of statement of MOI spokesman who (this is really crazy) is himself on their list of unreliable sources.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  46. He could also not be giving his real name. It sounds like it could be a death warrant to be heavily quoted in the western press.

    actus (10527e)

  47. Corvan – Malkin has posted a response about the MOI spokesman – he is legit.

    Hussein does not need to show his face, AP merely needs to bring a third party to the man to legitimize him. Very simple really, no valid reason not to. It’s called checking your sources.

    Enlightened (af3db1)

  48. “So it’s possible that, in a sense, some of these folks are technically Iraqi police… Just tossing that out there for your consideration.”

    Well consider this – the US SPCs, LTs and CPTs who are telling us that this is bull are not just “technically” US soldiers, THEY ARE US SOLDIERS. That is the single most important difference, my friend, because they have sworn to defend us with their lives, and the media is beholden to nothing but whatever they think serves their own political agenda. And please, tell me when did the MSM ever give anyone (they didn’t like) the benefit of the doubt, and then please explain to me how the *&#*^%$ they are justified to DEMAND it now??!

    Sherlock (790917)

  49. If he’s a cop who just hasn’t shown up for work in years, then I’m still a college student. Yikes, and a cub scout.

    lumberjack (e103d2)

  50. It’s ironic; when the media WANT to produce Richard Armitage’s name or Judith Miller’s name, they can do it.
    When they WANT to find out about NSA surveillance, they provide all sorts of info, because after all, “people want to know !” and so on, and so forth.

    They just don’t WANT to get caught with their pants down in this situation, so they’re not gonna produce “the man who wasn’t there.”

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  51. It’s ironic; when the media WANT to produce Richard Armitage’s name or Judith Miller’s name, they can do it.
    When they WANT to find out about NSA surveillance, they provide all sorts of info, because after all, “people want to know !” and so on, and so forth.

    Dick armitage and judy miller aren’t fearful of shiite death squads. Note though that Judy Miller’s name was never in doubt.

    actus (10527e)

  52. actus said “Dick armitage and judy miller aren’t fearful of shiite death squads.”

    For now they aren’t. Something you may want to think about in the future is that, if we lose the war on terror, we will all have to worry about death squads made up of Shiites, Sunnis, Wahabbis, etc.

    If you don’t want us to win the war on terror, I suggest you take up residence in Iran, just to see “how the other side lives.” And don’t forget to take your wife and mother–to get a full perspective.

    Lornkanaga (f2e82f)

  53. you dont want us to win the war on terror, I suggest you take up residence in Iran, just to see how the other side lives.

    The problem is, there’s no way in the world to win the “war on terror” in the way you talk about it. There are nine to ten chances that the guy on whose words all this anti-AP story relies is himself Iranian puppet. Just as there is no question that Iraqi PM now is Iranian puppet. If Bush says that the Islamic extremist and, probably, terrorist and, definetily, Iranian ally is “the right guy for Iraq”, this doesn’t look like victory in the war on terror is about to happen.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  54. If you don’t want us to win the war on terror, I suggest you take up residence in Iran, just to see “how the other side lives.”

    If I wanted to know what losing looks like I’d just look at the mess we’ve accomplished in Iraq.

    actus (10527e)

  55. Nikolay,

    Of course we can win the war on terror–it’s called “Peace Through Superior Firepower” and “Strength Through Resolve.” If we allow them to continue to terrorize us, they win; if we convince them we aren’t going to put up with their antics, we win. Simple.

    actus,

    Since you didn’t address my comment, I won’t address yours.

    Lornkanaga (a4182d)

  56. Since you didn’t address my comment, I won’t address yours.

    Thats great! wish we had been doing that all along.

    actus (10527e)

  57. actus,

    If I wanted to know what losing looks like I’d just look at the mess we’ve accomplished in Iraq.

    Aha! So you are al-Qaeda!

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  58. Lornkanaga,

    actus doesn’t have a wife to take with him to Iran—he swings the other way.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  59. these last two have been incredibly dissapointing.

    actus (10527e)

  60. Of course we can win the war on terror–it’s called “Peace Through Superior Firepower” and “Strength Through Resolve.” If we allow them to continue to terrorize us, they win; if we convince them we aren’t going to put up with their antics, we win.

