It hit the news in the US, brought up by the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml) and it was and eagerly reiterated in the US (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039898/posts).

The daily Telegraph found a document, a "handwritten meomorandum" linking Atta to Abu Nidal and Badgdad, thereby with Saddam. So, what's this with documents proving that Atta was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal (who's fortunately as dead as Atta so, just like Atta, can't give Testimony on this)? Some thoughts:
</font> First of all there is the bad record the Telegraph has, especially concerning bringing up forged documents as proof. It reminds me of the accusations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17210-2003Apr22.html) to Mr. Galloway (http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,941140,00.html) , a US-critical british journalist and now labour MP, to have collaborated with the iraqi secret intelligence. *Proof* for that, documents, was found by the daily telegraph (weekly version of the sunday telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com/opinion/main.jhtml?view=HOME&grid=P18&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=161988)) journalists snooping around in the looted iraqi offices. As Joacqin then said: A british journalist paid by Saddam to be anti-war ... a traitor. Pretty discusting - eventually that ended up as a classical smear campaign.

Suffice to say, the documents were forgeries (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html).
. There also was the other story of other 'documents' found "proving" another Iraq Al Quada connection (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.x ml) (as well as documents denouncing war opponents russia, france and germany). These documents, also, were considered not authentic by british intelligence (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0428-04.htm) as they told the Times.
. Then there is this article on MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3741646&p1=0) which makes the story I linked first, connecting Atta & Saddam & Abu Nidal, very much look like another canard, Telegraph style.
. It's about the paper itself The Daily Telegraph is run by Hollinger (http://www.hollinger.com/). One of Hollingers Boeard members is Richard Perle (http://www.hollinger.com/mgmt/mgmt.htm). According to it's website they are "making the news" and do "robust opinion writing" :shake: nicely said ...So what always wondered me about these Telegraph documents: How is the Telegraph is in a position to "find" (their verb of choice) all these juicy documents when no one else is turning any up?

Maybe it's just that Mr. Gilmore has a bad habit of falling for liars, but maybe it's rather because of Perle's good contacts to the Iraqi National Congress - in that case it is probably a program that this newspapers runs, dubbed "We don't care if it's true or not, it's enough that it is on the headlines for a week and people remember it." The lukewarm dementi on page C-4 six days later goes unnoticed anyway.

Spinmeisters at work.

[ December 19, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Hasn't the daily telegraph already been mentioned on this site, with the news that Germany and France have allied with Iraq and are attacking British troops, or something in this manner ? Or was it something about a reporter which stumbled over world-changing documents in the first week, which the CIA had clumsily overlooked ?

here (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000285#000001)

Yes exactly. That's in the links I included above, the link under point 2.

What is amazing, is how blunt these people work. But then - they can afford it, because it works - it took me some effort to find the stuff, some hour, not including the time I spend on this in may, an effort most people wouldn't make and I wouldn't even had started searching if I hadn't remembered the earlier story about Telegraph documents.

Lie, and let it disappear in the fog of war.

That's their receipe for success. The people will remember the headline, not the article below, much less the dementi - unless they're really interested. And people who are really interested certainly don't rely on the Telegraph to find out about Iraq.
So yes, it's spin and propaganda aimed on the average Joe, gold plated by the undeniable truths, like *real* football results, and real reporting all around the spin.

Ah ha! So Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11! I knew it all along!

*snicker*

I was not surprised at all.
Usama had the financial background, Saddam had he proper tools and power (e.g. instructors, place etc.)

and all America had to do was piss the world off by sticikng its nose into everyone elses business like some glorified police officer

@Commandante
"The sun never sets...".

Meanwhile, back on topic...

@Ragusa
Perhaps eagerly reiterated (you picked Free Republic, for crying out loud! :D ), but not really a big blip on the news.

Everyone has to remember that Saddam actively funded the terrorists in the West Bank.

He supported terrorism. Plain and simple.

He even practiced terrorism with his attack on the Kurds.

@Blackhawk, with this brought into light, wouldn't the US attacks on Ahganistan be considered terrorism?

@ Erebus

When has the United States specificially targetted Afgan civilians?

