Guess Who's Writing for Al Jazeera?

[Annie]

While you may not guess, you won't be surprised.

 

[Annie]

While you may not guess, you won't be surprised.

Ok, here is the column, you won't be disappointed if you already think him the idiot, which he is. Note no sources, nada. It's all Scott's opinion, touted as Middle East News...:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ADCA48CC-9307-466B-BA18-82724CAA7484.htm

The Salvador option
by Scott Ritter
Thursday 20 January 2005 12:47 PM GMT

By any standard, the ongoing American occupation of Iraq is a disaster.

The highly vaunted US military machine, laurelled and praised for its historic march on Baghdad in March and April of 2003, today finds itself a broken force, on the defensive in a land that it may occupy in part, but does not control.

The all-out offensive to break the back of the resistance in Falluja has failed, leaving a city destroyed by American firepower, and still very much in the grips of the anti-American fighters.

The same is true of Mosul, Samarra, or any other location where the US military has undertaken "decisive" action against the fighters, only to find that, within days, the fighting has returned, stronger than ever.

And yet, it now appears as if the United States, in an effort to take the offensive against the fighters in Iraq, is prepared to compound its past mistakes in Iraq by embarking on a new course of action derived from some of the darkest, and most embarrassing moments of America's modern history.

According to press accounts, the Pentagon is considering the organisation, training and equipping of so-called death squads, teams of Iraqi assassins who would be used to infiltrate and eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi resistance.

Called the Salvador Option, in reference to similar US-backed death squads that terrorised the population of El Salvador during the 1980s, the proposed plan actually has as its roots the Phoenix assassination programme undertaken during the Vietnam war, where American-led assassins killed thousands of known or suspected Vietcong collaborators.

Perhaps it is a sign of the desperation felt inside the Pentagon, or an underscoring of the ideological perversity of those in charge, that the US military would draw upon the failed programmes of the past to resolve an insoluble problem of today.

The Salvador Option would not be the first embrace of assassination as a tool of occupation undertaken by the United States in Iraq.

In the months following Paul Bremer's taking over of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in June 2003, the streets of Baghdad crawled with scores of assassination squads.

Among the more effective and brutal of these units were those drawn from the Badr Brigade, the armed militia of the Shia political party known as the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI.

Although not publicly acknowledged, the role played by the various anti-Saddam militias in confronting the residual elements of Saddam's former ruling Baath Party offered a glimpse into what was, and is, an unspoken element of the US policy regarding de-Baathification - let the Iraqis do the dirty work.

SCIRI's efforts to exterminate Baath Party remnants still loyal to Saddam Hussein, or who stand accused of committing crimes against SCIRI or its sympathisers, attracted the attention of the "black" side of the CPA-run de-Baathification efforts – covert operations run by the CIA and elite Special Operations units of the United States military.

Of all the various players in this deadly game, the Badr militia stood out as the most willing and able to take the fight to the Baathist holdouts.

Tipped off by the CPA's covert operatives, the Badr assassination squads killed dozens of Baathists in and around Baghdad.

But the assassination of former Baathists did nothing to pacify Iraq.

The ongoing resistance to the American occupation of Iraq was not founded in the formal structure of the Baath Party, but rather the complex mixture of tribal and religious motivations which had, since 1995, been blended into the secretive cell structure of the Baath Party.

While the Americans and their SCIRI allies focused on bringing to heel former Baathists, the resistance morphed into a genuine grassroots national liberation movement where strategic planning may very well be the product of former Baathists, but the day-to-day tactical decisions are more likely to be made by tribal shaikhs and local clerics.

The increasing success of the resistance was attributed in part to the failure of the CPA-ordered de-Baathification policy.

History, on the other hand, treats harshly the occupying power which resorts to the use of the tools of terror to subdue an occupied people.

In an effort to reverse this trend, Bremer rescinded his de-Baathification programme, and ordered the Badr assassination squads to stand down.

This change of policy direction could not change the reality on the ground in Iraq, however.

The Sunni-based resistance, having been targeted by the Badr assassins, struck back with a vengeance.