    You live in a strange world. Dare I say a computer game world? I’m not sure, there are not many computer games that are so simplistic.
    Basically, your answer to everything is “kick some ass”?
    When you invade a secular country and put Islamic extremists and terrorists into power (women _could_ go outside without a veil without big risk of getting killed before invasion), give those extremists and terrorists huge amount of weapons, armor and money and keep on doing this until the war in the country spills into the region, it’s all good because there’s a slogan that saves you from addressing reality? When will the mission be accomplished? When you supply the Shia terrorists with enough resources for them to start real fight with Americans? When you helped them destroy Israel?
    “Strength trough resolve”, funny.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  61. Nikolay, do you think that all Shia are terrorists? Do you think the Iraqs all voted for extremists and terrorists?

    Do you miss dear old Saddam?

    Gleen Groonwald (08e1e8)

  62. Nikolay, do you think that all Shia are terrorists? Do you think the Iraqs all voted for extremists and terrorists?

    No, I don’t think that all Shia are terrorists, but I know for a fact that the current Iraqi PM started his career as a terrorist, with Americans among the victims, and that his organization was the main sponsor of Hezbollah at the moment of its inception. I also know for a fact that elections were not fair, that many people were forced out of political process by killings, violence and intimidation. Anyway, the end result is that overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament belong to extreme Islamists. Moderates and seculars hold almost no sway. Given the fact that so many people fly from the country and that moderation doesn’t pay off, it’s obvious that it will only get worse. You know, when the power comes with a big gun, the peaceful majority (say, 90%) will inevitably be ruled by the violent minority (10%).

    Do you miss dear old Saddam?

    Yes, I believe that most of peaceful Iraqis miss Saddam. Not because he was any good, but because people that are now in power are significantly worse.
    I also think that Iran is now a really dangerous country, and spending so much effort on making it more dangerous (calling it “Axis of Evil” when they had a moderate president; and now when they have a real madman in charge, all the Iraqi leaders lick his boots) and on supporting and financing its political cause in the Middle East was a very bad idea, one of the worst idea in the history of the region, probably the worst. That so many American people died in the cause of spreading Islam, and this was somehow tied to 9/11, is really crazy.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  63. The AP’s newest source: Tommy al-Flanagan…

    The recent Associated Press controversy — in which events and witnesses described in various Baghdad reports appear to be fictitious — has inspired other reporters to jump into the fray……

    Doug Ross @ Journal (59ce3a)

  64. No, I don’t think that all Shia are terrorists, but I know for a fact that the current Iraqi PM started his career as a terrorist, with Americans among the victims, and that his organization was the main sponsor of Hezbollah at the moment of its inception.

    Really, now? That’s quite a revelation. What have you got? Ahmadinejad, sure. But Maliki? Do tell.

    Yes, I believe that most of peaceful Iraqis miss Saddam.

    That’s absolutely ridiculous. You could find that sentiment among Sunnis, but the vast majority of Kurds and Shia are quite happy to see Saddam in the dock and their quality of life has improved in Saddam’s absence. Baghdad is not the sum total of Iraq.

    I also think that Iran is now a really dangerous country, and spending so much effort on making it more dangerous (calling it “Axis of Evil” when they had a moderate president; and now when they have a real madman in charge, all the Iraqi leaders lick his boots) and on supporting and financing its political cause in the Middle East was a very bad idea, one of the worst idea in the history of the region, probably the worst.

    So, we should be more polite to Iran, maybe let them wipe Israel out and have nukes, and then they’d be less dangerous? And Khatami is a moderate? Rafsanjani?

    Sorry, Nikolay, but you’re nuts.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  65. Really, now? That’s quite a revelation. What have you got? Ahmadinejad, sure. But Maliki? Do tell.

