Defining the Enemy

[Britney Spears]

<a href=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22703390.htm>CIA, CSIS  says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground</a>

 

[squealiox]

Actually Churchill responded to Hitler by doing just that - deciding to fight in North Africa and spreading the war to another front - anything to help broaden the war effort and weaken the enemy. Some critics at the time accused him of being fatuous. He won.

There were actual German troops in North Africa, i believe. But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.
There may have been a legitimate case for going to the trouble of taking out saddam at some point down the road,  but the non-existent 9/11 connection was not it. (nor is any of the pop pscyhology masquerading as geopolitics on 48th highlanders' favourite blog, for that matter).

 

[Britney Spears]

But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.
There may have been a legitimate case for going to the trouble of taking out saddam at some point down the road,  but the non-existent 9/11 connection was not it.

Ahh, give it up already. You know all those dirty Ay-rabs think the same way, Iraqi, Saudi, Afghan, what's the difference? Besides Bush didn't say it so it can't be true.

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.33 By 1994, the Saudi government would freeze his financial assets and revoke his citizenship.34 He no longer had a country he could call his own.

Source: <a href=http://911.gnu-designs.com/Chapter_2.3.html>The 9/11 Commission Report of the Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Chapter 2.3, THE RISE OF BIN LADIN AND AL QAEDA (1988-1992)</a>

 

[Infanteer]

As a footnote it was Jefferson who ordered the US Navy to bombard the Barbary pirate bases in the Med which had been engaged in a thriving slave trade and demanding ransom - a kind of late 18th century terrorism.   The French and the English paid the ransoms in hopes their commerce would be unmolested and preferred appeasement.   Jefferson refused to follow a similar policy and destroyed the Barbary threat. Even then, standing up to international extortion paid dividends.

Ahh, I knew it would be you to figure out my analogy....

I have a feeling that the Marine's will be adding a refrain to "...the Shores of Tripoli" real soon (I'm not sure you can fit "Fallujah" in the song - maybe with "Hooah"?)

 

[Infanteer]

Ahh, give it up already. You know all those dirty Ay-rabs think the same way, Iraqi, Saudi, Afghan, what's the difference? Besides Bush didn't say it so it can't be true.

That's not what I said in my post.

As well, your quote is quite right Britney - "Anonymous" goes into that in great detail in his history of Bin Ladin.

 

[Britney Spears]

That's not what I said in my post.

Well good, because I wasn't quoting you. 

Wait, If you're either with us or against us, and that's not what you posted, then are you.....?

 

[48Highlander]

There were actual German troops in North Africa, i believe. But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.
There may have been a legitimate case for going to the trouble of taking out saddam at some point down the road,   but the non-existent 9/11 connection was not it. (nor is any of the pop pscyhology masquerading as geopolitics on 48th highlanders' favourite blog, for that matter).

Ah, right.  There's also no proof the US landed on the moon, since quite a few people beleive the videos were faked.  Since you seem to have confused a cause/effect study with "pop psychology", I'm guessing you fall into the same category?  Or is there some standard of proof or logic which you would find acceptable?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.

YES, there is: Saddam was protecting Zarqawi. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050519-06362800-bc-jordan-king.xml

Jordan king:Iraq refused to deport Zarqawi

BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 19 (UPI) -- Jordan's King Abdullah revealed Thursday that Iraq's former Baath regime had refused to deport Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, blamed for ongoing terrorism in Iraq.
...
"Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain," Abdullah added.

(Selectively ignoring evidence can be very dangerous).

 

[Britney Spears]

(Selectively ignoring evidence can be very dangerous).

Some U.S. officials have claimed that Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the September 11 attacks. These claims were used to support the claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, The New York Times reported on October 21, 2002 that Atta did not meet with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague. This was later officially confirmed in the 9/11 Commission report.

In Colin Powell's famed speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was named as a principal reason for the need for war. Many parts of the speech have since been discredited, and Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian, but Powell and the Bush administration continue to stand by the statements. (According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times, but had been vetoed by the White House because Zarqawi's removal would undercut the case that war on Iraq was part of The War On Terrorism.)

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi>Source</a>

After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was reportedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former terrorist organization. Zarqawi then settled in the mostly-Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.

Yes, the same Ansar al-Islam that Saddam was trying to eliminate as a source of Kurdish power threat to his own power.

The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar(the leader of AaI),

Seems pretty clear to me why he wasn't deported: He was in Kurdistan. Don't you think that King Abdullah might have a rather vested interest in seeing al-Zarqawi eliminated?

So let's see, al-Zarqawi, the radial islamicist,  gets his start with the goal of overthrowing King Hussein of Jordan, notably the only other secular Arab leader besides Saddam Hussein, and the only Country in the ME to publicly side with Saddam during Desert Storm/Shield, and now we're to believe that he was working *with* Saddam?   


More importantly, don't you folks feel just a little bit silly trying to justify THE INVASION OF IRAQ on what one man, previously only loosely related to Al-Qaeda, may or may not have done in Iraq, which in any case had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

King Hussein said that Saddam "refused" (not "was unable") to deport Zarqawi.

