Friday, June 16, 2006

Re: Why the Sudden Bombs?

----- Original Message -----

From: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
To: Larry Sobocinski
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why the sudden bombs?


June 16, 2006


Dear Mr. Sobocinski:

Thank you for your letter. I apologize for my stupidity in previously being unable to grasp your highly sophisticated points. No doubt this is due to my "tendencies to compulsively adopt enemy viewpoints." Thank God there is someone like you around to straighten me out.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Velvel



----- Original Message -----

From: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
To:
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:13 AM
Subject: Why the sudden bombs?


> Why the two 500 pounders? Without warning?
>
> So the concussive waves would disable anyone in the house, and prevent them
> from erasing computer files.
>
> Dead men/women/anyone can't hit the key.
>
> Terrorists hide among women and children. You can't give them a pass on
> this.
>
> Why did they ENDANGER children by staying among them? If I was hiding from
> the entire US military, I sure wouldn't have my 4 year old daughter by my side (but maybe that's just me.) What is Zark's responsibility in all this?
>
> I'm surprised someone with your educational accomplishments cannot make
> these simple conclusions.
>
> How many kids will NOT be blown up by terror bombs, now that this guy is
> DEAD, not only dead but much of his ?
>
> He had escaped before, right through security's fingers. The USA hunters
> wanted to NAIL the guy this time.
>
> A protracted seige would have given this bloodthirsty headsman all the time
> he needed to destroy his papers and electronic documents.
>
> You might examine yourself for tendencies to compulsively adopt enemy
> viewpoints.
>
> Best,
>
> Larry Sobocinski
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Ron
To: Velvel@MSLaw.edu
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:00 AM
Subject: Killing Zarqawi's daughter

"....The military hasn’t said whether we knew who was in it, and no doubt it will refuse to say so, claiming this would compromise its intelligence sources and methods – such claims, and secrecy, are, after all, the policy about everything in this Administration. But it seems to me that we very likely knew who was in it, or could have known if we had wanted to know. The military knew where Zarqawi was not just because it tracked his spiritual adviser, but also because it, or the Jordanian intelligence service with which it was working, had "turned" someone who was close to Zarqawi. (Given the 25 million dollar reward, this guy was not exactly Claus von Stauffenberg.) In fact, the informant conceivably was in the one out of three GMC trucks which villagers saw drive up to the safe house prior to the attack, with the one then driving away. But whether the informant was in the truck which drove away or was elsewhere, if he was personally close enough to Zarqawi to know exactly where he was in all of Iraq, it seems pretty reasonable to think it likely that he also knew who else was in the safe house with Zarqawi. Did he tell our military who was there? Did he lie about it to make a bombing more likely and possibly increase the chance of obtaining 25 million bucks? Did our military ask him who else was there? Did our military care who else was there?...."

As you'd pointed out earlier in the piece, military spokespeople seem to be handpicked for their ability to look you straight in the eye and tell a pack of lies without blushing. I think that to understand the story, you need to broaden the context and look at the other events taking place on the same day. Like Iraq's new Prime Minister suddenly announcing that he'd filled the missing posts in his cabinet. There has been a suggestion that the two aren't entirely disconnected. That one Sunni group bought its post by trading it for Zarqawi's whereabouts. AQI and the Sunni resistance find themselves "On the same side" only insofar as they're both opposed to the occupation - other than that, they have little of nothing in common. The source which suggested I "look a little wider in the same time frame" also sugested that I look at the timeframe itself - the truly amazing rapidity with which US forces were able to abstract 14 other addresses from remains in a bomb crater and raid them. Could it be that they already knew them; that they had been provided as part of a "package deal"? There's certainly horse-trading going on behind the scenes. This is the middle east - that's how things are done there. Have the Baathist/Sunni majority of the insurgency divorced themselves from the Radical Islamic minority? If so, what horses did they get in exchange - aside from the advantage of the sudden and unannounced gift of an important cabinet post for their political party? Did Shia groups agree to rein in their murderous (to Sunnis) militias? CUI BONO? If any groups suddenly - and apparently inexplicably - change their modus operandi within the short term - for example, if the Shia death squads fall strangely silent - then it will provide us with a glimpse at the shadow of what's really going on behind the scenes - which seems quite likely not be be what we're being told is happening.

An issue that nobody seems to cover is the choice of 500 lb bombs. The RAF in Afghanistan have experimented successfully with precision-guided training "bombs". No explosives, just concrete and the guidance package. 500 lbs of concrete travelling at several hundred miles an hour and hitting a small apartment do more than enough damage to "do the job", without a blast-wave that levels the whole block. The RAF passed this information on to the USAF, who've subsequently used the same technique on more than one occasion. The USAF routinely issue anodyne press releases about their daily activity. Buried within the technobabble you'll find reference to periodic use of these concrete bombs, but without any further explanation or indication that the use of concrete weapons is unusual. Maybe they don't want to draw attention to the fact that it IS unusual. Then people might ask "why?"

Ron


----- Original Message -----

From: Merengo@aol.com
To: Velvel@MSLaw.edu
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:14 AM
Subject: Killing a Little Girl


Thank you for your essay. Courage in pilots dropping bombs on people who they never see is indeed an oxymoron. Indeed they are by Islamic standards cowards.

MAH
NY



----- Original Message -----

From: Goss, Dean
To: Velvel@MSLaw.edu
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:39 AM
Subject: nice--keep it up!! Sad what we have become-



----- Original Message -----

From: Sandro
To:
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Zarqawi's Daughter


>
> "I personally believe, that in WWII we faced an evil so terrible,
> one which the civilian populations had put into power and/or in which they
> were complicit, that the bombing was desirable as an object lesson to
> those countries never again to attempt war and conquest -- a lesson we
> administered but did not learn."
>
> Will you feel the same way when they bomb us, after we make it
> clear that we have to be stopped with force because our leaders are
> madmen? I don't think it is truly complicity, but rather fear that keeps
> people from overthrowing their governments, when it is tyranny of a
> minority that allows such travesty.
>
> -Sandro
>


----- Original Message -----

From: Nelson
To: Velvel@MSLaw.edu
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: Zarqawi's Daughter

Intriguing article, you ask questions I, too, entertained. But also it came to my mind that the man may only have been a generic Zarqawi whose ID would have been impossible after being hit by a half ton of explosives. However it seems to have morphed into another f--kup that the Great Spinmeisters will assuredly sort out.

Nels


----- Original Message -----

From: Richard
To: Velvel@MSLaw.edu
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:29 AM
Subject: Daughter

Better his daughter than mine.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home