    Just check his background. He was the head of Jihad Office of Dawa Party in eighties. Dawa was responsible for the bombings of American embassies in Beirut and Kuwait in 1983. In 1984 Hezbollah hijacked a plane and demanded release of 17 Dawa members arrested for bombing in Kuwait. It is not exactly known in which way was he involved, but it’s a fact that he was in charge of running a terrorist/guerrilla organization. You know, punishing US for their involvement with that beast, Saddam.
    This, in itself, is not damning enough, after all, former Irish terrorists make sane politicians, and Israel had two former terrorists as their PMs, but given the fact that Maliki makes no secret of the fact that he is loyal to Iran, and US is just a good source of money and weapons, there’s just no spin that would make him “good” for the Middle East.

    but the vast majority of Kurds and Shia are quite happy to see Saddam in the dock

    BTW, did you read Al-Maliki speech about Saddam’s sentence? It started with a reference to “a blessed martyr Al-Sadr”, whose drop of blood was not worth Saddam. Al-Sadr the father of that Al-Sadr. And no reference to Sunni victims.
    Speaking about areas not drawn into violence, women are definitely not happy with the fact that they now have to live by the Sharia law. You know, burqa, honor killings, all that stuff.

    So, we should be more polite to Iran, maybe let them wipe Israel out and have nukes, and then they’d be less dangerous? And Khatami is a moderate? Rafsanjani?

    You should definitely not fight proxy wars for Iran. Whatever the outcome, the only way for Iraq not to become Iran’s partner is to have US locked there forever. And you certainly won’t be able to attack Iran from Iraq. And, yes, Khatami was a moderate president in a country where president has limited powers, who didn’t succeed in a very tough fight with clerics. Romney calling him “a wolf in sheep’s clothings” is just an opportunist.
    Nuke in such a disgusting country as contemporary Iran is a horrible thing to contemplate, but given the fact that it would also destroy the Palestinians whose plight they bemoan so much, they would hardly use it. But it would help a lot to extend their influence. A lot, but not so insanely much as Bush, of course.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  66. Nikolay, you’ve got to do better than “just check”. Dawa was heavily involved in anti-Saddam efforts, and Maliki himself had a death sentence imposed by Saddam and was in exile because of it.

    That you can get within a few degrees of separation, and then stop there makes your statement that:

    I know for a fact that the current Iraqi PM started his career as a terrorist

    …absolute bullshit. You’ve got to bring a whole lot more evidence than “Just check!” to level a claim like that.

    Whatever the outcome, the only way for Iraq not to become Iran’s partner is to have US locked there forever.

    Hey, that’s the same way we kept western Europe from the Soviets. How did that work out, anyway?

    And you certainly won’t be able to attack Iran from Iraq.

    If we decided to do so, who’s going to stop us?

    And, yes, Khatami was a moderate president in a country where president has limited powers, who didn’t succeed in a very tough fight with clerics.

    Then what difference does it make that he’s been replaced? That aside, a moderate lunatic is still a lunatic, and the Mullahs decide who holds office, not the “electorate”. I find your assertion more amusing than troubling. Romney has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Nuke in such a disgusting country as contemporary Iran is a horrible thing to contemplate, but given the fact that it would also destroy the Palestinians whose plight they bemoan so much, they would hardly use it. But it would help a lot to extend their influence. A lot, but not so insanely much as Bush, of course.

    You actually think they give a rat’s ass about the Palestinians? You are deluded.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  67. Nikolay, you’ve got to do better than “just check”. Dawa was heavily involved in anti-Saddam efforts, and Maliki himself had a death sentence imposed by Saddam and was in exile because of it.

    So, I guess, bombing Americans because “you hate their freedoms” is terrorism in your book, but bombing Americans for their support for Saddam (as Al-Dawa did) is alright. Maliki had a death sentence, and Al-Sadr had his father (that saintly “kill all the Jews” guy) murdered by Saddam — I guess this also makes him innocent, does it? Maliki was not just a political dissident, he was the head of the militant Islamist group engaged in the terrorist activities.
    BTW, I don’t get what beef do you have with Islamic Iran when you have that kind of logic. Shah was a murderous thug supported by Americans that was overthrown by Islamic Revolutionaries. Saddam was a murderous thug supported by Americans that Islamic Revolutionaries, like Maliki, wanted to overthrow. Now that Maliki got his wish, he and his party is busy turning Iraq into a country ruled by Sharia. Where’s the difference?

    Hey, that’s the same way we kept western Europe from the Soviets. How did that work out, anyway?

    You probably also think that US won the WWII, do you? Europe was saved from the Soviet influence (as far as it was saved) just because Europeans themselves didn’t want Communism. If you had your army in the country ruled by the Communist party and gave full political and military support to its Communist leader (he’s a right guy for this country), I don’t see how it would further your cause in the cold war.

