Capt. Jamil Hussein Gets Around - UPDATED

“who the hell Jamil Hussein”

Probably a cousin of Hizbollah superhero Green Helmet.

At what point does one come to the conclusion the western msm media is not just biased and incompetent but is actively working with the enemy? If this is the case should there not be consequences?

Manipulating the media has been going on since the the invention of the first printing press over 800 years ago.

From 'stringers' to politicians, everybody does it. Even PMSH's childish stonewalling of the MSM is a form of manipulation...albeit mostly ineffective.

Jamil is probably baiting western media but the truth remains that Bush has lost Iraq and violence there is more widespread than in Saddam's day.

Kate, your post is good detective work but in the grand scheme of things it's just sour grapes over a lost cause.

How can asking the media to wait for announcments be construed as manipulating the media?mr.brown must get his information via that ding bat German woman in another sda post.

Capt. Jamil Hussein covering the Iraqi terrorists.
About the same as CP's Jennifer Ditchburn being quoted as gospel by Canadian MSM.

Your position is valid, David - so long as you have personally verified your statement that "violence there is more widespread than in Saddam's day".

You can't have it both ways. Either you demand the press be accountable for their errors in both reporting and judgement - or you must refrain from forming opinions based on _anything and everything_ they report on.

If the research on this story is true, it indicates that media outlets who reported the "burning deaths of 6 Sunnis" are holding themselves to a lower professional standard for Iraq reporting than they would for a story on Britney Spears' divorce proceedings.

David Brown wrote:

"Jamil is probably baiting western media but the truth remains that Bush has lost Iraq and violence there is more widespread than in Saddam's day."

So... David: you have been there to verify this, or might you be relying on the TV and print media for the actual *country-wide* amount of violence that is occuring. Verification please.

Also, could you please show verified comparisons between the *actual* number of citizens of Iraq dying today, versus the number (country-wide) dying during "Saddam's day".

Bush has lost Iraq and violence there is more widespread than in Saddam's day.

Correction, David Brown, if Iraq is "lost", the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia lost it for themselves at this point. They have a big share of responsibility too. If after liberation from Saddam and a free election, they can't get past tribalism, the lessons of their own history, adhere to a representative government and sacrific for a better future for their children, then, there isn't much more the US can do for them. The Kurds are doing fine having understood this.

By the way, Mr. Brown:

Is it safe to assume that you are intelligent enough to decide that, if you were to be a citizen of Iraq:

#1: You would have preferred to be a Sunni in *Saddam's day*.

#2: Today you would prefer to be a Kurd.

I guess it's just a matter of whose ox is getting gored, or whose relatives are in the mass graves, or just how *visible* all that was to the media in the past, for an actual comparison of past and present violence to exist. Or is it that the definition of violence is dependent upon it's visibility to the media?

I have to admit that I did go out on a limb with the violence comparison. However, an accurate quantifying of a violence comparison is impossible as everyone from the MSM to ground troops has a different frame of reference. People will report as THEY see it not necessarily as it is.

The Iraq war has gone on longer than WW2 and with no end in sight. That alone speaks volumes. I know there have been faint glimmers of hope but there have also been MAJOR losses.

Since Bush screwed up so badly and the Dems got in, all hope is compromised and victory is faint. Even H. would not have acted unilaterally and that is W's colossal mistake!

Jamil is just a minor nuisance...a festering pustule of a boil on the butt of the war effort, something easily countered with some positive home-grown spin doctoring.

Some folks, for reasons known only to themselves, really want any Western efforts to fail and for chaos to rule. Hmmm? Just occurred to me that this is the position of the Islamist terror brigade. Hmmmm?

Oops! Forgot why I was going to leave a comment in the first place. It was to say thanks to Andycanuck and of course to Kate for putting it where I could read it. Being a News junkie, it's really nice to read news with as little spin as possible.

Pat

I'd like to make two points:

David Brown: Your reference to WWII makes as much sense as me saying "The war in Iraq has been going on for far less time than the Korean action which started around 1950".

Kate: For shame. Remember what you told us to do when the trolls appear?

I watched a TV documentary last night on hollywood and the war by Ollie North. This was the second world war btw, and it is interesting to compare then and now. Many movie stars gave up the big pay cheques and enlisted while those who couldn't made pro-allied movies or raised money for the cause. How many of today's hollywood heros' have enlisted or done anything to support their country in time of war?