Saddam was actively trying to ally himself with the radical Islamists following the first Gulf War (and increasingly presenting himself as one).

Ansar al-Islam was fighting the same Kurdish nationalists that Saddam was.  They were not fighting Saddam.  They are now (arguably) the most active in trying to reinstate the Ba'athist regime.

Prior to the war, Iraqi intelligence agents admitted that Saddam was supporting Ansar al-Islam (& al Queda): http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/23/wirq23.xml which was consistent with what "western military" recced-out: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/21/wiraq21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html

 

[a_majoor]

Some U.S. officials have claimed that Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the September 11 attacks.

The source of these allegations was the Czech Intelligence service, which has never recanted their finding that Atta did meet an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The British Intelligence service has also never recanted their finding that Iraq attempted to purchace Uranium Hexaflouride ("Yellowcake") prior to OIF either.

Saddam's Hussein's intelligence service must have been running the greatest deception scheme in history, or perhaps American officials are trying to deflect blame for their failure to put the pieces together correctly prior to OIF when they discount these and other claims.

 

[Britney Spears]

King Hussein said that Saddam "refused" (not "was unable") to deport Zarqawi.

Presumably you mean King Abdullah.

And Saddam and Iraqi officials deny any connection with either Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam. The leader of AaI, before Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, deny any connection with Saddam. THe Kurdish groups frequently engage in combat amongst themselves, and also again the Iranians, Syrians and Turks.  So who are we to believe?

Do you have any evidence of the following:

Saddam was actively trying to ally himself with the radical Islamists following the first Gulf War (and increasingly presenting himself as one).

They are now (arguably) the most active in trying to reinstate the Ba'athist regime.

The second one seems particularly doubious, since all evidence I've seen indicates that AaI's goals are closely tied to that of Al-Qaeda, namely the establishment of a fundementalist Islamic state in Iraq and elsewhere.

FWIW,  I've found in other threads that your source, The Telegraph  seems to take a lot of liberties with their facts.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Presumably you mean King Abdullah.

Yes, I was typing faster than I was thinking.

And Saddam and Iraqi officials deny any connection with either Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam. The leader of AaI, before Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, deny any connection with Saddam. THe Kurdish groups frequently engage in combat amongst themselves, and also again the Iranians, Syrians and Turks.  So who are we to believe?

Krekar also claimed Ansar al-Islam had no connection to al-Queda and that the killing of civillians is wrong: anything else for which you feel the need to give these $#$%^*$ the benefit of the doubt?

since all evidence I've seen indicates that AaI's goals are closely tied to that of Al-Qaeda, namely the establishment of a fundementalist Islamic state in Iraq and elsewhere.

They are the ones that are blowing themselves up, and yes, it is starting to create friction between them and the Saddam loyalists (hence the recent red-on-red reports).  Their basic strategy is very simple: get the Americans (et.al.) out, and then fight it out amongst themselves: it takes an enormous leap of faith to suggest that both factions did not fear a US-led invasion and were not planning accordingly.

FWIW,  I've found in other threads that your source, The Telegraph  seems to take a lot of liberties with their facts.

Why, because they don't approach every article from the "Bush lied, people died" frame of reference?  This is a pretty weak argument from someone offering wikipedia and no citation by way of rebuttal!  Anyway,  here is the same evidence from that bastion of pro-Bush propaganda known as the BBC:

Wednesday, 24 July, 2002, 22:04 GMT 23:04 UK
'Al-Qaeda' influence grows in Iraq
...
The PUK leader, Jalal Talabani, says the one certain thing is that they had ties with al-Qaeda and Afghanistan:

"Many of them were trained there, and there are now about 20 to 30 Arabs who are trained from Afghanistan and who also came here to Kurdistan, and are now with them. Even their leaders are from these Arabs."

One of those leaders is Abu Wa'il, a former Iraqi army officer.

Shadowy connections

A captured Iraqi intelligence officer of 20 years' standing, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who is held by the PUK, said Abu Wa'il is actively manipulating the Ansar on behalf of Iraqi intelligence.

Abu Iman al-Baghdadi: "Some of Ansar trained in Iraq"
"I was captured by the Kurds after Iraqi intelligence sent me to check what was happening with Abu Wa'il, following rumours that he'd been captured and handed over the CIA," al-Baghdadi said.

He added that Baghdad smuggles arms to the Ansar through the Kurdish area, and is using the group to make problems for the PUK, one of the opposition factions ranged against Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm

 

[squealiox]

Why, because they don't approach every article from the "Bush lied, people died" frame of reference?

That's funny. The british judge who found the Telegraph seriously lacking on the credibility front last december used a somewhat different line of reasoning...