    If we decided to do so, who’s going to stop us?

    The moment you do so, your support in Iraq drops to zero and everybody turns on you. Well, I guess you don’t care for such trifles.

    Then what difference does it make that he’s been replaced? That aside, a moderate lunatic is still a lunatic, and the Mullahs decide who holds office, not the “electorate”.

    Khatami was not a lunatic, he was a guy that tried to do the right thing despite dozens of his supporters killed, tortured, disappeared, imprisoned for “Insulting Islamic values”, despite newspapers closed etc. But you probably don’t care for internal struggle for freedom in Iran, you would rather “nuke all the bastards”, I guess.
    Do you think that it would be a right thing to do for Reagan to say to Gorbachev “Fuck you, you’re still a Commie”?

    You actually think they give a rat’s ass about the Palestinians? You are deluded.

    Well, I think that some of them do care for Palestinians, not many, but some. World is a scary place, no shit, hey, the country where bin Laden now resides has a nuke.
    Iran is a dangerous country now, but hopefully freedom will prevail there once. You know, not the “kill them bastards” freedom, but “college liberals, dissidents, intellectuals, human rights” freedom that is still striving there. It’s always “liberal pussies” that fight oppression from inside, not “tough guys”, you know. “Tough guys” are the same everywhere. You won’t find a bit of difference if you compare anti-Soros (he was heavily involved in Democracy cause in Russia in 90ies) rhetoric of O’Reilly to that of Zhirinovsky or some other chauvinistic nut.
    It’s simple to speak in hypothetical, but if Bush didn’t screw “the cause of freedom” so majestically, mullahs would probably be on the way to get their ass kicked out of Iran by now, same with Hezbollah in Lebanon. And the country I have misfortune to live in would not be so deep in Putin’s “I was able to get a sense of his soul” nightmare.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  68. So, I guess, bombing Americans because “you hate their freedoms” is terrorism in your book, but bombing Americans for their support for Saddam (as Al-Dawa did) is alright.

    You said you know for a fact that Maliki did this. You have offered exactly no evidence of this.

    Saddam was a murderous thug supported by Americans that Islamic Revolutionaries, like Maliki, wanted to overthrow. Now that Maliki got his wish, he and his party is busy turning Iraq into a country ruled by Sharia. Where’s the difference?

    The first part is a figment of your imagination and the second part is also a figment of your imagination. No difference at all, I guess. No meaning, either, but what the hey?

    You probably also think that US won the WWII, do you?

    Having been stationed in “occupied Germany”, I know it to be a fact.

    Khatami was not a lunatic, he was a guy that tried to do the right thing despite dozens of his supporters killed, tortured, disappeared, imprisoned for “Insulting Islamic values”, despite newspapers closed etc.

    Hey, isn’t he a guy who ran a country ruled by Sharia law? And that’s a bad thing, right? Just checking. You don’t get to be President of Iran by upsetting the order of things. You get that job by being a willing stooge.

    But you probably don’t care for internal struggle for freedom in Iran, you would rather “nuke all the bastards”, I guess.

    What makes you say that? And what makes you think you’d ever talk the mullahs out of running the horror show they’ve turned Iran into?

    Do you think that it would be a right thing to do for Reagan to say to Gorbachev “Fuck you, you’re still a Commie”?

    Gorbachev was rational. Big difference.

    Well, I think that some of them do care for Palestinians, not many, but some.

    Well, that sort of blows your point about them being human shields for Israel all to hell, doesn’t it?

    World is a scary place, no shit, hey, the country where bin Laden now resides has a nuke.

    Thanks to the Russians.

    You know, not the “kill them bastards” freedom, but “college liberals, dissidents, intellectuals, human rights” freedom that is still striving there. It’s always “liberal pussies” that fight oppression from inside, not “tough guys”, you know. “Tough guys” are the same everywhere.

    The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants both. Any idea which “tough guy” said that, Nikolay?

    It’s simple to speak in hypothetical, but if Bush didn’t screw “the cause of freedom” so majestically, mullahs would probably be on the way to get their ass kicked out of Iran by now, same with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    If only mean old Bush hadn’t called Iran evil, what a wonderful world it would be. Yawn.

    And the country I have misfortune to live in would not be so deep in Putin’s “I was able to get a sense of his soul” nightmare.