In a campaign of targeted assassinations using car bombs and ambushes, the resistance has engaged in its own campaign of terror against the Shia, viewed by the Sunni fighters as being little more than collaborators of the American occupation.

Having started the game of politically motivated assassination, the US has once again found itself trumped by forces inside Iraq it does not understand, and as such will never be able to defeat.

The Salvador Option fails on a number of levels. First and foremost is the moral and ethical one.

While it is difficult at times to understand and comprehend, let alone justify, the tactics used by the Iraqi resistance, history has shown that the tools of remote ambush, instead of a direct assassination, have always been used by freedom fighters when confronting an illegitimate foreign occupier who possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority.

As such, history celebrates the resistance of the French and the Russians when occupied by the Germans during the second world war, the Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation during that same time, or even the decades-long national liberation movement in Vietnam which defeated not only the French and the Americans, but also the illegitimate government these two occupiers attempted to impose on the people of South Vietnam.

History, on the other hand, treats harshly the occupying power which resorts to the use of the tools of terror to subdue an occupied people.

Thus, while it is fine for a French resistance fighter to blow up a German troop train, it is not acceptable for the Germans to burn a French village in retaliation.

The US military has undertaken “decisive” action against the fighters, only to find that, within days, the fighting has returned, stronger than ever.

History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government.

And history will condemn the immorality of the American occupation, which has debased the values and ideals of the American people by legitimising torture, rape and murder as a means of furthering an illegal war of aggression.

Ethics aside, the Salvador Option will fail simply because it cannot succeed. In an effort to confront a Sunni-based resistance, the Pentagon proposes that special assassination squads be recruited from the ranks of "loyal" Kurds and Shia.

In the 30 years of Saddam's rule, the Baathist government and its security organs were very successful in infiltrating the ranks of Kurdish and Shia opposition movements.

The Shia and Kurds, on the other hand, have no history of being able to do the same to the Sunni. If anything has emerged as the undisputable truth in post-invasion Iraq, it is that the Iraqi resistance knows Iraq infinitely better than the American occupiers.

If implemented, the Salvador Option will serve as the impetus for all-out civil war. In the same manner that the CPA-backed assassination of Baathists prompted the restructuring and strengthening of the Sunni-led resistance, any effort by US-backed Kurdish and Shia assassination teams to target Sunni resistance leaders will remove all impediments for a general outbreak of ethnic and religious warfare in Iraq.

It is hard as an American to support the failure of American military operations in Iraq. Such failure will bring with it the death and wounding of many American service members, and many more Iraqis.

As an American, I have hoped that there was a way for America to emerge victorious in Iraq, with our national security and honour intact, and Iraq itself a better nation than the one we "liberated". But it is far too late for this to happen.

The Salvador Option would not be the first embrace of assassination as a tool of occupation undertaken by the United States in Iraq.

We not only invaded Iraq on false pretences, but we perverted the notion of liberation by removing Saddam and his cronies from his palaces, replacing them with American occupiers who have not only kept open Saddam's most notorious prisons, but also the practice of torture, rape and abuse we were supposed to be bringing to an end.

Faced with our inability to come to grips with a popular-based resistance that has grown exponentially over the past year, the best the American policy planners can come up with is to embrace our own form of terrorism, supporting death squads we cannot control and which will only further debase the moral foundation of our nation while slaughtering even more Iraqis.

As an American, I hope and pray that common sense and basic morality prevail in Washington DC, terminating the Salvador Option before it gets off the ground. Failing that, I hope that the programme of US-backed death squads is defeated. That is the most pro-American sentiment I can muster, given the situation as it currently stands.

Scott Ritter was a senior UN arms inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. He is now an independent consultant.

 

[theim]

While it is difficult at times to understand and comprehend, let alone justify, the tactics used by the Iraqi resistance, history has shown that the tools of remote ambush, instead of a direct assassination, have always been used by freedom fighters when confronting an illegitimate foreign occupier who possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority.

As such, history celebrates the resistance of the French and the Russians when occupied by the Germans during the second world war, the Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation during that same time, or even the decades-long national liberation movement in Vietnam which defeated not only the French and the Americans, but also the illegitimate government these two occupiers attempted to impose on the people of South Vietnam.

