Thursday, April 21, 2005

The release of more innocents

Today the April 21, is the birth day of prophet Mohammad(pbuh).
All the Muslims people in Mosul are celebrating this anniversary.
There were a big official celebration in the governorate of Nineveh, transported by the Iraqi media (Al Iraqia; TV Nineveh).

The governor of Nineveh announced in his speak, in this occasion, the release of 110 prisoners who were arrested for suspicion of being terrorists and found to be innocents later on.

For the first time in Iraq (I guess) a responsible authority in Iraq apologize frankly in a publics and in front of the TV lens, to the prisoners, telling them they are arrested by mistake. And this mistake can happened in a circumstances like this.
He asked them to cooperate with the policemen in controlling the peace in the city!

This speaks received acceptance from all the audiences.


Mister Ghost said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mister Ghost said...

Well Dr. Truth,
That's a good step, if they truly are innocent. There's millions of
prisoners the world over who always claim to be innocent and
of course, are guilty as sin.

So, do you have your own familial
celebration to celebrate Mohammed's birth day? Take the kids out to the local Iraqi version of Dairy Queen? Throw a party, invite the neighbors?
Offer a free day of cancer treatment at the cinic?

Anonymous said...

good to hear

By the way, the word is speech. A person speaks, but they give a speech.

John said...

Hi Truth, seems like a typical token gesture. Do you get the impression that people are being arrested in Iraq on the basis of age and the elimination of a potential threat rather than actual evidence or proof of criminal "By American Definition" misdeeds! And besides the 110 innocents released (were there any younger than ten as was the case in Abu Ghraib) do you ever wonder how many more Iraqi prisoners arrested and detained by the American liberators are equally innocent as the ones released. Hundreds more, perhaps thousands? And after being released, how would you guess they felt about America's democratization efforts? I wonder if their prison experience was any less horrific than those imprisoned under Saddam? I wonder if their treatment met the standards of Geneva Conventions, or were there any indications of sexual and physical abuse!

My guess is Mister Ghost probably assumes there's no such thing as an innocent Iraqi, by an American ethnocentric definition and demonization of a culture and people they assume is their enemy, but never mind the chauvinism and racism of their ilk, I was wondering if you get a sense that the citizens of Mosul will ever forgive the Americans for the atrocities they've committed, the home invasions, random killings and their abuse and imprisonment of innocents!Just wondering!

Anonymous said...

good to hear this, and I hope all who are innocent are released, and all who are guilty stay in prison.

waldschrat said...

It's good that there is an apology for errors, I think. Certainly folks get arrested for "suspicion" and then released later after being found to be innocent. Errors happen. What is of some concern is the apparent rarity of apologies. It sounds like people are arrested and their neighbors and family may not be certain they will be treated fairly. The solution, of course, is to guarantee that anyone who is arrested will be given a fair hearing in a honest, trustworthy court. The job of the police should be to catch criminals but NOT to judge criminals. Judgement is a job for a court. I have heard little about courts in Iraq, either at this time or previously under Saddam. My impression is that there is no functioning court system at this time. Is that correct, Truth Teller?

Hurria said...

"I hope all who are innocent are released, and all who are guilty stay in prison"

What does innocent or guilty even mean in the Orwellian madhouse the U.S. has turned Iraq int? According to the U.S. military 80-90% of those they have imprisoned are arrested/detained by "mistake". That does not, of course, make any of those 80-90% immune from being abused, tortured, or even killed by their jailors during their imprisonment. Those "mistakes" who survive their arrest and imprisonment are lucky to be released weeks, months, or years later with a curt "sorry for the 'mistake' ", and left to find their own way back home. Virtually every Iraqi knows someone who has been affected by this aspect of Liberation American Style.

Moron99 said...


That is such good news. It is great for the 100 families, because their loved ones are returning. It is also great for the people of Mosul. It means that the police system has the time to sort out innocent from guilty and process the paperwork. It is a clear sign that security and stability are improving.

Albatroz said...

I think we should all get together and buy a plane ticket for Moron99 to go to Iraq and see for himself... He says the most extraordianry things and I get the feeling he doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about...Would the Truth Teller be willing to show him around?...

Brian H said...

Won't everything be wonderful once the evil, scheming Americans go home? Paradise for John and Hurria! I assume they'll both rush over to benefit from it.

Moron99 said...


There are a number of Iraqi discussion frums that require registration and only allow Iraqis to post comments. For weeks they have been saying that security is improving in Mosul based upon personal experiences and reports from relatives. The release of 100 prisoners validates their comments. You are a disgusting person. Your drive to spew political propaganda overwhelms your ability to rejoice in the good fortune of other people. They are not pawns in your game, they are human beings.

Truth teller said...

mister ghost

This is not the first time the police released a large number of people arrested for suspicion of being terrorists. There number is very high, may be 1000 or more!!.
So, do you have your own familial celebration to celebrate Mohammed's birth day? Take the kids out to the local Iraqi version of Dairy Queen? Throw a party, invite the neighbors?
Did you have ever heared about the security in Mosul? or you also fooled by the media who say the security is improving?

annonymous @ 11:34:52

Thank you for your correction, I really looked for this word in my memory by couldn't remembered it.


Whenever there are explosion or shooting fire, the Iraqi police come and arrest a number of people who were by chance nearby the accident. Usually they choose the youth. and there excuse is: why they allow the insurgents or the terrorists to do what they
About the sexual abuse, there is a talk in the city, about one situation when a religious man was confessed of being making sex with another man!(this is a crime in Islam), they said that the police took his mother (an old woman), his wife and his sister. and threatened to rape them in front of him to make him confess that way. There is no prove for this talk,but all the guys who know this person said he is very honest and respectable man.


The solution, of course, is to guarantee that anyone who is arrested will be given a fair hearing in a honest, trustworthy court.
This solution, didn't happen in Iraq after the occupation!!!
"My impression is that there is no functioning court system at this time. Is that correct, Truth Teller?"
Yes it is correct.


Those "mistakes" who survive their arrest and imprisonment are lucky to be released weeks, months, or years later with a curt "sorry for the 'mistake' ", and left to find their own way back home.
I know a doctor who was arrested by the American during the raid of his house by mistake. They make a mistake in the address, but they arrested the guy, they kept him in prison for about a week, the beat every day and after that poured cold water over him (that was in winter at january). When they realesed him, they throw him in far away area in his underwear before the midnight. Some saw him and thought that he is an insane.


It is a clear sign that security and stability are improving.
I invite you again to stay for few days in Mosul. You will see things much better than heard about them.

Moron99 said...


I would love to hear what your opinion is of the topics discussed in a current blog by a fellow Iraqi, Ali. Personally, I think he suffers from hero worship. He is blinded to America's weakness and seems to think that democracy is a magic pill that fixes everything. Nonetheless, he makes valid points. What do youy think of the points raised in his last blog?

Better security is a relative term Truth. Better than two months ago? Yes. Better than before Saddam was toppled? No. It won't be for at least a few months and perhaps as long as three years. Security will not be permanent until the people of Iraq rise in unison and take matters into their own hands (which, is exactly what the US wants).

With power comes responsibility. Iraq will never get completely better until the common people accept the responsibilities that came with their empowerment. If you see injustice, it is no longer sufficient to look away. It is now you, the average citizen, that holds the power - that is what democracy really means. If the common man is empowered to choose his government, then the common man must also bear the responsibility of speaking out against injustice. But you can not be blind or narrow or consumed with hate. You must speak out against injustice perpetrated by both friend and foe. That is the greatest responsibility. In your readings of the Koran, are you encouraged to speak out against all injustice or are you directed to speak out against only the injustices committed against you?

waldschrat said...

Truth Teller - I think your family might be interested in some facts about education opportunities in Sacramento.

Sacramento has several fairly good shools offering undergraduate degrees and a State University offering bacehelors and advanced degrees in engineering, nursing, and other fields. There is also a very respectable University nearby in Davis that offers degrees in medicine, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and many fields of engineering.

Here are some links:

University of California at Davis

California State University, Sacramento

American River College

Consumnes River College

Hurria said...


According to my friend who lives in the Sacramento area, Cosumnes River College and American River College are community colleges, which do not offer four year degrees. They are more like vocational schools, or places for people to go who do not qualify for a four year college or university.

I am not putting that down in any way, it is just that one gets the impression that these are full colleges, when they are not.

John said...

Truth: Thanks for taking time to respond, It amazes me how patient a man you are and the level of consideration you are prepared to give to any and all opinions raised. I wish I were able to share your ability to entertain even the most objectionable commentary and allow them the same consideration you would provide anyone who is willing to raise a comment, regardless of how it might conflict with your understanding of life in Mosul.

When arm chair prognosticators tell you the situation "must be improving", "Americans must have helped the Iraqi situation", you are able to calmly explain the reality of your experiences on the ground. No suggestion of propogandization, just a straight forward, matter of fact explanation of your own real world, day to day, life episodes. In many ways Moron99 must be confused and conflicted as it doesn't fit nicely into his conceptualization of the propriety and overall benevolence of America's invasion!

Your children must truly have benefited from your calm in the face of so many adversities and traumatizing events! To suggest they are lucky to have you as their protector, advisor,and father would not come close to doing it justice or applying enough credit!

I can only speculate on how any Americans posting here would be able to survive should Iraqi soldiers have invaded their country, occupied their cities, invaded their homes, abused their women and children! How they would have dealt with Iraqi commentators on their "Citizen from Dallas" blog. My guess is there would be an appreciable difference in temperment and acquiescence to accepting all varieties of opinions. You are very worthy of a Noble prize for restraint and self control!

I thought the arrests of Iraqi male teenagers was widespread. Military occupiers always focus on identifiable groups they consider as representing the most obvious threat to their own security! If you're Iraqi, male, between the ages of 12 and 50 you're likely to be imposed on at some point by the occupier! Either arrested, intimidated, questioned, falsly accused...such is the reality of war, when the invader has lost track of how to identify their enemy, all Iraqis are potentially a threat to them, except perhaps the collaborators..but then again maybe especially them!!

May peace come to Iraq. May America leave your country. Iraq for Iraqis. may America's war result in the same retreat they were dealt at the hands of the courageous Vietnamese. Never let Iraq succomb to the tyranny of America's imperialism or imposition of world order!

All the best!


Albatroz said...