    Bush is responsible for your bad breath too, I assume.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  69. You said you know for a fact that Maliki did this. You have offered exactly no evidence of this.

    Hey, I saw no evidence that bin Laden ever personally committed a single act of terror. And I’m perfectly sure that he never did a single suicide bombing.
    Al-Maliki was not a terrorist, he just happened to be working (as the head of Jihad Office) in the executive branch of the terrorist organization at the time they committed some notorious acts of terror with American victims. Would you give such benefit of a doubt to Hamas members in Palestine parliament? I’m sure none of them personally committed a suicide bombing.

    The first part is a figment of your imagination and the second part is also a figment of your imagination. No difference at all, I guess. No meaning, either, but what the hey?

    1) I guess the famous Rumsfeld photo is also a figment of my imagination? Hey, Saddam came to power with the help of CIA, just as Shah, he got weapons from US in Iran-Iraq war, they even worked against UN resolution on chemical weapons in 1984. Anyway, for Al-Dawa US was guilty enough to bomb the embassy.
    2) Did you read Iraqi constitution?

    Article 2:

    First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

    A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

    When did you last saw a picture of Iraqi woman not wearing hijab? Remember, it was very different under Saddam. That same Dawa party was famous for throwing acid in the faces of women not wearing hijab in seventies. Saddam didn’t have police that would make sure that all the women wear hijabs. And women in Iraq are extremely unhappy with this. Just read any Iraqi woman’s blog.

    Having been stationed in “occupied Germany”, I know it to be a fact.

    Well, sorry, but the war was won by Russians in a much larger degree than by Allies. About 80% of German losses were on the Eastern Front. You probably saved Europe from Communism in that war, but not from Fascism.

    Hey, isn’t he a guy who ran a country ruled by Sharia law? And that’s a bad thing, right? Just checking. You don’t get to be President of Iran by upsetting the order of things. You get that job by being a willing stooge.

    So I guess clerics did all those things to his supporters just for the pure fun of it? Gorbachev would have achieved nothing if he had to deal with such ruthless opposition. Khatami was a guy that worked to limit clerical power, while Maliki’s Dawa Party made Islam the basis of Constitution as soon as they got into power.

    What makes you say that? And what makes you think you’d ever talk the mullahs out of running the horror show they’ve turned Iran into?

    If by you you you mean your country — after Iraq’s liberation it has about zero credibility on the question of liberation of humankind nowadays. Iran won’t be liberated from outside, but there’s a good chance it will be liberated from inside. 50% of population is under 25, they do have access to Western popular culture, one day they will stop the insanity. The thing is, the Iranian opposition is on the same wavelength with your hated libruls, there’s a zero chance that they would connect with someone like Michelle Malkin or Rick Santorum.

    Well, that sort of blows your point about them being human shields for Israel all to hell, doesn’t it?

    Not exactly. There are 11 Synagogues in Tehran, Iranian Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel. Not that Jews have all the rights in Iran, but certainly more than in contemporary Iraq. There is very virulent and psychotic “anti-Zionism” in Iran, but you should not automatically confuse it with Antisemitism. I can’t say I’m sure Iran won’t nuke Israel, I’m 90% sure it won’t.

    If only mean old Bush hadn’t called Iran evil, what a wonderful world it would be. Yawn.

    If he’d given some meaningful support to the reformist party and would not give grounds for the anti-opposition discourse (which is the exact copy of “Democrats are the terrorists party”) in Iran, things would have been very different.

    Bush is responsible for your bad breath too, I assume.

    Most of the suppression of opposition and free press in our country happens in the name of fighting terrorism, extremism etc. There are meaningful similarities.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  70. Hey, I saw no evidence that bin Laden ever personally committed a single act of terror.

    Then you missed his laughing admission.

    Al-Maliki was not a terrorist,

    Then what did you mean when you said “I know for a fact that the current Iraqi PM started his career as a terrorist”?

    he just happened to be working (as the head of Jihad Office) in the executive branch of the terrorist organization at the time they committed some notorious acts of terror with American victims.

    Really? When was Maliki in Hezbollah?

    Would you give such benefit of a doubt to Hamas members in Palestine parliament? I’m sure none of them personally committed a suicide bombing.

    Strawman.