Attidudes have certainly changed and a lot of that can be traced back to the MSM who seem to pick up and run with any bit of (unconfirmed) information that can discredit America, the west and anyone who is involved in the leadership in this was on terror. Any good news from Iraq or afghanistan are on page b17 if reported at all while something reported to have been said by this (fictional?) character cpl hussien, is passed on as gospel. the basic problem is that most of the great unwashed masses still believe that they are being given the real thing, not some agenda driven drivel.

Think I'm full of it? Just check out the last reporting of a pro-war verses an anti-war protest or event.

no, david, I don't think that you can claim ignorance (ie. 'they' aren't providing accurate data0 as an excuse for your attempt to compare post-war and pre-war Iraq. It's an invalid analogy.

The Iraq War was over in a few months - March to May, if I recall. Therefore, your attempt to compare it with WWII which lasted for six years, is false.

What is going on now, is an internal battle, between tribes. This is not a war between the US and Iraq; it's internal.
Iraqi tribes were, during Hussein's era, kept repressed by the sheer violence of his regime. A murderous regime with hundreds of thousands of death attributed to his tribal rule.

Now, these tribes are fighting not only for power but because they have never, ever, been permitted a democratic system. They operated and now operate within the closed kinship filiations and hatred of other tribes - a system foreign to a civic system which rejects tribalism. This has to be dealt with by the Iraqi people themselves.

And, the tribal fighting is assisted by foreign nations such as Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, who do not want to see a democratic state in their midst. These regimes are also tribal and wish to remain as such.

So- your attempt to link the US and Bush directly to this tribalism is absolutely false. You cannot move a tribal regime - that has been tribal and only tribal for centuries - and that has been a military tribal dictatorship - immediately into a dictatorship. Do you expect the tribes to disappear in a flash? Do you expect the myths, the kinship bonds, the long histories of filiate links to vanish overnight?

We in the West moved out of such family/kin bonds over 600 years ago; we moved into a civic nationalism. You are ignoring this and expecting the Iraqi to also ignore it. You are wrong.

Bush has done the right thing; he has started the movement to democracy in the ME. They couldn't do it themselves. And they had, population wise, grown too large for tribalism; that is the root cause of Islamic fascism. It will take time, but, the ME will move into democracy and out of fascism. Thanks to Bush.

And to think that we fund these 5th Column A-Holes makes me ill. Only the CBC would describe the sadness that soldiers feel over the loss of their own as "having affected morale".

"CBC's Darrow MacIntyre said the attacks seem to have affected the morale of Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan.

"There was a real glum mood over the Canadian portion of the airfield today," MacIntyre said."
H/T Jack's Newswatch

David Brown wrote:

"The Iraq war has gone on longer than WW2 and with no end in sight. That alone speaks volumes. I know there have been faint glimmers of hope but there have also been MAJOR losses."

Nothing like a little rewrite of history; correct"?

First: please define *MAJOR*. Since you made *losses* plural, please give several examples of MAJOR losses in Iraq.

Second: Since you compared the Iraq War to WW2, please put some of those MAJOR losses in Iraq into perspective to MAJOR losses in WW2.

My guess is that you were not alive during WW2.

Now, what might you think would be one major difference between the way the war was waged during WW2 and presently the Iraq war?

(Hint: it has to do with protection of population centers and civilians.)

I would also be most interested in where YOU might most like to fight terrorist's car bombs. Bagdad, downtown Toronto, or the Mall of America?

The Iraq war has gone on longer than WW2 and with no end in sight

The Iraq War ended in a matter of weeks. The Iraqi military was defeated. Gone. The Iraq Occupation has been ongoing since. Big difference. If you want to compare post-WWII occupations, we occupied Japan for 7 years, Germany for 11 years.

Trust me, they were less complicated occupations and nation re-building than our situation in Iraq.

Now, if you can't grasp that the insurgents in Iraq are for the most part outsiders, proxies for Syria, Iran, their terrorist sponsored foot soldiers, then, your lack of attention to the news of the past year is appalling.

Yoop and others,

Make no mistake, I support all our troops in Iraq and understand that the war on terror that is being fought in the ME keeps the conflict off of our soil.

But don't ignore reality...

