Saturday, May 14, 2005

A micro version of Falluja

There is a fight now in another city in Iraq, Al-Qaim situated near the Iraqi-Syrian border. it seems to me that the story of Falluja being repeated again.
"There is a humanitarian crisis in Qaim from the fighting. There are 1,300 displaced families (approximately 80,000 people) from Qaim and the hospital there was destroyed amidst fighting on 8 May between resistance fighters and locals. On the 9th there was no electricity or water in Qaim and the surrounding areas and schools were closed. On the 11th US warplanes continued to bomb Obeidy and other nearby locations."

The complete story can be found here at this URL:

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000241.php#more

275 comments:

1 – 200 of 275   Newer›   Newest»
Lisa, New York said...

Unfortunately, reports indicate Qaim and surrounding areas have become a safe haven for terrorists traveling to and from Syria. Terrorists who decided not to die in Fallujah have simply moved further west and north where they continue to manufacture the car bombs that kill innocent Iraqis daily. The innocent residents in those cities are simply victims in all this... of both sides.

But nearly every day, a reporter traveling with the Marines has witnessed Iraqis providing Americans with information about foreign insurgents, who appear to play a more prominent role out here near the border. The fighters have been coming to their towns in greater numbers since U.S.-led forces seized Al-Fallujah.

Residents say the insurgents threaten, beat and sometimes kill those who do not cooperate with them. They say the insurgents commandeer their homes and cars, prevent them from seeking jobs with the Iraqi security forces and endanger their towns by launching attacks against Americans from their back yards.

Marines sweeping Iraqi border for rebels

Anonymous said...

"The terrorists frighten and hurt the people here. They do checkpoints and patrols. Anyone they catch going to Al Qaim they will kill with a knife and throw him by the road," said the former official, who asked a Los Angeles Times reporter traveling with the Marines not to publish his name for fear that insurgents would kill him and his family ... Frankly, I don't like the American occupation," he said. "But I prefer the American occupation to occupation by Al Qaeda ... They tried to harm me because I worked for the government," the man said.

There were brown welts on his back where he had been flogged. There were small circular burns on his legs. He lifted his upper lip and revealed broken teeth. He held out his hands and displayed red lines where handcuffs had cut into his skin during eight days of captivity.

"They held me for eight days until my tribe forced them to let me go. They said that if you kill me, my tribe would kill four of Al Qaeda."

The man told the Marines that the U.S. mandate limiting each Iraqi household to one firearm and a small amount of ammunition had hindered the town's ability to defend itself. He also said Iraq's porous borders were endangering residents.

"If Americans or Iraqis close the border, the terrorists would not be able to come back," he said. "But if you leave town tomorrow, they will be back, and they will kill anyone who has helped the Americans."

Why then did he choose to speak to Marines about the insurgents who had controlled his town?

"Because they are bad guys," the man said. "Ask anyone here. These four days when the terrorists have gone have been so different from when the Americans came."

waldschrat said...

The news from Al Qaim seems confusing, but is clear that there has been hard fighting there.

One report is here;
link

I think one of the things that caused so much damage at Falluja was artillery. It's not clear that artillery was used at Al Qaim.

Ultimately it seems there was a lot of noise, a lot of people died, there are still bad people in the world, and Iraq is still a dangerous place.

Reports from Mosul recently indicate that Americans killed 8 people Friday, 3 who were apparently armed attackers and 5 in two other cars who simply frightened the soldiers. A previous report from a day or two earlier indicated an innocent Iraqi was killed in a car by an Iraqi guardsman who became frightened.

In the Watts Riots in 1965 in California, the appearance of a sign crudely drawn by soldiers saying "turn left or get shot" raised a great deal of attention. The usual image at the time of someone directing traffic was of a policeman who needed nothing but a pair of white gloves to assist him in pointing the way for cars to turn. Suddenly here was a tank and a machine gun manned by soldiers and a sign, "Turn Left of Get Shot!". People were shocked.

Now, for some unknown reason, it seems soldiers in Iraq expect to direct trafic and communicate with drivers with only a machine gun and no sign!

I have completely lost patience with the standard of safety for informal "check points" established by American and Iraqi forces. If people are expected to understand that they will be KILLED if they fail to stop, the warnings posted at such check points should be very very clear and unmistakable! If the account in a soldier's blog entry posted May 10, 2005 at this is your war is correct, it seems resources for providing such warnings are poor and people are improvising with varying degrees of success.

I wonder if it would save lives if these checkpoints were required to have clear, highly visible signs indicating what was expected of drivers. Can folks in Iraq tell me if check points are usually clearly marked?

Anonymous said...