A great deal of civillians were killed, and civillian buildings were also destroyed. Not just through carelessness either, it was perfectly known which building was which, the government either didn't care who got in it's way, or wanted to frighten the country into submission.

Sounds like use of terror to me, if that's not terrorism, I don't know what is. Are you saying only poor rebels can be terrorists or only foreigners?

Blackhawk,
they sure did on that day when they blew up this wedding party, mistaking joyfiring for an attack. Or the day they killed with a missile form a Predator drone a tall afghan because Bin Laden is tall too.

Or how about people who were tipped to them as Al Quaeda members (or members of the iraqi resistance). How intense are the investigations wether that's true or not? Under Bush Jr's new directives about the war on terror there is now quite some leeway in deciding the death of 'terror suspects'.

Maybe that's an interesting read (http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo12202003.html), despite the clear slant. It's time for 'no more Mr. Nice Guy.' All those people shouting, 'Down with America!' and dancing in the street when Americans are attacked? We have to kill them.It indeed seems that in Iraq the US, with starting Iraqisation, have started something very similar to the Phoenix program that killed tens of thousands of innocents in Vietnam. "Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," said Jaburi, the US-imposed regional governor. "This is a fair warning."

So much for democracy -- but then the sort of democracy the Bu****e neocons have in mind does not include the right to demonstrate.

al Jaburi is a US backed regional sheikReminds me of the fairness Saddam displayed while in power: "Mess with me and you're dead." A clear message.

I've never met a person who had better reasons for all the damage he did.

Graham Green, The quiet American.That's IMO the most amazing and scary aspect of America: That Americans, led by their myth of innocence, their belief in their country being exceptional, think America can't do wrong - because their cause is just. Au contraire.

[ December 28, 2003, 10:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

In a way they were targetting only civilians.

they sure did on that day when they blew up this wedding party, mistaking joyfiring for an attack. Or the day they killed with a missile form a Predator drone a tall afghan because Bin Laden is tall too.As a policy, does the United States target civilians? No.

I know you're using some very dry humor: surely if a missile targets a civilian than the United States targets civilians. :) It makes perfect sense! :lol:

But seriously, the United States does not try to kill civilians. Terrorists do. This is the difference.

Right, I was joking to a point.

On the other hand it's a question of definition. When you decide that every Iraqi standing around when a US convoi passes is an insurgent you're not killing a civilian when you shoot him, technically speaking.

When you fire at a car full of Iraqis because they are just as afraid as you and don't slow down because they don't understand you yelling english you kill a bunch of suspect suicide bombers.

When you fire at Iraqi anti-US demonstrators they show by demonstrating that they are not with you but with the enemy, that is, with the insurgents.

After all, if an Iraqi sees his 'liberators' coming in sight and runs away he's likely to get shot for that. The report will probably say: "One suspect insurgent killed attempting to escape."

It all makes perfect sense. I fear you have quite a romantic view on the realities of the occupation. Guerrilla war brutalises BOTH sides. Period.
The US boys there are afraid, caught in an alien culture with people attacking them. As someone said about Vietnam: People who had just been attacked by dark skinned people wearing civilian clother have problems trusting dark skinned people wearing civillian clothes.

One way to deal with this is to twist the rules a little, as I did above.

[ December 28, 2003, 12:28: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

You see Blackhawk, there is no difference between an attack such as say, the WTC and the pentagon, and the attack upon Iraq, except for the magnitude and resources.

1. WTC attacked to make a political message (we don't like your commercial/political dominance, or the christian ideals)

Iraq attacked to make a political message (we don't like anyone else who might have weapons as big as us, you want to mess with us, "bring it on" and we'll kill you too)

2. 911 attack as a perceived vengeance.

Iraq attacked as perceived vengeance.

3. Some of those who may have been responcible or like-minded as those the vengeance was dealt upon killed, many innocent civilians who weren't were also killed, outnumbering those who were responcible (responcible in they eyes of the attackers).

Saddam and his regime, thousands of civilians, either unarmed or defending their country from an invading army. Which number of deaths is greater?

4. Death used to inspire fear in either those in same situation, or those who may have later became in the same situation ie, definition of terrorism.