History, on the other hand, treats harshly the occupying power which resorts to the use of the tools of terror to subdue an occupied people.

Thus, while it is fine for a French resistance fighter to blow up a German troop train, it is not acceptable for the Germans to burn a French village in retaliation.

Al Jazeera's perfect for him. Maybe he, MM, Ward Churchill, and Noam Chomsky can form some kind of conglomerate or somethin'.

This snip is moral relativism at its best. Never mind that the French were "fighting" for a free democracy and the "insurgents" are ADMITTEDLY fighting for Islamic Dictatorship. What the fuck?

 

[nosarcasm]

what a traitor.

 

[gaffer]

Here's another one I have to outlive just so I can piss on his grave.

 

[freeandfun1]

I thought it was going to be Peter Arnett..... where is he these days?

 

[Annie]

Pic and links at site: http://www.hogonice.com/archives/003411.html

Today's Hate Essay: Scott Ritter Turns Tricks for Bloody Dinars
The REAL Whore of Babylon Squeaks Anew

Looks like Scott Ritter has stopped playing with himself in Burger King bathrooms long enough to get back to insulting the United States for Muslim money.

I thought we were rid of this puddle of mucus after he narrowly escaped prosecution for showing up at a fast-food restaurant to meet what he thought was a horny little girl. Remember that? Scotty got on the web and had steamy chats with a person who claimed to be an underage girl, but it turned out that while he was typing with one hand and using the other to elevate his Scud into firing position, he was getting replies from a MAN. An undercover cop, who probably had to be put on leave because uncontrollable laughing made him wet his pants on duty.

Scotty made a date with this guy, apparently intending to meet him at Burger King and gratify himself in the men’s can while "she" posed in "her" Brownie uniform. But when Mr. Short Eyes for Underage Thighs showed up, a bunch of hairy men slapped the cuffs on him and gave him a nice ride to the police station. Here's his mug shot.



"I didn't order handcuffs with this!"

The law says people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Well, you can presume a frog is a hot biscuit, but that doesn’t make it so, does it, Scott? If you’re innocent, what exactly were you doing at Burger King that day? Why were you talking to this “girl” in the first place?

Don’t ever get the idea that a person who isn’t prosecuted is innocent. Sometimes the cops just want to throw a scare into you and make you knock off your bad behavior. Sometimes the prosecutor feels sorry for your family and decides to give you another chance. Maybe in this case, the cops were just incredibly grateful to Scott for providing them with hilarious transcripts to read at their Christmas party.

Scott was forced to go through anti-pervert counseling after the prosecutor decided not to go for a conviction. What does that tell you? Let me give you a clue. Have you ever blown through a speed trap, not been convicted, and sent to driving school?

Back before the war, Scotty portrayed himself as the conscience of the arms inspection team. Like the rest of them were over there trying to find an excuse for the U.S. Navy to field-test its latest laser-guided bombs on civilians.

Whoops! It turned out that Scott was being paid off by a pro-Saddam Iraqi, to the tune of $400,000! That’s the amount Scott received for a crockumentary he made, trying to make the case that invasion was a bad idea.

Here’s an old New York Times quote.


"A wealthy Iraqi-American businessman, Shakir al-Khafaji, contributed $400,000 toward the making of 'In Shifting Sands.' According to a recent article in The New York Times Magazine, Mr. Ritter has said that he thoroughly checked out Mr. al-Khafaji — 'I called a reporter who has sources in the C.I.A.' — and was confident he was not getting any quid pro quo from the Iraqi government. 'Shakir said he didn't,' the article quotes Mr. Ritter as saying."

But it’s not like Scott would lie. A guy who apparently wanks himself silly in fast-food toilets while staring at little girls…that’s a guy we can trust.

Scott’s new job, which ought to be prison laundry, is writing for…AL JAZEERAH! Think about that for a minute. Scott Ritter, the patriotic Marine. Scott Ritter, who loves his country. He’s writing for an outfit even more biased than the crew at 60 Minutes. Not just anti-Republican bias. Anti-AMERICAN bias.

Scott, you asshead, why don’t you just buy yourself a dishcloth and a rocket launcher and get it over with?