The death toll in WW2 was 50 million. However, geographically size wise considering all the countries involved it was about 1,000 times greater than the Iraq war. By doing the math a comprable death toll would be about 50,000. Oddly enough at http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the death count is approx. 50,000 civilian plus 2,000 American soldiers. When you factor in all allie deaths plus 100,000 injured this war is out of control. All this in an area less than the size of Saskatchewan.

If anyone thinks Iraq is going better than WW2 then please give your head a shake. Bush has screwed up badly and no amount of rah rah conservative rhetoric can change the facts.

penny,

What's appalling is your lack of understanding of what constitutes an occupation.

If you really think the war has been won and U.S. troops are hanging around for stability and rebuilding then you're letting us know way too much about your grasp of reality.

penny - Iraq is not occupied by any country at the moment. That includes the USA. It is a sovereign country, with its own constitution and its own elected gov't.

david brown- yes, the US military is there to assist and train the Iraqi in developing stability and rebuilding. There is no other reason - and you haven't provided one. I have a good grasp of reality.

Iraq is going through an internal tribal in-fighting, enabled and assisted by massive financial and manpower from external states such as Iran, Syria, SA, etc.

David brown - your attempt to compare the Iraq situation with WWII is invalid. You are now trying to set up an invalid comparison based on geographic proportionality - ie - that the second world war was spread out over the world (Europe and Asia) and therefore, proportionally, its population loss was not as great as that in Iraq, a smaller geographic area.

The analogy is invalid. It might be valid if you were comparing the spread of a biological fungus or disease, and the severity of this is indeed related to geographic coverage - but - analyzing a war, trying to correlate casualties to geographic spread doesn't make any sense.

For example, the number of military deaths in WWII from the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc -would be many many times that of the current Iraqi situation - but - no military activities took place in these countries. Therefore, your attempt to correlate geographic coverage with deaths, is invalid.

Isn't Capt. Jamil Hussein the same guy who claimed that Kuwaiti babies were being killed in their incubators by Iraqi soldiers just before Gulf War 1? Or is that the Capt. Jamil Hussein who provided the proof of WMD's in Iraq and the undisputable links between Sadaam and Osama just before Gulf War 2?

DBrown world view - everything is about Bush!

All those in non-agreement are neo-cons ( DBrown lexicon defines neo-con as supporter evil jack booted oppressor ) .... Ya! Whatever........
Iberia - points out that the very same MSM tools have been promoting Bullshit as News at least as far back as 1989. Gee! Ya Think!

ET - I'm not sure your are wrong and I'm not sure that I'm not right in saying we are still in occupation mode there. Maybe it's an issue of semantics. I'll split the difference and say we are an "invited" and "assisting" police force at the behest of the Iraqi govenment at this point, but, all bets are off if tomorrow the Iraqis tell us to go home and overwhelming evidence supports that the country would collapse immediately on our departure.

David, using my "like trying to nail jello to a tree" troll test, you've passed in my universe. Your ever shifting memes, ranging from the Iraqi war lost, then, straight to Iraqi civilian casualties when that failed for you, is a troll trap that I know better to avoid, but, got complacent today.

Score one for you, zero for me today.

But, I will do better in ignoring you in the future. I apologize to others for feeding you.

David: While using facts and statistics are usually good companions to an opinion, this is really only effective if said facts are correct. For example, the printing press was not invented 800 years ago and the death toll for WW2 was not 50 million (its close to the number of allied deaths though).

While your conclusions may or may not have some merit, your quoting of incorrect facts belittles your argument. Personally, I typically write off such opinions because people who are apt to quote incorrect facts tend not to come to correct conclusions.

Penny, i recommend the "squint and scroll" technique. It works wonders in avoiding the pointless, speckled brown troll.

"we occupied Japan for 7 years, Germany for 11 years."

exactly penny.

and furthermore mr brown, when the occupation part ended in germany, the troops were stayed on as a show of force and support during the protracted cold war.

so what say ye?

ET: regarding occupation: yes/no" the manner in which the troops participate in the daily routines in certain areas is close enough to that we would see in an occupation. you're splitting hairs.

There's another comparison to WW2 that is apt when discussing Iraq's attempts to secure their new nation - that is the low level of civilian casualties suffered during the active battle phase.

Had coalition forces pummeled Baghdad in the manner they did Dresden or Berlin, I suspect there wouldn't have been much energy left in the survivors to mount much of an insurgency.

Excellent point, Kate, our obsession with humanitarian surgical precision to spare casualties and minimal destruction has been a detriment to us in the long run. It's cost us lives in Iraq. You get no bonus points from Arabs for being nice.