The sort of "born again" type of crap Moron99 posts here would really make me laugh were it not for the fact that we are talking about real people in Iraq being abused and killed by American troops. What scares the hell out of me is the possibility that there are a few million similar robotic brainwashed idiots in the US, all convinced of Uncle Sam's good works in the Middle East. Can you immagine the incredible amount of destruction a combination of such crowd and a moronic President can cause to the world?...

Hurria said...

Truth Teller,

There have been so many experiences like the one you described, and some of them ended even worse, with the victim having lifelong injuries. In some recorded cases the victim was obviously beaten or tortured to death by the Americans, who then issued a false death certificate saying death was from some natural cause like heart disease.

Iraqis knew very well what was going on in all the American prisons in Iraq, because we began hearing the reports and seeing the victims by April and May of 2003. And we know the Red Cross was reporting to the Americans on these abuses since summer of 2003. It was not until the photos from Abu Ghraib became public that the U.S. government decided to pretend - and only to pretend - to do something about it.

We also know that it was not "just a few bad apples" who were and still are responsible for abuse, torture and murder of prisoners because we have seen the documents written and signed by top American officials in Iraq, the Pentagon, and the White House in which they very specifically approved, and even recommended the use of torture.

I have lived in countries governed by dictators, and I have lived in countries governed by democracies. Once I was asked in a very harsh and challenging way whether I would prefer a dictator over a democracy. Certainly the person who asked that, and certainly some of the audience too, were shocked when I replied that I preferred to live with a government that was honest about what it was. I said that I would accept living with a dictator that I knew was a dictator better than I would accept living in a democracy in which the government hid its true nature. At least in the first case I would know what I was dealing with and where things stood.

Moron99 said...


If it were about American Imperialism then the insurgency would have been crushed a long time ago. It would be a simple matter for American forces subjugate Iraq and assume the role of the new Saddam. There is nothing in the insurgency arsenal that can stop a tank, repel an air force, or slow a well trained infantry advance. Americans are not illiterate towards history. We are fully aware of the tactics of the Monguls and we have fully explored their morality in such works as "Apocolypse Now". Why have they not chosen to do so? You should read Ali's blog and then try to answer this question.

Anonymous said...

could you please answer a question for me? Why in this blog are all insurgants or Iraqis, poor little mistreated angels and all Americans evil monsters with horns? There are good and bad in all groups. Could it be if more Iraqis were helping to defeat the insurgancy there would be less mistaken people being arrested?

Albatroz said...

The difference is simple to understand: Americans are occupying Iraq, a country that had done them no harm. Insurgents are Iraqis trying to free their country from the occupiers. No matter how bad individual insurgents may be, they are liberators. No matter how kind individual American soldiers may be, they are the occupiers and the oppressors. All around the world people are, naturally, on the side of the occupied against the occupiers. Americans could free themselves from this unpleasantness by leaving Iraq as soon as possible. Americans must be pretty insensitive to fail to see that they are on the side of wrong in Iraq, like they were on the side of wrong in Vietnam. Will it take another 40.000 American casualties (like in Vietnam) and other tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties for Americans to understand this?

waldschrat said...

hurria - you are correct. "American River "College" was previously called "American River Junior College" when I attended there! Further, "California State University - Sacramento" was formerly called "Sacramento State College". The names were changed for reasons I do not completely understand, but American River and Consumnes still only offer undergraduate degrees (A.A., etc) rather than bachelors (B.A., etc) degrees. I should say that I found the professors at American River more helpful to students on average than those at Sacramento State or U.C. Berkeley. There is another school, "Sacramento City College", in Sacramento but I deliberately omitted it from my list because the mathematics department has a horrible reputation for poor teaching.

Don Cox said...

How is the electricity supply now in Mosul? Is it getting any better?

Moron99 said...


If the insurgents wish to liberate Iraq from Americans then why do they mostly kill Iraqis?

waldschrat said...

moron99 - They murder Iraqis because it's easier than murdering Americans and the objective of terrorism is to instill fear. Make no mistake, they also attack Americans, Americans are just harder to kill than unarmed innocent Iraqis. It is also easier to extort money and silence from Iraqis by threats and kidnapping than from Americans. The population must love or fear the killers enough to hide them and not hate them enough to reveal their secrets. It could be unsafe for an honest citizen to oppose them openly. The safest way for an Iraqi to oppose them would be in secret and anonymously. That eliminates cell phone and internet communication. I wonder how reliable the mail service is in Iraq is these days. If I were the Americans I would encourage people to oppose the insurgency by mail. I wonder if they even distribute a mailing address (not that I doubt the intelligence of soldiers).

Albatroz said...

Obviously some insurgents adopt terrorist tactics. But, as it is generally accepted, there is no single insurgent organization with a single control centre. Some insurgent groups attack only American troops, others will attack Iraqis. We must condemn the latter and defend the former. In fact, only those who limit their attacks to American troops can be considered real insurgents. The others are simply terrorists.

waldschrat said...

Here's a joke my wife told me:

The minister asked the congregation to raise their hands if they had forgiven their enemies. About half held up their hands.

He then repeated his question. Now about 80 percent held up their hands.

Again, he repeated his question. All responded, except one elderly lady.

"Mrs. Henry, are you not willing to forgive your enemies?"

"I don't have any."

"Mrs. Henry, that is very unusual. How old are you?"

"Ninety-three." she replied.

"Mrs. Henry, please come down in front and tell the congregation how a person cannot have an enemy in the world?"

The little sweetheart of a lady tottered down the aisle, turned to the congregation and said, "I outlived the bums."

lights said...

All I have to say is, if my electricty was out, the truck filled with people to fix the electricty came to repair it and my neighbor ran out and blew up the truck. I would call the police and tell them who blew up the truck.I would not hide the bomber, help him blow up the next truck and blame the power company.I know it is not that simple but do you see my meaning?

John said...

Lights, sorry, I don't see your meaning. Whats more confusing is how you might consider attributing any meaning to it!

Who are your neighbours? Might be time to consider moving out of the neighbourhood. There are certain neighbourhoods in America I wouldn't recommend! Not if you didn't want the electricity guys robbed or blown up. Yet come to think of it the electricity guys don't even go to those neighbourhoods!

Nope, sorry, I didn't get your meaning!

Albatroz said...

For those who like to think that Americans are peace loving people:

Lynn in the US said...

You know full well what Lights was trying to say. It is up to the Iraqis to do their part and turn in the people that they know are killing those who are trying to help them. The post was not at all confusing! Maybe it just made a little too much sense for you?

richsanter said...

On the Insurgents attacking Iraqis:

Part of the unpleasant reality of a guerilla struggle is the resistance of the populace against the proxy government that the occupier tries to install. This proxy government is the acceptable ‘face’ of the occupier, and by acting through it, instead of by direct rule, resistance against the foreign supremacy is lessened. Resistance against the collaborator is the same as resistance against the occupier.

In Iraq we have the situation where decades of sanctions and bombing have reduced the economy to a pitiful shadow of what it once was. Thus, it is not surprising that there are many ordinary Iraqis willing to work with the government in order to feed their families. Unfortunately they also make themselves the targets of the resistance, because they are facilitating the efforts of the foreign power to entrench its proxies.

This is where we must return to the start of the chicken and the egg story: who was the party responsible for tearing Iraqi society like this and who was responsible for putting these ordinary Iraqis in the position where they must either work for the proxy government or starve? Simple. The United States of America.

While I feel that it is not morally right for the resistance to target civilian Iraqi members that work with the proxy government – on the other hand, if these collaborators are not dealt with in some manner, the entire country is lost, because the political momentum will shift from resistance towards passivity.

(Consider for example, if there were NO attacks on Iraqi collaborators and NO attacks on targets like oil pipes. What would happen is that the proxy government would soon build itself up and start to take over security duties from the foreign invader, fed by the stability and ample revenues it received. The resistance would be put in the uncomfortable position where IT would be seen as the primary source of instability instead of the invader, and would be forced to either fight fellow Iraqis or acquiesce to the reality of the new regime. If it complies, then the US proxy government wins, and essentially the US wins as well, and has a shiny new client state to play with.)

This action on the part of the resistance is both anticipated by the US and indeed counted upon. Not only does it divert attacks from its own troops onto Iraqis, but it polarizes the nation and provides for excellent propaganda material with which to discredit the resistance.

Naturally the reverse – attacks on insurgents and their homes – are not seen in the same bad light as attacks on Iraqi ‘government’ organs. This has resulted in the slaughter of civilians at wedding parties, homes and streets described as the emotionally neutral term “collateral damage” (when they are not labeled insurgents, of course.) , because they were either in proximity to, or associated with, insurgent elements. Relatives of suspected (not proven, just _suspected_) insurgents have been taken hostage by the “Coalition” and subjected to abuse.

Of course, the US would much prefer the Iraqis to suppress each other on its behalf, hence the increased reliance on Iraqi security forces. The recent elections have placed the Shias in a sticky position. While they now have a chance at power in Iraq, they face an internal security threat, which formerly was the US’s problem, now, as the incumbent government, it is theirs. But … they lack the forces and weapons to do this with. So they must turn to the occupier for help with this – despite that they would like to dearly see the US leave as well – and in the process the presence of the foreigner is further legitimized. It seems that the carrot of power is currently working wonders for the US in trying to seduce a sizable segment of the Iraqi population into doing its bidding.

The point of this post is, apart from explaining to some ill informed people the nature of the dilemma confronting Iraqis resisting the foreigner, to re-emphasise that the problem is the presence of the foreigner, namely the US. Iraqis wouldn’t be fighting one another if the US was not setting up its own laws and power structures, and in fact sponsoring them to do so. The ‘exit strategy’ the US wants is one where the insurgency is beaten down, however brutally, but the host government is kept weak enough that the usual SOFA agreement necessitates a US troops presence to defend Iraqis against all their big bad neighbours, which formerly had to be defended against the big bad Iraqis by those same US troops.

And, whichever way one reads it, US troops will be safeguarding Halliburton’s oil and US interests for years to come.

Moron99 said...

You conviently ignore the most important aspect of TAL.

There will be a nationwide election in which the Iraqi population will be asked the simple question "Do you approve this constitution as the basis of the Iraqi government, Yes or No?"

It is prohibited that the permanent government of Iraq shall form without acceptance of the Iraqi people. Since only Iraqi citizens are allowed to vote it is not within the US means to control their acceptance or rejection.

Once the Iraqi people agree upon their permanent government, another election is to be held with open access to all candidates that demonstrate enough support to be in contention of winning. Since the only thing required is a signatory list of support, the US is again unable to control the prospective candidate list. Since only Iraqis are allowed to vote, the emerging leaders will be those chosen by the Iraqi people.