Death used to inspire fear in Iraqi supporters of Saddam, other insurgents from neighbouring countries, and countries next in the firing line, like Iran and Libya.

5. Such an attack not condoned by world community, or even many of those within the country whose citizens or leaders were resoponcible, but they are powerless to stop them, or they may be killed themselves.

Such an attack not condoned by the world community, or even many of those within the country whose citizens or leaders were responcible, but they are powerless to stop them, or they may be arrested and imprisoned indefinately, charged with treachery or have a bogus lawsuit filed against them as they are in breach of trade sanctions, or go 'missing' or be assassinated.

6. Osama Bin Laden, and those others who may be responcible, have vast funds at their fingertips, mainly raised through commercial ventures and extortion of other people, citizens of Afghanistan or otherwise.

George W. Bush, and those others who may be responcible, have vast funds at their fingertips, mainly raised through commericial ventures and extortion of other people, citizens of Afghanistan or otherwise.

7. Osama Bin Laden the leader of ruling party, allthough the majority of people would disagree with his law, he ruled by immoral means.

George W. Bush the leader of ruling party, allthough the majority of voters in the election disagreed, he rules by immoral means.

8. Those who commit acts of terrorism believe their cause is just, and the enemy evil, or they do it for profit or power.

Those who launch wars of invasion belive their cause is just and their enemy evil, or they do it for profit or power.

.
.
.
.
.

Now, I have to ask you just what is the difference. Oh of course, they're wrong and you aren't. :rolleyes:

Maybe I should have been more serious in the 'Which terrorist state is next?' thread.

Damn....looks like y'all are going to make me post. I don't do it much, but when I see trash like this I just can't stand it.


@Rags
I'm not even going to bother with your earlier posts. Get some real reporting from a reputable source.


"On the other hand it's a question of definition. When you decide that every Iraqi standing around when a US convoy passes is an insurgent you're not killing a civilian when you shoot him, technically speaking"

When who decides? You? As far as I know it's not US policy that every Iraqi standing around is an insurgent.


"When you fire at a car full of Iraqis because they are just as afraid as you and don't slow down because they don't understand you yelling English you kill a bunch of suspect suicide bombers."

Right. It happens. However, not nearly as frequently as I would expect. And please give me some facts, if I'm wrong...but IIRC the majority of accidents like this occurred during the first months of the invasion. I can't remember even 1 in the past few months. Let me know if I'm wrong.

"When you fire at Iraqi anti-US demonstrators they show by demonstrating that they are not with you but with the enemy, that is, with the insurgents"

Again true. But once again I can only find a few of these incidents. And it was reported that Iraqis in the crowd fired first. What I have noticed, however, is a lack of Iraqi demonstrators being killed. What I have noticed is pictures and articles of demonstrators who are armed, and who haven't been fired on or even arrested.

I find it disturbing that some actually think that the US is indifferent, and indiscriminate, when it comes to "collateral" damage. In other words, the killing of civilians. Nothing could be further than the truth. Up to this point there has never been a military force that gave a damn one way or another about people dying in war. Period. IT'S WAR! People are supposed to die. The US, however, seems to be extremely sensitive about killing "innocents." There is no other country in this world that has shown a fraction of the effort that the US has in not killing civilians.

As a student of military history I am impressed with the LACK of problems that the US has encountered in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

@Manus

"You see Blackhawk, there is no difference between an attack such as say, the WTC and the pentagon, and the attack upon Iraq, except for the magnitude and resources"

I find it hard to believe that anyone would have such an absurd view.

"1. WTC attacked to make a political message (we don't like your commercial/political dominance, or the christian ideals)

Iraq attacked to make a political message (we don't like anyone else who might have weapons as big as us, you want to mess with us, "bring it on" and we'll kill you too)"

It can be argued that the US invaded Iraq for purely political reasons. Your presentation of this argument is woefully incorrect. There are many countries that HAVE (not might have) weapons as big as the US. If you can't understand why Iraq alone was attacked then you must have skipped the morning paper for about the last 14 years.

"2. 911 attack as a perceived vengeance.