Here’s a quote from one of Scotty’s fifth columns:


The highly vaunted US military machine, laurelled and praised for its historic march on Baghdad in March and April of 2003, today finds itself a broken force, on the defensive in a land that it may occupy in part, but does not control.

My God, it’s Tokyo Rose with a penis. Is this imbecile still a U.S. citizen? Does this seem like the work of a man—I use the term very loosely—who loves his country or who feels anything but contempt for the military apparatus of which he regrettably used to be a part? Scott, is there some reason why the U.S. military machine shouldn’t be “highly vaunted”? Is it necessary for you to take this tone, patriot that you are? Well, yes, I guess it is, if you want to be a good little lapdog and please your new masters.

Here’s more:


According to press accounts, the Pentagon is considering the organisation, training and equipping of so-called death squads, teams of Iraqi assassins who would be used to infiltrate and eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi resistance.

Uh, Mr. Fonda, is “death squad” really the correct term for a group organized to pursue and neutralize enemy soldiers and terrorists? Some people prefer more-correct terms like “platoon” and “unit.” Although to you, a unit is something you wave at a sixth-grader. By your defnition, every platoon in the U.S. military is a death squad. But then by your definition, a toilet stall is a VIP room.

Scott continues to drip:


Although not publicly acknowledged, the role played by the various anti-Saddam militias in confronting the residual elements of Saddam's former ruling Baath Party offered a glimpse into what was, and is, an unspoken element of the US policy regarding de-Baathification - let the Iraqis do the dirty work.

Scandal! Obviously, we prefer to have Coalition soldiers do the dirty work! The last thing we want is to see Iraqis offering their lives just because it’s their frigging country.

Here’s a really nice one:

While it is difficult at times to understand and comprehend, let alone justify, the tactics used by the Iraqi resistance, history has shown that the tools of remote ambush, instead of a direct assassination, have always been used by freedom fighters when confronting an illegitimate foreign occupier who possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority.


As such, history celebrates the resistance of the French and the Russians when occupied by the Germans during the second world war, the Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation during that same time, or even the decades-long national liberation movement in Vietnam which defeated not only the French and the Americans, but also the illegitimate government these two occupiers attempted to impose on the people of South Vietnam.


History, on the other hand, treats harshly the occupying power which resorts to the use of the tools of terror to subdue an occupied people.


Thus, while it is fine for a French resistance fighter to blow up a German troop train, it is not acceptable for the Germans to burn a French village in retaliation.


The US military has undertaken “decisive” action against the fighters, only to find that, within days, the fighting has returned, stronger than ever.


History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government.

Damn, Scott. You must have strained for an hour to push that one out.

So Scott loves his country almost as much as he loves making Girl Scouts fish for his money when he buys cookies, but foreign terrorists and remnants of one of the world’s most brutal regimes are the legitimate rulers of Iraq. We, on the other hand, are basically Nazis in France.

You know what I’m starting to wonder? Whether it is even possible these days to be convicted of treason. Jane Fonda went and sat in the cockpit of an NVA anti-aircraft gun, and she went on to get rich on the American screen. Fat Mikey Moore called our enemies “minutemen” and said they were going to win, and the only thing fatter than him is his bank account.

What the hell do you have to DO to be charged with treason? I’m pretty sure they didn’t even convict that little asshole they caught fighting alongside the Taliban. No, wait. He copped a plea, and they let him live. Same thing, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I guess we can’t put Scott Ritter in jail, so let’s do the next best thing. Every time he makes a peep, let’s remind the world that he was handcuffed and thrown into a patrol car for showing up for a date to watch an underage girl masturbate.

The miserable, backstabbing, greedy little sewer rat. Enjoy the food pellets your keepers toss you, Scott. With any luck, we bloggers will see to it that you never collect a paycheck in the US again.

Posted by Steve H.

 

[BR-549]

trigger, switch, or inject that traitorous bastard myself... Gawd what a worthless human.. And the leftie media love him...

 

[Annie]

trigger, switch, or inject that traitorous bastard myself... Gawd what a worthless human.. And the leftie media love him...

Why do we think you are a :huh: ?

 

[BR-549]

Why do we think you are a :huh: ?

..