In short, if you examine TAL it is a written and signed contract that guarantees that the permanent government of Iraq shall be determined only by the people of Iraq. If the insurgency has popular support, then they would easily win the elections as outlined under TAL.

Now, if you examine mideast politics you will see that Iraq is the only country in the mideast which has such guarantees. If the people of Iraq are allowed to choose their own destiny, then every other regime in the region will suffer civil unrest. The enemies of Iraq are every nation and group that wishes for the political power of the mideast to remain unchanged. This includes the insurgent leadership. Perhaps the footsoldiers are recruited and deceived into thinking that they are fighting a great evil. In reality, they are fighting on behalf of people who wish to extend the subjugation of gulf people.

If you doubt this, then simply ask them what plans they have for the future. Ask them what benefit it brings to the people of Iraq if the insurgency wins. They will immediately change the subject. If you keep pressing, they will grow silent and disappear. They will never answer the question because they bring no benefit to the people of Iraq, they only offer more decades of oppression and rule by force.

and what, after all, is the single most important thing? Hatred of the US or the future well being of the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people now have a signed contract guaranteeing their future. What do the insurgents offer?

waldschrat said...

bruno - It seems that justification of attacks against the "proxy" government sinstalled by an invader depends on the proper differentiation between a "proxy government" which serves the invader and a "legitimate interim government' which a well-intentioned invader (a "liberating army") might try to facilitate and support in all good faith.

The fact is that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. If what I read in the news is accurate, more Iraqis have been killed and are being killed by their fellow Iraqis than by US troops. Insurgents seem to have little concern for collateral damage, willingly detonating bombs in areas crowded with non-compatants, innocents by anyone's definition. Murder is the word for most of the killing, nothing more noble. The chaos and danger that besets Iraqis should be mourned, not justified.

Let's take the theoretical consideration a little further. In America's history Americans killed each other in factional disagreements during the Revolutionary war and during the Civil war and it's aftermath. Revolutionists killed Loyalists and vice versa. Sessionists and Unionists killed each other in the Civil war, and in it's aftermath, when the government in defeated Sessionist states was replaced, there was more murder afoot.

Iraq has a history of settling political conflicts using bullets, not ballots. That's how Saddam gained power if I understand correctly. I'm sure America is to blame for that too in some people's opinion, but the fact is that settling matters with ballots instead of bullets results in fewer casualties, less damage to real estate, and is generally all around more civilized. It would be nice if more Iraqis would try it and choose peaceful means to settle matters rather than violence.

Sadly, I suspect it will not happen right away. It seems likely that many more Iraqis will be murdered by their countrymen before this is over.

richsanter said...

Moron99 --

Well, that bit about the TAL is quite interesting, except for, that as usual you neglect the history behind it. Let’s look at intent, shall we?

Namely that there NEVER WAS any intention on the part of the US to create such a document, and that it was pressured into doing so through Ayatollah Al Sistani and his mass demonstrations. The US plan was to govern by diktat using Chalabi as a go between initially; that plan was rapidly scrapped for another undemocratic venture in which US handpicked Iraqis would meet in “caucuses” to decide in which way they could best carry out the policy of their master.

The very existence of the TAL and the occurring of the elections was due to pressure applied by Al Sistani.

The elections themselves were highly problematic to say the least, given the facts that they occurred under occupation, had no known candidates, no policy lists, no debates, no international monitors to speak of, and indeed, that most Iraqis didn’t even know WHAT they were voting for.

The US tried to influence the outcome through massive monetary intervention on behalf of its chosen candidate, Allawi, and continue to meddle in the present Iraqi government – witness Rumsfeld’s “hints” to the Shias only a short while ago.

Rahul Mahajan of “Empire Notes” says it best, though:

“First, Sistani decided that any constitution could not be approved by U.S.-appointed delegates but only by a general plebiscite. Next, Sistani scotched Bremer’s plans to remain in charge indefinitely. After that, Bremer’s plan to forgo elections in favor of a U.S.-dominated caucus system had to be abandoned after Sistani called for mass demonstrations about a year ago. 100,000 people demonstrated in Baghdad and 30,000 in Basra.

U.S. forces had no productive way to deal with these mass nonviolent actions. U.S. troops were actually dispatched to accost the marchers in Baghdad, then halted and withdrawn midway when offcials realized they had no coherent plan for action. This backing down was then seized on by Sistani, who kept the United States reeling from February through June.

Sistani’s key accomplishments were to force the United States into some clear legal commitments. First, the Transitional Administrative Law, or interim constitution, passed in March 2004 set down very clearly the powers of the transitional government to be created by the elections. Second was U.N. Security Council resolution 1546, which set a firm deadline for the elections and clearly gave the transitional government the power, among other things, to have the occupying forces leave. In the case of 1546, although Sistani forced the turn toward the U.N. in the first place, it was the other countries on the Security Council that forced the United States to clarify these matters; the United States wanted no deadline for elections and wanted the resolution initially to make legal authority for the occupation permanent.

There is a slight problem with this legal regime, because 1546, by design of the United States, makes no reference to the TAL. Still, the upshot is clear. The Bush administration, which never wants to be tied down by international legal commitments, was forced, against its will, to codify legally a commitment to Iraqi independence.”
//end Empire Notes excerpt

[m99] “If you doubt this, then simply ask them what plans they have for the future.”

No problem:

The Anti-Occupation Patriotic Forces, Um Al-Qura Mosque
6 Muharram 1426 / 15 February 2005

“ […]
3) Acknowledgement of the principle of the right of the Iraqi people to reject occupation; recognition of the Iraqi resistance and its legitimate right to defend its country and its resources; rejection of terrorism which takes aim at innocent Iraqis, facilities and institutions of public utility, and places of worship -- mosques, husseiniyyat [Shia religious centers], churches and all holy places.

4) Since the elections that took place lacked legitimacy due to the fact that they were based on the Administrative Law [the Bremer-designed TAL, contested by Sistani himself], lacked legal and security conditions, were boycotted by a large number of people and rigged, the administration that will result from these elections does not have the right to conclude any agreement or treaty infringing on Iraq's sovereignty, the unity of its people, its land and its economy, and the preservation of its riches.

5) Adoption of democracy and election as the only option for the transfer of power, and the preparation of conditions and laws allowing the political process to take place in honest and transparent conditions, under neutral international supervision.”
[…]” //end excerpt

The above statement is reproduced in full on Juan Cole’s site, if memory serves me, and is signed by 28 groupings and individuals. Naturally it does not speak for the ENTIRE resistance, but does include a majority opinion.

Waldschrat --

[w] “If what I read in the news is accurate, more Iraqis have been killed and are being killed by their fellow Iraqis than by US troops.”

Hm. The problem starts at “what you read in the news”. I would kindly suggest that US troops don’t exactly go out of their way to advertise the fact that they may have killed Iraqis, and if they do, then they always claim that they shot “insurgents”. I refer you to these statistics, which may shed some light on the matter:

is the address of a study done on PTSD of your average US soldier/marine returning from Iraq. The above table contains some data related to the frequency of fighting and the number of Iraqis killed in the sample groups. 46% of ordinary soldiers and 62% of US Marines claim to have killed Iraqi combatants, and in the same sample, 13% of ordinary soldiers and 27% of Marines admit to being responsible for the deaths of Iraqi noncombatants.

Gee, I WONDER who is killing the lots of Iraqis in Iraq?

On the other hand, here are the statistics for the Resistance:

which clearly shows that well over 90% of all attacks are directed AT THE OCCUPIERS.

Peaceful means? I’m all for that.

Unfortunately the presence of your soldiers in Iraq virtually guarantees that this option is a long, long way away.

Moron99 said...

You ignore history in favor of politically motivated opinions.

Germany, Japan, Lorea, Kosovo, Afghanistan.

US intentions in Iraq have always been the same. To empower the people to run their own affairs and to stay until they are strong enough to preserve that power by themselves.

It is an essential component of American morality that a nation is defined by the people and not by the borders or leaders. It is further believed that there is a difference between legal and legitimate government. The only legitimate government is the one chosen by the people of a nation. Unfortunately, there are many legal but illegitimate governments throughout the world. Saddam was such government and the insurgents wish to establish another.

Look into history and find examples where the US engaged in nation building. Judge US intention by their past actions rather than by the words of propagandists. There is no significant insurgency in Afghanistan. They are now receiving the things that the insurgents are keeping from Iraq. Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

Albatroz said...

"Look into history and find examples where the US engaged in nation building. Judge US intention by their past actions rather than by the words of propagandists"

I look to Vietnam, to Chile, to Cuba, to Nicaragua, to El Salvador, to Guatemala, to Haiti, to the Israeli v. Palestinian question, and see everywhere American naked imperialism and self-serving policies and actions. In all these instances the US fought against local legitimate movements, most (but not all) of them democratic or, at least, popular in origin. More often than not American actions were on the side of undemocratic, corrupt political parties. Not so long ago the US gave their support to a blatant undemocratic coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected Hugo Chavez government. So democratically elected that he won again when the opposition tried a recall referendum. Based on this experience why should we believe that the US are well meaning in Iraq? If democracy prevails in Iraq it will be in spite of, and not because of, the US intervention. The insurgency is playing a fundamental role in preventing the US from highjacking government in Iraq.

Moron99 said...


You falsely assume that any person or group who seizes power by whatever means becomes the legitimate representative of the people. It is apparent throughout your posts. You have repeatedly defended dictatorship as a legitimate form of government. Even now, you put forth Cuba as a legitimate government. Americans believe that the only legitimate government is one chosen by its citizens with every voice counted equally and all voices free to speak.

If Iraq would prefer to have another dictator - if they liked living under Saddam - if they wish to become another Syria - if they wish to rescind all freedoms - then all they have to do is vote for it in the next election. The choice is theirs. But the insurgent leaders know that the people of Iraq will not vote for them. They know that their only chance of gaining power is to prevent peace and shoot their way into power. So do you. But you support their dictatorial model where one small group is free to view a nation as their personal property. And so, you spew your propaganda from create distrust and unrest and maintain the violence and insecurity. Just waiting and hoping that the day will come when you can assasinate all of your opponents and seize Iraq for your personal pleasure. Too bad the US is in your way.