    I guess the famous Rumsfeld photo is also a figment of my imagination?

    No, that’s real. But do you support everyone you shake hands with? If so, I’d like to meet you.

    Hey, Saddam came to power with the help of CIA, just as Shah, he got weapons from US in Iran-Iraq war, they even worked against UN resolution on chemical weapons in 1984.

    Really? Name those weapons and the quantities in which they were supplied. Good luck with that, as you are wrong.

    2) Did you read Iraqi constitution?

    Yes, and I don’t see sharia in there, but I do see female legislators are mandated freedom of religion, neither of which is sharia compliant. I also hnotice a distinct lack of jizya.

    When did you last saw a picture of Iraqi woman not wearing hijab?

    Iraqi policewomen come immediately to mind.

    Remember, it was very different under Saddam.

    Yes, it was.

    Saddam didn’t have police that would make sure that all the women wear hijabs.

    Iraq doesn’t have them now.

    And women in Iraq are extremely unhappy with this. Just read any Iraqi woman’s blog.

    They’re pining for the rape rooms, no doubt. In the south, they really miss being denied water, huh?

    Well, sorry, but the war was won by Russians in a much larger degree than by Allies. About 80% of German losses were on the Eastern Front. You probably saved Europe from Communism in that war, but not from Fascism.

    And this is how you think we lost? Does Japan ring a bell, BTW? OK, you’re officially too ridiculous to waste further time on.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  71. Then you missed his laughing admission.

    TV-appearance is not an act of terror. Bin Laden was not on any of the planes on 9/11.

    Really? When was Maliki in Hezbollah?

    He was not in Hezbollah, he was in another organization responsible for terrorist acts such as bombing of American embassy in Kuwait. How many times need I repeat this? They, actually, pioneered Islamic suicide bombing in 1981 when they killed 36 people in Iraqi embassy in Beirut. Besides this, 1983 embassy bombing in Beirut is also widely believed to be Al-Dawa’s job. In 1984 Hezbollah hijacked a plane demanding release of 17 Kuwait Al-Dawa’s bombers. Three of the nine Hezbollah’s founders were members of Al-Dawa. (You can check this article). Basically, Hezbollah is Al-Dawa’s offspring. Al-Sadr the blessed martyr whose drop of blood was more worthy than Saddam ((c) Al-Maliki) is one of two main inspirations of Nasrallah.

    No, that’s real. But do you support everyone you shake hands with? If so, I’d like to meet you.

    Hahaha, he just dropped by to shake his hand. Again, Al-Maliki’s organization bombed American embassy in protest to US support for Saddam. They were probably just poor misguided souls that didn’t get all the niceties of the world politics, nevertheless, they did this. And yes, they try to downplay their past, but nevertheless, that’s their past.

    Really? Name those weapons and the quantities in which they were supplied. Good luck with that, as you are wrong.

    Of course, that was not an open operation, nevertheless, it’s well known and documented that US gave military support to Iraq. That’s all a long and boring story.

    Yes, and I don’t see sharia in there, but I do see female legislators are mandated freedom of religion, neither of which is sharia compliant. I also hnotice a distinct lack of jizya.

    This is called denial. Sharia means Islamic law. That’s just another translation. Iraqi Constitution declares that Sharia will be the source of all the legislations and no law shall be established if it contradicts Sharia. There is no definitive set of Sharia laws. And they don’t have jizya — great, and no special article “all the Jews should be destroyed” there, this is really a sign of progress. FYI, there’s no jizya in Iran as well.

    Article 89: […] Second: The Federal Supreme Court shall be made up of number of judges, and experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law experts

    Besides this, Article 39 is widely seen as establishing group rights and, for example, giving religious courts authority over divorce cases.

    Article 39:

    Iraqis are free in their commitment to their personal status according to their religions, sects, beliefs, or choices. This shall be regulated by law.

    And freedom of expression is provided only as long as it doesn’t violate public order and morality (defined by Sharia experts). (Art. 36)

    Iraqi policewomen come immediately to mind.

    Oh, those fabulous photo-ops!

    Iraq doesn’t have them now.

    Denial. This is just a random quote from blog:

    I cannot see freedom when think of how many times the ING and Iraqi Police insulted me and tried to attack me just because I risked going out without a veil.

    They’re pining for the rape rooms, no doubt.