Iraq attacked as perceived vengeance."

ummmmmm NO

"3. Some of those who may have been responcible or like-minded as those the vengeance was dealt upon killed, many innocent civilians who weren't were also killed, outnumbering those who were responcible (responcible in they eyes of the attackers).

Saddam and his regime, thousands of civilians, either unarmed or defending their country from an invading army. Which number of deaths is greater?"

Not really sure what this point is...sorry.

"4. Death used to inspire fear in either those in same situation, or those who may have later became in the same situation ie, definition of terrorism.

Death used to inspire fear in Iraqi supporters of Saddam, other insurgents from neighbouring countries, and countries next in the firing line, like Iran and Libya. "

Well,...I think I might, kinda-sorta, get what you are saying here. I'm sure that the supporters of the Iraqi regime WERE scared. They should have been. that was one of the points. It seemed to have worked. Especially in Libya, where the good Col. has decided to give up his WMD programs and embrace the international community. As far as fear in Iran goes, those poor people in Bam and Kerman certainly had lots of that this past week. I'm glad the US decided to fly in more than 200 personnel and over 150,000 pounds of medical supplies.

"5. Such an attack not condoned by world community, or even many of those within the country whose citizens or leaders were resoponcible, but they are powerless to stop them, or they may be killed themselves.

Such an attack not condoned by the world community, or even many of those within the country whose citizens or leaders were responcible, but they are powerless to stop them, or they may be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely, charged with treachery or have a bogus lawsuit filed against them as they are in breach of trade sanctions, or go 'missing' or be assassinated."

Are you really trying to compare the actions of a terrorist organization with the actions of a nation? Was there ANY country that didn't condemn the attacks on Sept. 11th? If there was one I would surely like to know about it.
Has there EVER been an action that was fully supported by the world community? The invasion of Iraq surely wasn't supported by the UN, but there were several major countries other than the US that did support it. Unless, of course, you want to argue that Spain, Italy, Great Britain, and Australia are not major countries...not to mention Poland (who really isn't a major power, but God damn it she should be)damn even Japan is sending military personel. What's really interesting is that out of all of the countries who were against the war in Iraq....none of them decided to step in and support Iraq. They really didn;t want us to do it, but they really didn't feel like actually supporting Saddam's Government.

"George W. Bush, and those others who may be responcible, have vast funds at their fingertips, mainly raised through commericial ventures and extortion of other people, citizens of Afghanistan or otherwise."

Hey. I really don't want to help you out here, but I think you may have wanted to type "Iraq" here instead of "Afghanistan" here. Sadly, there really isn't anything worth exploiting in Afghanistan.

And please, please try and remember that George Bush invaded neither Iraq or Afghanistan. The United States of America did, along with several other countries.

"7. Osama Bin Laden the leader of ruling party, although the majority of people would disagree with his law, he ruled by immoral means.

George W. Bush the leader of ruling party, although the majority of voters in the election disagreed, he rules by immoral means."

Osama is NOT the leader of a ruling party, he is the leader of a terrorist organization. He has NO laws.

George Bush is the leader of a Country, not a party. He rules by the law of the US constitution. And truth be told...I'll give 2 to one odds that he will win the next US presidential election if Dean is his opposition.

"Maybe I should have been more serious in the 'Which terrorist state is next?' thread."

Mayber history, political science, and English class as well?

Yeo its a shame when normal soldiers can't be distinguished from terrorists, and good old total war is a terrorist attack.

Llandon, your arguments don't make sense.

First you say that it wasn't intended as a political message, then a couple of paragraphs later you agree with my stance that it was used to not only frighten the Iraqi people, but other countries as well- which is what the political message was ie. ...you want to mess with us, "bring it on" and we'll kill you too...Then next you say it wasn't out of vengeance, when one of the reasons clearly trumpeted was that Saddam had links to Al-Quaida and terrorist networks, and it was stated at one point by Bush and his Administration that Saddam was partially responcible for 911.

And how can you miss what the point is when I say that in both cases more civillians were killed then people who could actually be considered even by the killers as responcible?

By the way, I'm from one of the "several major countries other than the US that did support it" and I can tell you with one-hundred percent certainty that the majority of people in my country at least, and more than probably the others as well, did not agree. This was actually a matter of great debate over here, many were calling for a vote of double dissolusion in the prime minister. That I think has only happened once here before, and in that case the public were not behind the move, here they were.