Look to Afghanistan. They have found peace. The warlords have laid down their weapons and the nation is rebuilding itself. Electricity, roads, water, schools, libraries, mosques, irrigational canals, and more are being built on a daily basis. The government makes it own decisions and chooses its own path after consulting with the people. The only thing standing between Iraq and rebuilding is the insurgents.

waldschrat said...

Here's an interesting perspective on America's Iraq "adventure" fron Viet Nam:

It seems they are inclined to consider everybody's tactics (US, Saddam, insurgents, the whole cast of characters) as misguided and faulty.

I can agree with that! Things could be better!

Albatroz said...

Chile: who was democratic, Allende or Pinochet?

Venezuela: who is democratic, Hugo Chavez or the oligarchy?

Vietnam: the Vietcong were not democratic as we understand democracy, but they had the people's support.

Nicaragua: the Sandinistas had the popular support, but the US didn't like them. Now, the Sandinistas are about to win power back.

Cuba: can anyone believe Castro could stay this long in power, with the mighty US doing everything possible to overthrow him, if he didn't enjoy popular support?

Haiti: the US helped overthrow president Aristides, and now we see that he has real support in his country.

How many more examples must one give of US siding against popular forces in so many countries in the world? Why is it that in an increasing number of Latin American countries forces hostile to the US are gaining power? Certainly because those that side with the US and are helped by them are the oligarchy, the exploiters, the tyrants. Soon, only Colombia will be willing to serve American interests in that part of the world. Why is that, if the US are such friends of democracy and justice? Is everybody crazy?

Moron99 said...

Hmmm. I think your conclusions speak for themselves. Replace the word Castro with the word Saddam to see how ridiculous you sound

"can anyone believe Saddam could stay this long in power, with the mighty US doing everything possible to overthrow him, if he didn't enjoy popular support?"

You know what your problem is? You are blinded by hatred. How many "good" governments are there in the mideast? Well, I guess if you count Afghanistan there is one more than there used to be. Iraq has a genuine for a bright future. You would deny them that. For what? So that you can feel vindicated? You are one sorry excuse for a human being.

An Italian. said...

Moron99, you are truly moronic.
The example you ignorantly keep spewing out is Afghanistan. Just some days ago (as reported in the first page of the Italian 'Corriere della Sera' newspaper yesterday) there, in the province of Badhakshan, the first official sentence for 'adultery' against a woman after your 'liberation' was carried out. She was stoned to death; the co-offender was instead flogged and released. In 'liberated' Afghanistan not much has changed; women are in the same situation as before (go & have a look at; instead of only one dictatorial power, you have a-plenty, the warlords, who indeed rule the land (elected president Karzai is just the mayor of the centre of Kabul, and is alive only thanks to his American Dynocorp bodyguards); the whole economy is based on the opium cultivation, ever-growing since your 'liberation', so that today's Afghanistan is the biggest supplier of heroin & morphin in the world. Some 'liberation'!
So you keep belching out your empty & mindless propaganda, and you fake that Afghanistan is a 'success story', and an example for the Iraqis (LOL!!!). No Iraqi, apart from your pawns at 'Iraq The Minion', is as stupid as to believe it. They instead see the dreadful reality of the 'liberation' you brought them, and the delicious fruits of it, including the 'democratically' elected Shiite religious parties enforcing Shaaria law over half the country (at least Saddam, being secular, didn't interfere with the private lives, beliefs and lifestyles of people). They see that as a result of your criminal war and occupation their State was destroyed, together with any security, and that today there is in Iraq neither a 'legal' nor a 'legitimate' Government.
Afghanistan? Yes, now Iraq is going to resemble Afghanistan very fast... (as possibly your Neo-Con strategists desired from day one): some 'success'!

Moron99 said...

You're not very up on Afghanistan are you?

Drug lord Haji Bashir Noorzai was arrested in the past few days, Senior Taliban members are surrendering to the government under amnesty offers, a woman is governor of a province, women can now attend school without being killed, women are not beaten if they walk through Kabul in less than a burka, the Afghan government has signed deals with Turkey to build schools and hospitals, there are nationwide health drives such as the recent iodine drive, and the Afghan Women's business Association (women who actually own companies) just reported membership at 500. That's just in the last 10 days.

Here is a link where you can find out more.

If you want links to opinion polls, the results are even more astounding. But the most important change in Afghanistan is something that you can not see. The people control their own future and they have hope for the first time in decades.

If you want links regarding the warlords, I can provide those too. A good google starting place would be "northern alliance". You will find that the amount of violence and oppression in Afghanistan today is far less than it was before 9/11. You will also find that the amount of economic growth and construction is greater than before 9/11 also. Do a little research next time.

Hurria said...


Obviously you are very up on all the latest "positive news" on everywhere you have no personal knowledge of. One might almost believe you are an avid reader of Chrenov's blog. Tragically for Afghan people who actually live in Afghanistan (and similarly Iraqi people who actually live in Iraq) the reality is rather different from the delightful fantasies you are so fond of chirping cheerfully about here.

Albatroz said...

April 27, 2005

* China helps Afghanistan train diplomats, economic professionals
* UN critic of U.S. abuse in Afghanistan forced out of job
* Six killed in Taliban rebel raid: Afghan police
* Passenger plane catches fire on Kabul airport
* WFP plans to extend its program in Afghanistan
* Afghan girl instant author
* 5 Afghans released from Guantanamo Bay Jail

April 26, 2005

* British troops to target Afghan opium trade
* Former grammar school boy gets 13 years for shoe bomb plot
* 9-11 victim's mom funds Afghan school
* Romanian soldier killed in Afghan convoy blast
* Taliban threaten to destroy TAP gas pipeline

April 25, 2005

* Afghan refugees demand participation in parliamentary polls
* Taliban commander surrenders
* Afghan province bans motorbikes to beat Taliban
* Heroin shipment seized in Afghanistan
* Afghanistan to issue new mobile licences
* Principals participate in the Afghan Teacher Education Project

April 24, 2005

* General Pace, first Marine tapped to lead Joint Chiefs of Staff
* Former Taliban official surrenders in Afghanistan
* US detains innocent German
* Moscow pledges security support to Kabul in September Parliamentary elections
* Afghanistan becoming safer for returning refugees: OGATA
* Afghanistan's Taliban launching coordinated attacks, says US

April 22, 2005

* Germany, Afghanistan sign agreement on investment protection
* Turkey And Afghanistan Have Perfect Political Relations
* Afghanistan notch up big win in ACC Cup
* Afghan Vice President criticizes interference in Kabul affairs
* Afghans urged to change to iodized salt

April 21, 2005

* U.N. Rights Monitoring Still Needed in Afghanistan: HRW
* Taliban claim killing 24 US, Afghan troops in Zabul, Kandahar
* NGOs form 'parallel' government in Afghanistan: Minister
* 8 Suspected Taliban Killed in Afghanistan

April 20, 2005

* US. Forces Arrest 24 Suspected Afghan Militants
* Afghanistan seeks China's help in its economic progress
* Myers wants media to cover positives in Iraq, Afghanistan
* Dustum joins Afghan government
* Taliban kill eight Afghan soldiers, one Pak driver

April 19, 2005

* Thousands of Afghan animals Killed in animal plague
* Afghan province bans smoking in public places
* Obstacles ahead as women take the wheel in Afghanistan
* War on opium falters in southern Afghanistan Taliban stronghold
* Afghan delegation tours Pakistan to promote repatriation

April 18, 2005

* Taliban deny any talks with Afghan govt, US
* Advertising generating revenue as Afghan market develops
* US warns of 'desperate' Taleban
* Russian troops start withdrawing from Afghan-Tajik border
* Advertising generating revenue as Afghan market develops

As one can see on this site ( there are good and bad news from Afghanistan. It is typical of some American propaganda agents to refer only those news that suit their propaganda goals.

Anonymous said...


For every weight there needs to be an equal and opposite weight in order to achieve balance. I would prefer to talk about both positive and negative but the weight of negativity in this blog is so great that even an all positive spin by one or two individuals does not begin to counterbalance it.

If we were to honestly and fully explore both positive and negative we would conclude that Iraq has 20 miles of bad road no matter which direction they choose. We would further conclude that the road most likely to achieve a positive outcome is through the existing government and the termination of insurgent activities. Frankly, the new government scares me a bit. The anti-baathist talk amoung them is dangerously close to being a call to arms. I fear that if the insurgents continue to provoke them then they will launch upon a clensing that affects a lot of good people along with the bad. I don't think it is a question of whether or not the insurgency will be defeated, it is a question of how many innocent people the insurgents will kill before the government takes strong action and how many innocent people will get caught in the crossfire when they do.


Albatroz said...


The world would be a lot better off if some countries would stop acting as if they had a God given right to interfere with matters that fall under sovereign responsabilities. Short of massive violation of human rights - in which case the UN are the proper instance to intervene -, or imminent threat against another state's security, there should be no interference in sovereign states' affairs. My experience and study tell me that, on the long term, no government can prevail against the will of the people. Most non-democratic governments must therefore enjoy some amount of support by the people. We should therefore not take upon ourselves to fix what is not broken. We may criticize, but we must keep a hands off policy. Unfortunately, for less than innocent reasons, the US keeps interfering in other peoples' affairs and is, therefore, an increasingly hated country. No less unfortunate are the likely consequences, for all of us, of such a stupid attitude.

Moron99 said...

What do you think is the proper course of action when 3% of the population wishes to supress 80% of the population through violence and intimidation? What if that 3% holds 30 years worth of national treasury while the 60% is poor, fragmented, and of broken spirit whilst the other 20% has concluded that they will secede? If you doubt this is the case, I can provide you with links to insurgents manifestos. You may think America is the great evil. Great, good for you. But seek what is best for the people of Iraq, even if it means sleeping with the enemy. There is no excuse for the 100% of the Iraq people to suffer any longer, to be denied basic needs, and to be denied a future because 3% of them object to the empowerment of Shia and Kurd. You have been driven into the arms of a greater evil by your single minded hatred of a common enemy.

Albatroz said...

Two and a quarter centuries after independence, how many Presidents of the US were catholic, hispanic, black or female? What about American-Indian rights? What happened to all those treaties signed with the Indian nations? What about the poverty in black urban areas? What about the lack of opportunities for most Americans who are not WASP? If some Americans are so keen on redressing past wrongs, why not start at home? Can you convince us that a country which is incapable of doing the right thing at home is capable, or willing, to do it abroad? You must be joking!...

Moron99 said...

It's about Iraqis, not Americans.