Record award for libel victim Galloway
Newspaper faces £1.2m costs after judge criticises dramatic handling of 'scoop'

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=818&id=1384962004

 

[paracowboy]

gentlemen, ladies, and others
when Iraq was driven from Kuwait, a number of UN resolutions were passed stating, in essence, that if Saddam didn't stop being an asshat, he would get the same treatment, and be tossed out on his ear. He chose not to listen. The invasion was perfectly legal under those very UN resolutions. At the time, it was 'a given' that he had WMD (this was stated by every major world leader. It was a commonly held belief.) It was also commonly believed that he was dealing with terrorism worldwide. Some of these have proven to be true, some have proven to be dubious. Hindsight is always...

The nations most stridently screeching against the removal of everyone's favourite despot are also the same nations whose leadership were making a great deal of money from the Oil-For-Pocket-Cash scandal, including our own. An odd coincidence, don't you think?

Saddam played by big boy rules, but didn't have the parts to back it up. He could have complied with the UN resolutions, but chose instead pretend to be a bigger dog than he was. He paid the price. Now, Bush, Blair and Co. are making Iraq (and by default, the entire ME) into a better place. It ain't gonna be easy or fast. But the good things never are.

Tyranny must always be fought. Terrorism is another form of tyranny. Decades from now, when the ME has been 'democratized' we can then proceed to Asia, South America, and Africa. It's going to take generations. There is no quick fix. 

 

[sigpig]

Now, Bush, Blair and Co. are making Iraq (and by default, the entire ME) into a better place. It ain't gonna be easy or fast. But the good things never are.

Tyranny must always be fought. Terrorism is another form of tyranny. Decades from now, when the ME has been 'democratized' we can then proceed to Asia, South America, and Africa. It's going to take generations. There is no quick fix. 

So the west is going to save the rest of the world from itself and reshape it in our image? And who gets to chose which countries meet the criteria for 'regime change required?' Bush and his successors?

This would amount to a perpetual state of war that would give those western governments Orwellian power over their people because you can't criticize the government when you are at war.

It would make Bush's initially use of the term 'crusade' to seem to be correct.

 

[a_majoor]

It's All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda â ” and the usual suspects moan.

President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night â ” some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull â ” why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans â ” as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein's regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam's intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had â Å“nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.â ? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen's words â Å“offendedâ ? about use of the 9/11 â Å“trump card.â ?

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it's because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they've been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that's what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It's not about the great experiment in democratization â ” as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It's about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the â Å“nothing whatsoeverâ ? crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir â ” the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam's regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which â ” notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) â ” the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990's, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden's fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as â Å“an Arab and Islamic heroâ ? following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and â Å“[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdadâ ?? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet's October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There's more. Stephen Hayes's book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers â ” if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there's â Å“nothing whatsoeverâ ? there â ” will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are â Å“offendedâ ? at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the â Å“nothing whatsoeverâ ? crowd's inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

â ” Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

We all know that the Republicans were using mind control on the Clinton administration, of course......

 

[paracowboy]

So the west is going to save the rest of the world from itself and reshape it in our image? 

yes. We bring democracy to every nation on Earth. By doing so, we give the populace of each country a form of representative gov't that will meet the customs of that region. Democracies don't go to war with other democracies. When every citizen of every nation has an equal shot at happiness, we remove the breeding grounds for terrorism and insurgencies. This makes Canada safe. Read Sun Tzu.

And who gets to chose which countries meet the criteria for 'regime change required?' Bush and his successors?

well, it ain't gonna be us, since we have effectively removed ourselves from any sort of relevence on the world stage, and prefer to yap at those with the courage to make a difference. It's remiscent of a yappy little poodle, safe in it's house, barking at the police dog outside.

This would amount to a perpetual state of war that would give those western governments Orwellian power over their people because you can't criticize the government when you are at war.

bollocks! Balderdash and poppycock! Stuff and nonsense! We, the people of the western democracies have always criticized our gov'ts, state of war, or not. Even as far back as WW I. Look at the effect civil disapproval had during the Viet Nam conflict. And we have been at war for over a century already. We will always be so, until EVERYBODY has an equal shot at what we here in Canada take for granted.

It would make Bush's initially use of the term 'crusade' to seem to be correct.

semantics. You wanna call it a "crusade", go ahead. You want to call it a "war of liberation", go ahead. I'll just call it "killin' assholes".

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

That's funny. The british judge who found the Telegraph seriously lacking on the credibility front last december used a somewhat different line of reasoning...

Gee, they made the mistake of accusing someone (George "capitalism is the real enemy" Galloway) of a crime that is still under investigatiion ... plenty of news outlets have made much worse mistakes ... how is this relevant?

The point is you cliamed there was no evidence that Iraq "harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.": according to the Telegraph (sorry they are incapable of printing anything but false propaganda) the BBC, this is demonstrably false.  Trying to change the subject does not change the fact that evidence and people who claim to have been directly involved exist!

 

[Infanteer]

Democracies don't go to war with other democracies.

I'm not sure if I buy the "Democratic Peace Theory" in IR - mainly because:

1) Liberal Democracies haven't been around long enough to know for sure.
2) For the brief time that they have been around, they've been so busy fighting others - democracies fight alot, look at the history of the US or Britain.

I'll just call it "killin' assholes".

I like that one the best....