Also, I did mean Afghanistan (I was comparing Ossama and Bush remember) it was a toungue in cheek remark. If I wanted to stick with the pattern I would have said America, I'm sure the government extorts them just as badly. If you think there is nothing in Afghanistan then you are forgetting oil, drugs, and the weapon trade, all of which the CIA has a large investment in, along with many companies directed by government officials.

Lastly, whether you call it a terrorist organisation or not, Ossama was in charge, and ruled no less legally than did Bush's electoral fraud backed campaign.

By the way, don't call my academic achievements into question, I assure you they are very solid. Besides, you don't need to be educated to spot a lie, nor to follow simple logic.

I am not saying that Americans are terrorsits, only that no-one is more right than any other -the other side believes they are as justified as you may believe that you were- and as much as we may disagree with their actions, this does not mean we are prevented from disagreeing with the actions of the US. An attack on another country is just that, if you want to call one terrorism, remember to paint them all with the same brush; because, right or wrong, the same tactics have been used, for very similar motives.

Alright everybody, keep it to the merits of the arguments. No getting personal here.

@Manus

Do you really believe what you typed? Really?

[What did I just say?] - Beren

[ December 29, 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: Beren ]

Llandon,
maybe you should invest the time and read my previous post, as well as the other ones, and have a look at my "reputable sources" from time to time. I'm not very much mistaken I didn't quote any soure in my *last* post - the one you bothered to read, so what are you complaining about? When writing down my thoughts I don't see a real point in finding a "reputable source".

My point, about the question of definition, is that that way propaganda is made. Bye re-defining killed civilians, even if killed (worst case) wantonly, into suspect insurgents you cover the reality of what you do there. That happened in Vietnam when GIs killed civilians, they were considered 'suspect VC' and added to the platoons bodycount - and from maybe even a crime it became a military success through the chain of reports.

And the reality of an occupation is a harsh one, and Iraq is no exception. The US are, perhaps necessarily, killing civilians in Iraq. But the US aurthorities aren't reporting honestly, they avoid direct lies ... by redefining, as I demonstrated above.

Killed civillians are the sort of bad news that isn't being reported but hidden under secrecy: in Iraq the US are seizing morgues and hospitals after shootouts, the CPA is advised to no longer count civilian deaths and so on.
The reason not to report it is, to put it as blunt as possible, that that sort of news would undermine domestic support for the US ops in Iraq. And that's exactly what I find questionable - because it leads to a romantisation of the occupation in the US.

As you study military history, study: Have a look at the geneva conventions concerning the treatment of civilians in war to see what I have in mind. And get yourself a copy of the movie "The battle of Algiers" asap.

Holy cow... where to start?

That's IMO the most amazing and scary aspect of America: That Americans, led by their myth of innocence, their belief in their country being exceptional, think America can't do wrong - because their cause is just. Au contraire.Ok, Ragusa, you know normally I don't take issue with your skepticism of the U.S., however... next time do you think you could make a LARGER blanket statement? Actually, no I don't believe you could, well maybe if you said how the whole world feels.

Tell me, when exactly did all the "Americans" meet with you and tell you they all think, "their cause is just."

If you expect anybody (non-biased) from taking you seriously, then be non-partial about it. If you only care to cater to those that already agree with you, what's the point of posting at all?

@Erebus, yes in a way they were targeting only civilians - also, in a way, they were only targeting your underwear drawer.

@Manus... your posts are so damn long, it makes responding to them... exhausting...

Ok here I go: I don't completely disagree with your bullet-point-list-o-comparisons... but mostly disagree.

I think the problem is, you simplify things to a point where its convenient to see a parallel, where it doesn't really exist, ie. in a terrorist attack civilians die, in an country wide invasion civilians die, so they equal the same thing. Well not really. I'd say the problem falls in where the motive lives, while yes Bin-Laden wanted to make a "political statement" or revenge, or whatever, I'm not sure the invasion of Iraq is so clear cut.