The Iraqis have a signed contract guaranteeing them control of their own future. The insurgents oppose this contract and wish to destroy it. They also oppose any improvement in security or living conditions because they see it as strengthening both the contract and the government. Following are some passages from a captured insurgent document discussing strategic goals. These are the people that you have chosen to bed with.

"They (shia) are the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity. [Another is] a difficult, fierce battle with a crafty enemy who wears the garb of a friend, manifests agreement, and calls for comradeship, but harbors ill will and twists up peaks and crests (?). Theirs is the legacy of the Batini bands that traversed the history of Islam and left scars on its face that time cannot erase. The unhurried observer and inquiring onlooker will realize that Shi`ism is the looming danger and the true challenge. “They are the enemy. Beware of them. Fight them. By God, they lie.”

"These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis (Shi`a), who are a people of treachery and cowardice"


"I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want, since right and wrong no longer have any place in our current situation. The Shi`a have destroyed all those balances."

An Italian. said...

Dear Moron99, so you lamely pass on to us readers (and to Iraqis like Truth Teller, our host, and Hurria, who for sure know better) these excerpts from letters written by a ghost (the supposed al-Zarqawi, who supposedly died, according to most sources, in March 2003 near Halabja), supposedly intercepted in 2004 by the Americans. Even a lame propaganda agent like you are should know that the famous 'al-Zarqawi letters' are a psy-ops fake. Those who organise death squads & sectarian murders, bomb Shiite mosques or Christian churches, try to provoke a sectarian civil war in Iraq, are 'former Baathists' for sure: only that they are at the US service, the followers of the now dethroned Allawi, YOUR Baathists, under the direction of Negroponte, the criminal terrorist of Central American fame, and his successors in the US occupation; in that way you have some excuse to justify your occupation in the eyes of the world, through stirring up an Iraqi civil war. "Captured insurgent document", Moron? US psy-ops document, all right.

Moron99 said...

Your ghost had a laptop computer with swappable hard drives that was captured about five weeks ago. Your hypothesis that Allawi and the US are organizing the insurgency is laughable.

Do you know that Bush has mind control satellites that can track your internet address? The only safegaurd is to fashion a hat out of tinfoil and wear it constantly. You should also avoid going near the ocean. The CIA has trained attack whales.

lights said...

Mr Italian you are just what I love about bloging, any nut with a computer can publish any diatribe their simple mind can dream up. Keep in mind that the hardest thing for people to do is keep a secret, which is what is a must for a good consperacy

Hurria said...

"Your ghost had a laptop computer with swappable hard drives that was captured about five weeks ago."

No, the Americans have conveniently claimed that they captured a laptop computer with swappable hard drives that they conveniently claimed belonged to the very elusive Zarqawi. They have not only produced exactly zero evidence that said hardware actually belonged to Zarqawi, they have not even bothered, as far as I know, to explain how they KNOW it was his computer.

It does seem rather unlikely that if somone like Zarqawi was carrying around a laptop at all (or even knew how to use one) he would leave on it evidence that it was his. I can see it now - they opened up his Outlook Express and there it was - tons of email to and from Abu_Mous`

Add to this, of course, the U.S. government's clear record of shamelessly blatant mendacity in everything pertaining to their Iraq adventure, and you have a claim which is, at best, highly questionable.

Oh yes, and from ther reports I have heard and read, they are saying that Zarqawi was travelling from Falluja to a meeting in Ramadi - but wait a minute! Didn't the U.S. drive the "insurgents" completely out of Falluja in November (destroying and depopulating it virtually completely in the process)? And aren't the Americans since then operating Falluja like a giant high tech concentration camp, requiring DNA samples and retina scans of all who enter and exit, and detaining any male in the city who is not wearing an ID badge containing all his personal information? And now they are claiming Zarqawi was IN Falluja in February? It seems they still have not learned to keep their stories straight - and some people, including the U.S. media, still have not learned to think critically.

"hypothesis that Allawi and the US are organizing the insurgency is laughable."

No more laughable, really, than most of the processed bull food you post here.

Regarding the "Zarqawi memo" you apparently referred to (I did not read your post - perhaps I should before commenting, but life is too busy at the moment), the likelihood that it actually came from Zarqawi is virtually zero. You would have no way of knowing this, of course, but the Arabic in that document is of an extremely elevated kind, and filled with the kind of language that indicates someone who is 1) highly, highly educated in the Arabic language, 2) steeped for many years in religion (as Truth Teller can confirm, the Arabic language is very unlike English and required many years of deep study to write or speak at such a high level). Zarqawi is a barely educated street thug, not someone with a high degree of scholarship in the Arabic language, and is simply not capable of writing at that level. The only thing in that document that is consistent with what we know about Zarqawi is the virulent attacks on Shi`i Islam and its adherents, and that is something all the Wahhabis (or Salafis) share.

And finally, no one has so far produced one tiny piece of actual evidence that Zarqawi has been in Iraq in the last two years. Maybe he is there, maybe not. Maybe he has been there at some point, maybe he has not. Maybe he was in Falluja, maybe he was not. Maybe he was killed in 2003, maybe he was not. There is no actual evidence for any of this one way or another. What we DO have is a complete absence of evidence to support the U.S. claims combined with a well documented record for mendacity, added to an almost comical inability on the part of the Bush administration to keep its stories consistent.

The inevitable conclusion that anyone must draw after applying even a minimum of critical analysis is that the overwhelming probability is that the stories about Zarqawi are mostly or entirely a combination of speculation and outright fabrication.

Albatroz said...

One of the important differences between Hurria and Moron99 is that Hurria is logical and convincing, and Moron99 sounds like a second rate CIA agent who thinks that "evidence" is anything that might convince a ten year old child (presuming he is not very bright...). I still don't know whether Moron99 is really dumb, or thinks that WE are dumb. Otherwise one would expect him to make a real effort to come up with something more intelligent. His arguments are of the kind one would expect to be used on some hill-billy from Alabama who believes that Bush has a direct line to the Good Lord and thinks he lives in a democracy. I wish he would spare us the crude propaganda he has been trying to feed us...

Albatroz said...

Another example of American responsible behaviour in Iraq (a description, by Italian journalist Sgrena, of events around her shooting by American soldiers, based on her own words):

"Anybody who has covered the Iraq war has known - or has seen - checkpoint hell, where nervous American soldiers fire on anything that moves. The Toyota Corolla with Calipari and Sgrena was hit by only between eight and 10 rounds. Both Calipari and Sgrena were sitting in the back seat. Calipari was hit by a direct shot in the temple.

There was no checkpoint, Sgrena told Klein. "It was simply a tank parked on the side of the road that opened fire on us. It was not a checkpoint. They didn't try to stop us, they just shot us. They have a way to signal us to stop, but they didn't give us any signals to stop and they were at least 10 meters off the street to the side."

The crucial part is that Sgrena says the Toyota was shot from behind - which contradicts the Pentagon version of soldiers shooting in self-defense. According to Klein, "Sgrena really stressed that the bullet that injured her so badly came from behind, entered through the back of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front ... They were driving away."

This might explain why the Pentagon apparently blocked the Italian government from inspecting the Toyota, even though the Italian government had bought the car from the rental agency after the shooting.

Sgrena is 100% sure: "It was not self-defense. The soldiers were to the right of us on the side of the road, they started to shoot from the right and kept shooting from behind. Most of the shots came from behind. Calipari was shot from the right and I was shot in the shoulder from behind. When we stopped, they were behind us. We could see that all the back windows of the car were broken from behind ... They didn't try to stop the car and they shot at least 10 bullets at the level of people sitting inside the car. If Calipari had not pushed me down they could have killed me."

According to US sources, "American soldiers followed rules of engagement to the letter and therefore were not to blame. The Pentagon ruled that its soldiers used hand and arm signals, flashed white lights and fired warning shots to try to stop the Toyota Corolla carrying Sgrena and Calipari, which was "speeding" toward "a checkpoint". The soldiers then shot into the Toyota's engine block when the driver did not stop. Calipari was not part of the engine block, but he was shot anyway: a "horrible accident".

Whom do you believe? The Italian journalist or the "reliable" Pentagon sources?

waldschrat said...

albatroz - I believe neither. THe journalist has political motivation as a reporter for a left wing journal to exagerate. The soldiers have motivation to conceal any errors. Clearly enough an error was made because innocent people were shot. A checkpoint should be clearly identified with signs and barriers, not simply some people waving their arms and flashing their headlights. A driver, on the other hand, should be extra careful when driving near armed vehicles or troops.

Truth teller said...

an italian said:
"Those who organise death squads & sectarian murders, bomb Shiite mosques or Christian churches, try to provoke a sectarian civil war in Iraq, are 'former Baathists' for sure: only that they are at the US service, the followers of the now dethroned Allawi

I have to add a real accident which happened a couple of months ago: "A report by the cheif of the police of Rabe'aa,(a small city at the Iraqi-Syrian border) says that there are many accidents of shooting on the police of that area from the Peshmarga (an armed Kurd militia). The Kurd official said: the shooting against the police was from the new Iraqi army side (mostly build up from Allawi fellower who trained in th US).

Another report about the killing of some of religious men, doctors and university lecturers which happened in Mosul. All the evidences point to involvement of the National Kurdistan Union in these crimes, which is headed by Jalal Talabani.

The crimes committed by the Al Theeb force in Mosul,(part of the Iraqi police, previously known as Al Bader force), are well known now by all the citizen of Mosul.
Therefore, the terrorists are not the insurgents (who may made some mistakes), but some other groups, mostly supported by the americans.


"I believe neither. THe journalist has political motivation as a reporter for a left wing journal to exagerate. The soldiers have motivation to conceal any errors."
there is a big difference between a report by journalist and a report by a government? The USA the strongest on the world!!
If a Jornalist had a political motivation to be biased, the USA government shouldn't.

Moron99 said...

Hmmmm ...

I did not mention it because I wanted to see if anyone would step forward. The main fallacy with the AZ memo is that they have changed tactics in the last two months. Bin Laden directed AZ to stop attacking Muslims and start attacking Americans. Which he has done. So recent violence aimed at Shia is probably not from the mooj.

richsanter said...

Moron99 --

[m99] “It is an essential component of American morality that a nation is defined by the people and not by the borders or leaders.”

Hmm. I wonder if this statement bears the harsh light of reality.

So tell me, does America then support the principle of an independent Kurdistan, incorporating bits of Iran, Iraq and a large chunk of Turkey? Does America support ETA, which fights for a separate state for the ethnically different Basques in Spain and France? Does America support the re-incorporation of historically identical peoples into their parent countries, such as Kuwait into Iraq, and Taiwan into China?