    Oh, those rape rooms! The last myth standing. Nobody ever saw them, nobody proved they existed and made any difference, but nobody will ever prove they did not exist, so you can just repeat this phrase over and over.

    Denial is such a wonderful thing, really. And we discuss all those things in the context of Ministry of Interior calling for censorship and checking all the stories with them, when everybody in Iraq knows that Ministry of Interior itself is evil. (the family would pray thousand time just to escape the harm of these militiamen who are wearing the uniform of the Ministry of Interior and using its cars and picking up men as they like.)

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  72. Nikolay,

    Are you American?

    DRJ (0df497)

  73. They, actually, pioneered Islamic suicide bombing in 1981 when they killed 36 people in Iraqi embassy in Beirut.

    No, the Tamil Tigers pioneered suicide bombing. Again, I’m wasting my time with you, given your failure to grasp and/or disregard for the facts.

    But just what do you make of these two developments?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  74. No, the Tamil Tigers pioneered suicide bombing.

    Tamil Tigers are Hindu, though not religiously motivated, (some even atheists) so in no way could they pioneer Islamic suicide bombing.

    But just what do you make of these two developments?

    Cool, I wish they’d not let him stay that long. This proves, if true, my thesis that change in Iran could come from inside, but disproves another thesis that Bush cut those chances short. The irony of this, Iran seems to be one of the most culturally advanced countries in the region, probably even more than Israel (at least they kick Israel’s ass in mathematics), if they could throw mullahs away, they would be beacon of freedom, democracy etc. in the region. And Ahmadinejad (who turned his 60% approval rating into 60% disapproval in a year), as far as I know, didn’t run on “let’s have Armageddon” platform, he was merely a popular mayor. Quite a bit of wishful thinking of course, but don’t people have a right to believe in better things sometimes?

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  75. Nikolay,

    Are you American?

    No, I’m not. Does this bother you?

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  76. Tamil Tigers are Hindu, though not religiously motivated, (some even atheists) so in no way could they pioneer Islamic suicide bombing.

    You’ll be sure to let me know when you’re done moving the goalposts, won’t you?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  77. You’ll be sure to let me know when you’re done moving the goalposts, won’t you?

    Pablo, I don’t get it. You chose to end our discussion with incredibly lame and historically ignorant “You forgot Tamil Tigers”, not me. I explicitly said that Al-Dawa were pioneers of Islamic suicide bombing, so it’s really hard to understand what made you bring in Tamil Tigers — is it ignorance (you didn’t know they were Hindu?), or inability to read the words you respond to?
    Either way, you made a fool of yourself, congratulations. Not that you didn’t have some valid points. (It’s impossible to talk so much without making any valid points).

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  78. Arguing in the Alternative: What You Would Have To Believe To Believe The AP…

    Let’s say for a minute I’m wrong. It’s possible. In fact it happens a lot. So let’s say I’m wrong about the AP’s mysterious source, “Capt. Jamil Hussein”, and he really does exist and regularly talks to the AP. For……

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  79. […] Armed Liberal says he might have a positive ID — at the Yarmouk police station, no less, just like the AP said. Notably, he spells the first name “Jamail,” not “Jamil.” Could I have been right about a possible snafu with Arabic names? Could Patterico be right with his “third way” theory? Or could it be that the AP was right all along and we’re about to eat a huge shinola sandwich? […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Capt. Jamil Hussein located? (d4224a)

  80. […] UPDATE x2: Here’s what got me excited. When I spoke to him by phone, Marc told me that it looked like Jam(a)il Hussein was indeed at the Yarmouk station, but 1) wasn’t even a Captain; 2) was a Baathist holdover (much as Maj. Jeff Pool had predicted in my “third way” post); and 3) had a poor reputation for honesty. I’m not talking out of school here — Marc says this in today’s post: [A]fter some calls, IMs, and e-mail we get a call back by Sat night (California time)/Sunday morning (Baghdad time); there is no Capt. Jamil Hussein at Yarmouk, but there is a Sergeant by that name, with a somewhat dubious reputation (worked directly under Uday, Baathist remnant, etc.). […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Marc Danziger’s Jam(a)il Hussein Post is Up (421107)

  81. just test soft-a :))))

    Vaha (420f65)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3647 secs.