Let me explain: It was retribution for 911... No it was to capture the oil fields... No it was over a decade of gross disregard for international law... No it was to put a fat retirement check in Dick Cheney's pocket... No it was to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a dictator... No it was get the Afghanis out of Erebus's underwear drawer...

In short (too late!!), how the hell can you or anyone else really pin down why Iraq got invaded? It certainly wasn't as clear cut as a terrorist attack (not that it makes it better, but I honestly can't say I believe that slaying civillians was *really* the goal.) So without going over the list point by point that's where I stand on it, you conveniently simplified every point to a parallel.

With the exception of #8, which I agree with 100%.

@Rastor: A law is only as valid as the ability to enforce it. Osamas "law" is as concrete as anything in the US or international law, as long as he can enforce it...

Ragusa said:

After all, if an Iraqi sees his 'liberators' coming in sight and runs away he's likely to get shot for that. The report will probably say: "One suspect insurgent killed attempting to escape."The United States has a free media - the government does not own the news outlets (it cannot under the Constitution)

Manus said:

1. WTC attacked to make a political message (we don't like your commercial/political dominance, or the christian ideals)Actually, the attack on the WTC was supposed to both cripple the U.S. economy and scare the United States back into its borders. The desire was to kill as many civilians as possible. These are the exact points that Ayman al-Zawahiri made in interviews conducted before the attack.

Manus said:

2. 911 attack as a perceived vengeance. Iraq attacked as perceived vengeance.If you understand the Middle East - both how they view themselves in the world, in the past and the implications of the tribal systems, then you will realize that this is not the case. We can go into depth on another thread.

Manus said:

3. Some of those who may have been responcible or like-minded as those the vengeance was dealt upon killed, many innocent civilians who weren't were also killed, That's a good point. However, if you do not stand up against terrorism or tyranny, they prosper. The body count in the long run is far larger. That's the big picture. In the United States, we have a saying that was used during many times throughout our history:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Manus said:

4. Death used to inspire fear in Iraqi supporters of Saddam, other insurgents from neighbouring countries, and countries next in the firing line, like Iran and Libya.Exactly. This is how a tyranny operates and is the governing principle in Saudi Arabia, Iraq (at least it was) and many other states around the globe.

Manus said:

5. Such an attack not condoned by world community ...The world community did not condone the removal of Hitler (at first). The U.N. has become the League of Nations. In the rest of this item, which nation(s) are you referring to?

Manus said:

6. ... George W. Bush, and those others who may be responcible, have vast funds at their fingertips, mainly raised through commericial ventures and extortion of other people, citizens of Afghanistan or otherwise.Bin Laden rose to prominace in Afganistan because of the wealth he had due to his father's construction company and the Saudi Government (which contracted this family for most ventures).

You are comparing G.W. Bush and bin Laden? Interesting...

Manus said:

George W. Bush the leader of ruling party, allthough the majority of voters in the election disagreed, he rules by immoral means.There is quite a difference between a President elected in a razor-close election and a tyrants friend?

If case you do not know, the United States is exactly as its name implies - a union of 50 different states. The states have powers the Federal Government does not have. In Federal Elections, it is the states that elect the President. Even though Gore (the candidate I was supporting) had a slim majority of the popular vote, he did not win the Electorial College. It might sound complicated, but the United States is a union of states, not provinces.

[ December 31, 2003, 03:17: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

Blackhawk,
The United States has a free media - the government does not own the news outlets (it cannot under the Constitution)You miss my point, what would you do if you were a sergeant? What would you report if one of your men killed a civvie?
The choice is (a) accusing him of war crimes (and being accused for neglecting leadership and discipline in command, court martialled, degraded and sent to the slammer) or (b) improving your units loss-to-kill ratio.
In Vietnam the chouce was usually (b) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/national/28TIGE.html?ei=1&en=dd1dc4449b81f8fa&ex=1073577794&pagewanted=print&position=). Iraq, and that's perhaps the only thing it has in common with Iraq, also is a borderless conflict where the lines between enemy and civilian population blur.

I don't expect human nature to have changed fundamentally over the last 50 years. And I don't expect the nature of guerrilla war to have changed fundamentally.
My point was not at all about the media. It's just a caveat for reading official releases that went through maybe 5 levels of reporting in the military.