Crumbs, it sounds as if your statement is a load of crap, actually.

[m99] “Americans believe that the only legitimate government is one chosen by its citizens with every voice counted equally and all voices free to speak.”

Oh, RIGHT, I forget, that’s why you support the dictatorship in Egypt. And the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. And the dictatorship in Kuwait. And really, is it any real surprise that the US military intends to hold joint military maneuvers with the arch dictator Ghadaffi, (after his Bush-supporting mea culpa) in order to foster warmer relations? To mention but a few.

Moron99, don’t you ever get that sinking feeling of embarrassment and shame as you realize that WE KNOW that the pretty words of your country are actually merely the sugar coating on a very large hypocritical pill? Get some other sucker to swallow it.

[M99] “Look to Afghanistan. They have found peace.”

Uh, no, they are living in poverty and squalor, and growing poppies in order to feed their families. Warlords still rule the country in their areas of influence, and Karzai the imported puppet lives to carry out his master’s bidding. They are now a client state.

[m99] “ What do you think is the proper course of action when 3% of the population wishes to supress 80% of the population through violence and intimidation?’”

Gee, I don’t know. What do you think? Tell, us, and don’t forget to include in your answer the global perspective, in which a minority (the US) seeks to suppress any and all challenges to its supremacy through violence, intimidation and economic leverage.

[m99] “The CIA has trained attack whales.”

No, you’ve got it wrong as usual. They are attack dolphins, (trained by the US Navy) both trained to detonate proximity mines with their *own* proximity and to attack enemy frogmen. Strange isn’t it, when Moron99’s hyperbole bears such a close correlation to reality, huh?

Albatroz --

Thank you for your illuminating post. You saved me a bunch of typing.

Hurria –-

Your analysis of the writing of the memorandum is something that is not possible for non Arabic speakers like myself, and I thank you for your post. Compliments on your acute observations.

Italiano --

Bravo! E’ sempre un piacere a vedere qualcuno che da un sacco di botte a questi propagandisti infernali! Continua cosi' ...

On Zarqawi :

As Hurria and An Italian have so eloquently pointed out, the extract that Moron99 quoted is actually a transcript purported to be from Zarqawi, NOT Iraqi Resistance. Now, let us ignore the fact that there is a LOT of doubt as to the origin of the document, the existence of Zarqawi in the realm of the living and so forth, just for a moment.

Let us assume the document is really from him.

What does this prove? It proves that there are fanatical Wahhabis in Iraq who seek to use Iraq as their own personal battleground against their enemies, namely the US and the Shias. How odd, the US also seeks to use Iraq as a “magnet” with which to attract foreign terrorists so that they can be destroyed. This is the so-called “flypaper” theory.

The common denominator in the story is that Zarqawi and the US are both using Iraqis as proxies against each other.

My own humble suggestion is that there may indeed be Iraqi resistance elements that are tapping into the technical know how and experience of foreign jihadis; this does NOT however mean that they necessarily share the same ideology nor even that they are friends. There were many reports of friction between foreign jihadis and Iraqi resistance in Fallujah, for example. If one reads the statement of intent from the Resistance that I mentioned above, you will find that there are many key ideological clashes with the Zarqawi document.

Given that something like 90% of Iraqis are in favour of a US withdrawal, I put it to you that YOUR country, Moron99, is the primary source of instability in Iraq. The presence of Zarqawi / foreign fighters is only possible through the need of the resistance for external help. If the US leaves, I say to you that proud Iraqis will not submit to foreign Arabs telling them to kill each other, any more than they will submit to Americans doing the same.

Hurria said...

"A checkpoint should be clearly identified with signs and barriers, not simply some people waving their arms and flashing their headlights."

What part of "there was no checkpoint", and "it was a tank, not on the road, but parked about ten meters off the right side of the road" is not not getting through to you, Waldschratt? And what part of "we were shot, not from the front, but from the right side and the back", and "the back window was completely shot out" is not getting through to you?

And don't you, at some level at least, wonder why, if they really shot from in front of the car into the engine block as they insist, the Americans have refused to allow the Italian government to even see the car? And don't you wonder why, if they really did shoot at the front of the car, the only person sitting in the front seat is also the only person who was not injured at all?

"A driver, on the other hand, should be extra careful when driving near armed vehicles or troops."

According to the testimony of Sgrena and the driver, they WERE extra careful. According to Sgrena and the driver, the tank that shot at them was, at its closest point, 10 meters away from them.

This "investigation" has coverup and whitewash written all over it in big, bold, very clear letters.

Hurria said...

"Bin Laden directed AZ to stop attacking Muslims and start attacking Americans."

And you know this for a fact because... - oh yes, because your government, which has a well documented history of mendacity, and has been consistently wrong about virtually everything to do with Iraq, said so.

"Which he has done."

And you know this how? Zarqawi himself told you? You saw it on the TV? Or perhaps you have conveniently surmised it?

"So recent violence aimed at Shia is probably not from the mooj."

What is this "mooj" thing you keep referring to?

For your information, the primary suspect for any and all attacks on Shi`as are the Wahhabis (Salafis). They have a virulent, murderous (and completely unjustified) hatred of all things Shi`i, so much so that they want Shi`i Islam wiped from the face of the earth. There are Iraqi Wahhabis, but it appears that the great majority of those who are carrying out attacks on Shi`as are Wahhabis from Jordan or Saudi Arabia. This group includes, of course, Zarqawi (assuming he actually has been in Iraq, and is actually alive). It was a Wahhabi from Jordan who committed the atrocity in Hilla. It is almost certainly Wahhabis, including those purportedly connected to Zarqawi who are carrying out all, or at least the overwhelming majority of attacks against Shi`as.

Moron99 said...


They all share the same common enemies - the US and the empowerment of shia and kurds. All of them know that the combination of moderate Shia, progressive Kurds, and government by majority will ultimately lead to a change that they do not want. The end of dictators and clerics as the sole possesors of political power.

Too bad for you.
Mesopotamia will rise from the ashes. Najaf will become the source of intellect and spread its message of tolerance and freedom throughout the gulf. Bagdhad will become the financial hub of the mideast and the saying "all roads go through Bagdhad" will have true meaning. But first things first. First, the government will clense itself. Then they will come down on the insurgents with an iron fist. After that, the rebuilding will start.

Albatroz said...

Moron99 is pathetic. Americans on this blog are reduced to a desperate defense of the undefensable. They can't convince anybody and sound increasingly unconvinced themselves. Not really the stuff of mighty empire builders... I guess that as soon as the draft is brought back voices such as Moron's will quickly disappear...

Hurria said...

Moron99, you revealed very clearly either your dishonesty or your ignorance - or both - when you introduced the quotes from the alleged Zarqawi document as "Following a captured insurgent document". As Bruno pointed out, the passages you posted are not from any "insurgent" document at all. The rhetoric in that document, as I have already pointed out, is typical of one educated to a very high level in the Arabic language, and steeped for a very long time in Wahhabi theology. It was purported to have been written by Abu Mous`ab Al Zarqawi, which is highly doubtful.

Moron99 said...

I listen to the government of Iraq as the most reliable source of information. The days are gone where Rumsfeld and Bremer knew in advance what would happen next. Now, it is the Iraq PM and MP who choose the path.

By the way - you realize that the clensing will not only be against Saddamees and salafees, it will be against amercanists as well. myguess - The Sadrists in the south probably will not be cleaned before the next election. Alyaqoubee will be given a chance to moderate them from within. Which means you guys will have plenty of examples of Shia intolerance from Basra to use as proof that the government is failing.

Albatroz said...

For the "true believers" in American might:

"But if the draft advocates eventually convince the administration that a conscripted army is viable, I believe they would still have to overcome a second layer of reluctance among decision-makers in charge of military policy: a fear that the draft will specifically alienate those who currently endorse the war in Iraq. Pro-war partisans rest much of their support of administration foreign policy on the expectation that the January 30 election was a turning point, that the battle of Fallujah disabled the resistance, that Iraqi troops will be ready to handle the guerrillas in the not-too-distant future - and that US troops will soon be brought home at least reasonably victorious. The reinstitution of a draft would constitute an admission that these beliefs are so many illusions. In all likelihood, therefore, any relaxation of the unequivocal opposition to the draft in the administration would indeed precipitate a sharp erosion of the war's already eroding base. Opposition might then reach the critical mass needed to make withdrawal "thinkable".

Read further here:

Moron99 said...


so what you are saying is that America wants to bring their soldiers home. That America has no desire to be in Iraq any longer than they have to.

I agree.

An Italian. said...

Moron, 4/28, 9:02:01 AM, & ‘lights’: You claim that I wrote: "Allawi and the US are organizing the insurgency".
No, what I wrote is that the US & Allawi are organising terrorism & sectarian attacks.
The Iraqi insurgency, targeting instead American troops, foreign mercenaries, and puppet militia troops, is patriotic, and fully legitimate in the eyes of most people outside the US. What would many people in the world do, if their countries were invaded by an army of foreign bullies & mass murderers? There is such a right as the right to resist.

Waldschrat, "The journalist has political motivation as a reporter for a left wing journal to exaggerate": 1) you conveniently forget that Sgrena's testimony is identical to the one of the slightly wounded driver, who is no left-winger at all, but a Major in the Italian military secret service (never heard of a left wing Carabiniere!); 2) what the US patrol did to the Italians is precisely the standard thing they do to common Iraqis every day, only that Iraqi civilians murdered by these American cowards do not make the headlines in the West (unless an embedded journalist happens to be present, like when they destroyed a family near Tal Afar).

Bruno: Non sapevo che parlassi Italiano! Questi guerrafondai infernali d’Oltreatlantico sono davvero incredibili. Con menti di bambini di tre - cinque anni, creduli, arroganti e aggressivi; più scimmioni che esseri umani, bevono e diffondono ciecamente la propaganda inventata dal loro Governo. (Truth & Hurria: English translation available on demand).

Moron, 4/28, 10:20:04 PM: You wrote: “First, the government will cleanse itself”.
The Iraqis saw the beginning of it, indeed! That honest & disinterested man Chalabi has become the Minister of Oil (LOL! They should have given him the Treasury as well!).

David said...

Hello, Truth Teller,
I am reading about the most recent violence in Bagdad-I know it is a big city, but I worry about your family, pray for them, and hope they are safe...I will rest better when I know they are back home and safe(er) with you..


richsanter said...