When you think about it, the Allies leveled the Germans and Japanese to the point that total unconditional surrender was their only option. It was necessary psychologically in order to enforce their rehabilitation and rebuild them as democratic societies. Fascists are never clients to social services.

We are never going to win against these depraved Islamofascist monsters by being nice or measured good guys in our responses. The next 9/11 on this soil, and it's coming, they are working on it while we sleep, we need to identify them and their client state/patrons and do a Normandy invasion straight to their dinner tables.

sarge would like to point out that at the end of the american civil war that old southern folks got all smushed up and regurgitated by sherman and all of them boys-think living in chatanooga during the river campaign was fun? good lord, sarge wish it really woulda showed 'em, cowed those rebel traitors. we occupied them selfish mutineers for a number of years, somewhat brutaly at times. red southern bastids never have forgo tthe sting of that defeat and occupation, and they mount an insurgency to this very day...one lead by the very philisophical decendents of old jeff davis, the kind a boys who would invade nicaragua to make themselves a extra slave state, tip the balance in congress... iraq or fort sumter...all the same in the end.history repeats, never the same exactly but that flavour is always there. at the end of the tunnel, another bunker. ya gona follow right on down, take that cyanide capsul right along with 'em?

sarge here, damn penny you are right. sarge thinks that 12th century killa, Pope Innocent III, said it best when he said "kill them all, god will know his own" so sarge says yeah dont stop wit hthe parents niether kill the children too so they dont grow up bitter and vengeful napalm the cities poison the sheep use the buildings for rubble to pave theat hwy to to jerusalem...ya knopw the one that starts in Iraq

sarge, your redneck shtick you've done before. There are no second acts for the mediocre. Failed comedy is no substitute for failed logic and facts, but, bless your heart, you tried.

Somewhere in your shtick was a point. I keep re-reading and re-reading to find it, perhaps, maybe doing something funnier like a knock off of Pee Wee Herman or the Godfather you could bridge that gap.

And, the "cyanide capsule", please, so over reaching, the pure hyperbole of it at a C- grade. If you are going to be cool and witty to advance your point, never ever use common stereotypes. Be more attentive to your spelling. It detracts. Read more Mark Steyn for style pointers. Read a little American history, context and the historic issues count.

And, "sarge" as a moniker, not particularly imaginative, but, passable.

bollocks,

Berlin and Bahgdad, apples and oranges, there are so many differences and virtually no similarities.

Kate,

There were few civilian casualties during the battle of Berlin because every Berliner man, woman and child was conscripted into the German army. Hence all casualties were military!

David Brown wrote:
"There were few civilian casualties during the battle of Berlin because every Berliner man, woman and child was conscripted into the German army. Hence all casualties were military!"

Why must the liberal mind, when backed into a corner by FACTS, respond with inanities. Hitler may have *tried* conscription, but lacked the control and materials to turn the conscripts into a *military*. You are reduced to playing word games to rescue you original premise. Sad.

Keep trying. But, try as you might, you will be unable to rewrite the history of WW II. There is just too much documentation.

You have also neglected the results of the British bombing of Berlin at an earlier date.

Here is the timeline and the numbers for the Battle of Berlin.

"The Red Army (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army) began its final assault on Berlin on April 16. By April 24, three Soviet army groups completed the encirclement of the city. As a final resistance effort, Hitler called for civilians, including teenagers and the elderly, to fight in the Volkssturm militia against the oncoming Red Army. Those marginal forces were augmented by the battered German remnants that had fought the Soviets in Seelow Heights. The urban fighting was heavy, with house-to-house and hand-to-hand combat. The Soviets sustained 305,000 dead; the Germans sustained as many as 325,000, including civilians. Hitler and his staff moved into the Führerbunker, a concrete bunker beneath the Chancellery, where on April 30, 1945, he committed suicide, along with his bride, Eva Braun."

sarge bets miss penny dont even get the nicaragua thing, nor the real struggle that brought the american civil war-slaves only a reflection of unwarrented and undeserved power from an insane minority that still exists in america today, the berserk miss penny carrying water for them ...no mary chestnut is she...and girl ya dont know no real american history niether or miss penny would see herself for the traitor scum that she is

sarge here...this artickle must be about miss penny...http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story

Shows why you cant trust these lying liberal left-wing news media i mean falf their stories are lies