Moron99 –

[m99] “The days are gone where Rumsfeld and Bremer knew in advance what would happen next. Now, it is the Iraq PM and MP who choose the path.”

Of course, you are right.

They will be able to decide if they want twin or single ply toilet paper, if they would rather eat hummus or cous cous, whether they prefer Coke or Pepsi and other such important details. Trivialities such as choosing the Minister of Oil are better left to those with more experience, don’t you think?


Together, Again
Judith Miller and Ahmad Chalabi.
By Jack Shafer - Posted Monday, Jan. 31, 2005
Citing unnamed "sources," Miller claimed that the Bush administration had recently made "belated and sudden outreaches" to Ahmad Chalabi, "to offer him expressions of cooperation and support." She continued, "And according to one report, he was even offered a chance to be an interior minister in the new government. But I think one effect of this vote is going to be that the Iraqis themselves will decide who will hold."
These revelations stunned Hardball host Chris Matthews and a nation of Miller skeptics.
Matthews: Wait a minute. When you say, Judy, when you say administration, do you mean the alliance party leadership or Allawi over there, the current prime minister? Who are you talking about?
Miller: We are talking about the administration officials who have been reaching out to …
Matthews: You mean Americans? [Italics in the MSNBC transcript.]
Miller: ... [Ayatollah] Sistani's—yes, American officials who have been reaching out to Sistani's party. Because Dr. Chalabi is on that list.
Matthews: So where—so we have an election over there. And the same day we're holding an election, the same week, we are plotting which ministries to give to Chalabi, the guy who talked us into the war in the first place.
Miller: No, no. There were expressions. There was apparently an effort to determine whether or not he would be interested in assuming a certain portfolio.
Matthews: Why are we in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet ministries in a foreign government?
Miller: No. Well, you know, Chris, first of all, this is just one report. But I think what is very clear, according to people I talked to today, is that they have been attempting to mend fences with him. Now understanding that as a tent [phonetic transcription] on that Sistani list, the Shia list, he will be an important person in Iraq. And I think that there will have to be a lot of rethinking on the part of the Americans with whom they want to deal.
Matthews: … the idea that the man who won his country back through the vice president's office, Ahmed Chalabi, finds his way now through all this electoral process to end up as oil minister or finance minister, as you say, interior minister—and I think he has higher ambitions than that—makes the electoral process come down to the guy who started the war, ends up winning the war, irregardless of how people vote over there.” //end excerpt

Naturally, it would be ludicrous to trust a single strategy for keeping the thumbscrews on the new Iraqi government. The first thing on the typical US subversion agenda is to ensure that the loyalty of the armed forces is with it, and not the native populace.

This is consistent with the manner in which the civil government and economy in Chile was attacked by the US, while simultaneously it supported the Chilean armed forces – prior to the military coup that saw good ol’ General Pinochet come to power in that country. Is it a surprise that Venezuelan president Chavez recently dismissed all US advisors from the armed forces for trying to promote subversion of the state?

So: train up forces that are seeded with individuals capable and willing to overturn a government that runs contrary to US wishes, then keep them there.

Like this:

Iraq's Baath Problem
“The U.S. would like to avoid a Baathist purge, in part because the Bush Administration doesn't want to see two years of work building up the security forces erased. "We want to see the Iraqi security forces take a bigger role this year and we're working very hard to get them trained to do that," said a U.S. official in Baghdad. "Part of that is training a professional cadre and purging these people without reference to their loyalty now or their competence will set that back." To back up their words, the official said the U.S. could remind the Iraqis that the U.S. has spent $5 billion on training these guys and "it's perfectly within bounds to say we don't want them changed." The White House even dispatched Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq last week to deliver private warnings to Prime Minister Jaafari and other leaders that Washington did not want a mass purge. “ //end excerpt

[m99] “By the way - you realize that the clensing will not only be against Saddamees and salafees, it will be against amercanists as well. myguess - The Sadrists in the south probably will not be cleaned before the next election. Alyaqoubee will be given a chance to moderate them from within. Which means you guys will have plenty of examples of Shia intolerance from Basra to use as proof that the government is failing.”

[m99] “But first things first. First, the government will clense itself. Then they will come down on the insurgents with an iron fist. After that, the rebuilding will start.”

You know, what’s odd is that the longer you talk, the more it sounds as if that neocon retard Paul Edwards were here incognito.

Tell us, then, do you support this ‘clensing’?

Good idea, huh?

So, let’s see, a couple of million Sunni, a couple of million Sadrists killed … all for the good of Iraq, right?

Damn, and to think that all this time we were under the impression that Stalin, Saddam, Hitler and the rest of that bunch were evil. I mean, they were the acknowledged experts in the forefront of ‘clensing’ technology. How ignorant of us. Your heroes were only misguided … and really, any Nazi intolerance shown in the ‘clensing’ of their society was grossly distorted; hardly proof that their government was a failure … RIGHT ?

Maybe I am the misguided one, though, in thinking that your purported Final Solution is a failure in terms of humanity.

I guess I forgot that any mass murder, no matter how heinous, is justified and legitimate in the promulgation of American values and ideas and supremacy … it is the end product that counts, after all. And of course, any blood on the hand of an American immediately turns into sweet smelling perfume …

Un Italiano –

(L’ Italiano e’ veramente piu seconda lingua che lingua madre per me, pero’ me la cavo - anche se esprimo le mie frasi ed idee’ in un modo sballato.)

What I find sad about these propagandists is that they are afflicted with a severe mental block; where no amount of evidence is able to convince them that their country’s foreign policy is the root cause of many of the woes that they are currently experiencing … it seems as though their emotional attachment to the intangible idea of “America” or whatever, is stronger than their intellectual capacity to digest real-time news of what is happening at their behest. I find it vaguely pathetic, actually.

Albatroz --

Just to add a small snippet to that extract on the draft, it is widely believed within US military circles that it was the draft, (and the attendant induction of masses of unwilling, inept and demotivated draftees) that ruined the Vietnam era army. So there is also an unwillingness in military circles to repeat the same experiment.

Moron99 said...

"Tell us, then, do you support this ‘clensing’?

Good idea, huh?

So, let’s see, a couple of million Sunni, a couple of million Sadrists killed … all for the good of Iraq, right? "

It will be nothing quite so dramatic. People who are employed by the government but place insurgent, personal greed, or American interests in front of Iraq's national interests will lose their jobs.

and yes, I support any decision that the elected governemnt makes. The track record of the government to date has been exceptional. If you examine their choices of action and inaction, they are clearly trying to unite Iraq and move it forward into an era of peace, prosperity, and tolerance.

I withhold judgement on Chalabi. The US administration government may hate him because he outsmated them and made them look foolish. And he would obviously stab America in the back without hesitation ... but ... it's not really about Americans. It's about Iraqis. Anyone smart enough to manipulate the US government is a valuable asset. As long as he pursues what is best for the Iraqi people, then why not use him?

Truth teller said...


yes, I support any decision that the elected governemnt makes. The track record of the government to date has been exceptional. If you examine their choices of action and inaction, they are clearly trying to unite Iraq and move it forward into an era of peace, prosperity, and tolerance.
This quote is very strange, it is opposite to the reality 100%, I don't understand how could you believe in that.
The elelcted government are clearly trying to divide Iraq into small subdivision under the name of federal union, and move Iraq into a civil war under the name of cleansing. The early signs of that were appeared clearly in the behaviour of the government militants, as the ING, the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi police.

I withhold judgement on Chalabi. The US administration government may hate him because he outsmated them and made them look foolish. And he would obviously stab America in the back without hesitation.

I agree with you he may stab America in the back with hesitation, as he stab the whole Iraq in the back with hesitation.
BTW the elected government have the same ability as al Chalabi. America, you have to protect your back well.

Moron99 said...

Truth - shall we be frank?

The clensing will not be civil war. How many times have the shia been provoked only to turn the other cheek? The clensing will be borne of efficiency and purpose towards rebuilding rather than revenge. The threat of civil war only exists if the majority lose faith in both the government and Sistani. Given yesterday's events that is unlikely.

Regarding the sectarian divide - the shia bloc could have easily made a deal with the Kurds and denied the sunni any access to power. Between the two of them they could control the required 2/3 to approve anything they wanted. But they did not. Instead, they went to great effort and delays to find ways to include the very people who did not vote. That is not the actions of a government bent on creating sectarian divides. Their choices of action and inaction demonstrate a clear desire towards unity.

You posted a link in your other blog that discussed spiritual unity versus physical unity. The physical unity of Iraq as a nation is best preserved by building the spiritual unity of its people. That is the path that the government is following.

Moron99 said...

(spiritual unity in the sense of patriotism towards nation, not spiritual in a religious sense)

Albatroz said...

For democracy (American style in Iraq) at work, read:

waldschrat said...

In today's news I saw the following:

"Insurgents set off at least 17 bombs in Iraq on Friday, killing at least 50 people, including three U.S. soldiers, in a series of attacks aimed at shaking Iraq's newly formed government."

Only 3 Americans out of 50 dead. It seems the insurgents are not waging war on Americans, they are waging war on Iraqis. If not, their aim is incredibly bad.

waldschrat said...

Trutheller - you seem very skeptical about the good intentions of the new government, or at least the intentions of the individuals in the parliment or assembly or congress or whatever it is called (and I assume the word is in Arabic, not English).

I can only say that skepticism about politicians is always reasonable. Mark Twain said "No man's life or property are safe when Congress is in session." It was intended as a joke, but it is rather true. It seems that there has been a lot of very factional bargaining in the government so far. Ethnic and religious tensions seem pretty strong. In America I think geographic and economic considerations are more important. Part of the reason this is not the case in Iraq is probably the nature of the elections and the method of selecting members of the assembly. Political parties were organized and supported based on ethnc, cultural and religous differences and assembly members represent these interests, not a geographic area. There is no "Senator from Mosul" who depends only on the approval of the voters of Mosul (or Basra or Falluja). Instead there is "Sunni Senator #7" and "Kurdish Senator #3" and so forth, if I understand correctly. So this is what they think about, and this is what they argue about, it seem.

Ultimately, something will evolve that is acceptable to the majority, I assume. I asume nothing will ever be acceptable to the insurgents - I expect them to be exterminated, but if they somehow win I expect them to continue to kill others and themselves, because that is what violent people do.

The "rule of the majority" is only a good idea if the majority respects minorities. Individuals are each a "minority of one" in the final analysis. Right now the argument in the Iraqi assembly has less respect for minorities than might be wished. Even so, it seems most politicians are willing to give "lip service" to respect for minorities. I gess they understand the concept, even if it does not seem immediately consistent with their personal desires and the desires of their party.

I'm more worried about corruption in the police and military than the congress, actually. The congress/assembly can be guided by a constitution, or by compromise, or by god, but it can not act without the approval and assistance of the military and police. I have heard believable reports of brutality and bribery in the police. Iraq right now is a brotal place, so I can understand butality, but bribery is a very bad sign, sugegsting the police may not be loyal.

Pardon me, I retired today, 27 years on the same job and I will no longer go to the same office every day, my life is changing and I am a bit confused and worried, and sleepy and stupid. I will try to write something more intelligent tomorrow or the next day.

A Free Writer said...

Yes , People who are living in the middle of the events feels it's difficulties more than those hearing about it. That is why we are skeptic and sensetive about our new life after the
war. In fact we are still depressed about future of our children.I hope you could notice that very well in truth teller posts, may be majority of ( Iraqi bloggers) are having same sense and very conscious in praising our new life . We just want to see the light in the end of the tunnel at least to get some relax

Moron99 said...

Why are you depressed about the future of your children?

Albatroz said...

Contrarily to Moron99, I am no expert on Iraq. But I would dare to say that community in Iraq is a lot more important than the individual. There are tribal Iraqis. There are sunni, shiite Iraqis. There are Kurds, that are not (or do not want to be) Iraqi. Iraqi borders were not the result of Iraqi decisions, but were imposed by the British. There isn't, as yet, a sense of nationhood involving all those we decided to call Iraqis. A democracy, if successfully installed in Iraq, will not solve immediately this situation. On the contrary, it will make those divisons more evident. And without a sense of nationhood there will be no Iraq, and "Iraqis" will tend to kill each other along ethnic or religious lines. Schocking as that may sound, in those circumstances, an authoritarian regime can be more successful at nation building than a democracy. What we are seeing in Iraq is not very different from what we saw in former Yugoslavia. Croats, Serbs, Slovenians, etc., didn't want to stay together as a country, because of that lack of a sense of nationhood. With their usual ignorance and lack of sensitivity, Americans ignore all this and think that their brand of "democracy" will be the snake oil that will solve all problems. Iraq may be saved by a charismatic and authoritarian figure, if Iraqis are lucky enough to find one such person. Iraq will not be saved by American idiots imposing a "democracy".
Since I am no expert on Iraq - contrarily to Moron99 - I may be completely wrong in my assessment, but I would like to read the opinion of our Iraqi host and friends, about this.

Truth teller said...


"There are tribal Iraqis. There are sunni, shiite Iraqis. There are Kurds, that are not (or do not want to be) Iraqi."
Let us start from the begining.

Befor the era of Saddam, the power were in the hand of civilized urban people. There were tribe, and tribe custom ruled the tribe members, but not in the cities, and definitly not in the regions under the controll of the government.
When Saddam came to power, he changed every thing on purpose, as he was a villager, every thing was very clear from his speechs and behaviour (I think we should not take this as simple as it looked to be).

There are Sunni and Shiite Iraqi. Yes that is wright, but no body think about that before the occupation, no body ever say this person have this position because he is from this side or the other. This distinction, come with the American troops over an American tank, the western media exaggerate the matter, and the people started to think about it seriously.

The kurds, I have too many kurd friends, they are very keen to hold their sense ofnationality as Iraqi.
Again the idea of being non Iraqis, or want to be so, comes with the occupation. Som ebody may say there were a war between the Kurds and the iraqi governments since the creation of Iraq as a country. Yes there were such war, but with very minority of kurds, the majority are with a unified Iraq.

We had tried another type of democracy, and it worked for thousands of years, that is the Islamic democracy.
A real Islamic, not that which is found now in some Islamic country.
I think, if foreign countries (USA, Iran, and any other) leave us alone, every thing will be alright, there will be few troubles at first then every thing will be OK.

Albatroz said...

Truth Teller,
Pardon my curiosity, but how does that old Islamic democracy work?

Truth teller said...


I didn't understand in politics, but I can give you a hints about how it worked.

The heads of the tribes, the religious men, the army leaders and every one who was well known in honesty and loyalty (a selected members of the population), Joined together and chose one of them as a supposed leader, and then announced that name to all the people, any one who have objection have the right to say it. If no objection, the name announced as an official leader, and every one obliged to obey him, unless he did some thing against Islam, or against the direction of the Quraan which should be followed strictly.
here is a quote from the speech of the first khalif in Islam (Abu Bakir Al-Siddiq), he said: "I have been chosen your khalif, but I am not the best among you. Obey me as I obey the Allah (God) in you, If I disobey him, I have no right to ask your obedience."

David said...

Hmmm...a person chosen because of thier devotion to Allah (God), thier honesty and humility and thier promise to do the right thing or be held accountable...that works for me !!!

David said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
richsanter said...

Waldschrat --

[waldschrat] “Only 3 Americans out of 50 dead. It seems the insurgents are not waging war on Americans, they are waging war on Iraqis. If not, their aim is incredibly bad.”

On the surface of it the evidence looks pretty overwhelming, until one starts to think a little. A large portion of the Iraqis killed are associated with supporting the occupation, either through force of arms, logistically or legislatively. Read the background articles to the deaths and you will see that this is true. Only a tiny proportion of these attacks are those reprehensible acts targeting sectarian targets, which cannot be excused under any circumstance.

Secondly, as I have shown before, the overwhelming amount of attacks are against the Coalition. The reason for the miniscule success rate is the highly effective armour and medical services that the US disposes of, allowing people to live who under any other circumstance would have died.

Example from:

‘Blinded and shattered. After 34 surgeries, Marine maps out next part of his life’
May 02, 2005 - By Ted Roelofs - Gazette News Service

“[…] By all logic, Howell should have died. He stood a foot or two -- his left side exposed -- from a 155mm shell packed with plastic explosives when it detonated. Similar blasts will flip a truck upside down. Shrapnel shredded his legs, obliterated his left kneecap, shattered his left hand and eye socket, and blew his left eye out of his head. It broke both cheekbones and his nose, blew out his eardrums and tore through his abdomen and lower intestine.

Weeks later, he emerged from a coma. That's when he knew he was blind, completely.

Nearly 12,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 -- but the number fails to capture the lifetime of suffering many will face. That Howell and others like him survived is testament to protective gear and better battlefield care. His bulletproof vest with ceramic plates and his Kevlar helmet shielded his body core and brain so he could live. […] ”
//end excerpt

That’s why there are so few US targets ‘killed’. Even if they are shredded to bits, as long as their heart still beats, they are not considered as bona fide KIA’s. Remember though, that for each soldier killed, there are about 10 left crippled or maimed. Iraqis on the other hand, have no such body armour, helmets, tanks or fancy hospitals to stitch them together.

Moron99 --

[m99] “It will be nothing quite so dramatic. People who are employed by the government but place insurgent, personal greed, or American interests in front of Iraq's national interests will lose their jobs.”

Given that you are retiring, that means that you are pretty old, and ought to be well versed in the ways of the world. Do you really believe the naïve crap you just wrote there, or are you merely propagandizing? (If you are merely misinformed, then that’s another matter …)

We already have been through the various ways that the US has being trying to steer the Iraqi government along the path planned for it. This task is made easier by the fact that Waldschrat mentioned, namely that Iraqi politicians are not accountable to specific constituencies, and so largely divorces them from accountability.

Corrupt people will leave, you say? So you say that the ministers will fire themselves? I submit that this is naïve even by your standards, Moron99. Observe:

New Iraq - A nest of corruption
By Paul McGeough in Baghdad - May 2, 2005

“ Mr Jawad taps into the economy at various levels. He is an engineer and builder, he supplies government departments and he represents foreign companies, like international airlines.

"After I went to the Transport Ministry with a proposal for flights to Iraq from Scandinavia, I had a call from the minister's cousin to say that there would be no deal unless I paid a bribe of $US 500,000," he says.
"If you don't pay 5 or 6 per cent of the contract price on the side, you just get told that the ministry wants to work with a different company," Mr Jawad said.
The authors quote a survey last year in which 58 per cent of Iraqis had heard of corruption in the reconstruction process, and 32 per cent believed that such malpractices involved American officials. "Almost unanimously, Iraqi businessmen complain about bribery affecting virtually all government operations," they say.
Long before he made a name for himself as a Pentagon favourite in the lead-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi was better-known for his role in the multi-million dollar collapse of Jordan's Petra Bank. Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, concluded at the weekend: "To some extent, [they've] put a fox in charge of the henhouse." “ //end excerpt.

And, American interests are being protected at extremely high levels already.

People like Mahdi and Chalabi are long time US stooges that have promised to turn over the national oil assets for exploitation by US companies. These are people with essentially zero support that would never have been elected if candidates were geographically based. (After all, it’s kinda hard to campaign for Mosul or Basra if you’ve lived the past 20 years in Washington, no?)

Your alternative reality would be amusing if it were not so far fetched and tragic.

Ted said...

I think it’s become clear, after reading the rantings of “an italian”, albatroz, bruno and others, that this really isn’t about Iraq for them. It’s about America. (Vietnam, the Native Americans, McDonalds? What does that have to do with Iraq in 2005? And do you really want to get into a discussion of Europe’s history over the last several hundred years? Didn’t think so.)

People like them make it clear in everything they say that they couldn’t care less about what happens to Iraq or Iraqis. Any neutral observer can see it. All they care about is seeing America fail. They are obsessed with America. It’s kind of flattering, actually, that they care so much. It must just gnaw at them every day. You can practically smell the frustration on them. The movies they watch, the TV shows, the McDonalds on every corner, the very Internet they write on, the fact that they’re writing in English… it must just kill them that their own cultures have been subsumed by America. And so they lash out like frustrated toddlers. It doesn’t bother me, though. Just like with a tantrum-throwing toddler yelling “I hate you, Mommy”, you can’t take everything they say seriously. Just smile and humor them.

I do so love the fact that we’re so “in their heads”, though. :-)

Albatroz said...


"And do you really want to get into a discussion of Europe’s history over the last several hundred years?"

No problem. We behaved pretty badly on many occasions, but we finally learned that to respect other nations means recognizing their right to be different. That's a lesson you are seemingly very far yet from learning, and that's why we are here to assist you. Don't be the kind of jerks we were and go home.

慢慢來 said...