Be helpful if Anonymous above provided a source for his/her quotes.
This "freeing Iraqis from the oppression of foreign terrorists" line just somehow doesn’t ring true to me - too reminiscent of the propaganda used to justify the Fallujah fiasco.
Does anyone know, is Qaim anywhere near Makr Al Deeb, which is close to the border? That was where the wedding party was massacred from the air back in May 2004, on the grounds that its activity was "suspected" to be infiltrating "foreign fighters."
I remember an enraged tribal relative of the victims saying on a news clip "For every one of ours, ten of theirs will die."
Infiltrating foreign Jihadis would presumably be heading for Baghdad, where the action is, not hanging around out in the boonies.
I think on logical grounds I incline towards the alternative interpretation of independent and bloody-minded locals defending their turf. Apparently Saddam couldn’t really control these guys out on the border either.
For sure the US never will - if the Marines left Fallujah tomorrow, it would be back under hard-line insurgent control the next day.
What a farce.
John

Hitech Luddite said...

I hope to see a day when the residents of that area are strong enough to defeat any outside group that comes along and tries to force them to do things they don't want to do. It sounds like they are getting closer to that. The biggest problem is money, the funnel of money from oil revenues that goes to the terrorists' means they have more resources than the average Iraqi. I don't expect the people to love the US forces but they are learning that we are the lesser of two evils.

Hitech Luddite said...

"I think on logical grounds I incline towards the alternative interpretation of independent and bloody-minded locals defending their turf. Apparently Saddam couldn’t really control these guys out on the border either.
For sure the US never will - if the Marines left Fallujah tomorrow, it would be back under hard-line insurgent control the next day.
What a farce. "

Ok John so what's the answer? Let that region remain in a state of tribal warfare? A region that has access to Oil Money and Religious fundamentalism that is actively seeking to destroy the west! That may have cut it 100 years ago but it's time to bring that part of the world into the 21st century. It's time for the educated people in that region to prove that they are beyond the need of a man like Saddam to control the tribal warlords, religious sects and ethnic groups. If the middle & upper class can not pull the country together into some form of democratic self rule they are in for endless death and misery by their own hands.

Albatroz said...

Hitech Luddite,

What you are saying is: "It's time for Iraqis to be like Americans..."

My word, what a disgusting idea... Iraqis are the descendents of the oldest civilization on Earth. Their forefathers wrote much of what we know as the "Bible" (in the Old Testament). They could read and write while our forefathers were living in caves. Why in heavens would we want to condemn them to the horrible fate of being more like Americans?...

Don Cox said...

"They told him (unconfirmed) that all of Iraq has had no electricity for several days. "

Can anyone actually in Iraq confirm this? If so, it is presumably due to terrorist activity. It is easier to destroy than to build.

Anonymous said...

Hitech says:
"Ok John so what's the answer? ... If the middle & upper class can not pull the country together ..."
I dunno how class suddenly got into the equation. TruthTeller can maybe correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that after many years of Sunni predominance, the middle and upper class are mainly Sunni? And after the last two years of bungled, disastrous occupation, they are more interested in the departure of the occupiers than in pulling the country together?
I don’t know what the answer is, but I suspect that the obtrusive presence of foreign troops in a sovereign and independent Iraq can’t be part of it. The only reason they are still there, theoretically, is to support the new government while it trains up its security forces. But its not going to be a matter of, "Aha, now we’ve got x thousand trained troops, everything will suddenly and magically come right." The place is too complicated and stuffed up for that - its going to be a long, long hard haul, with a lot of twists and bumps in the road. Is the US as a whole really committed to that? Not according to your National Guard and Army recruiting figures, surely.
John

Hurria said...

"It is easier to destroy than to build."

Indeed it is, Don Cox, as your government with its one ton bombs and its tanks and bulldozers and attack helicopters have proven beyond a doubt. You are all experts at destroying - in fact, you can flatten an entire major city in very little time.

Don Cox said...

"your government with its one ton bombs and its tanks and bulldozers and attack helicopters" I think you may be assuming I am American. Are you in Iraq? If so, can you answer my question about the electricity?

waldschrat said...

Hee's another story about the Al Qaim events:

link

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

The marines aren't targeting cities. They are targeting (and shutting down) ratlines. But you already knew that. Just like you know that the recent surge in car bombs - including the ones that target civillians - has a central command. One down, four to go. What's next? Rutbah ... maybe the border crossing on Hwy 11?

Moron99 said...

Anyone find themselves wondering about Saddam? How's life in jail been treating him?

Click here to find out

Hurria said...

"Anyone find themselves wondering about Saddam?"

Saddam is so over. Only you Americans are still obsessed with him.

"How's life in jail been treating him?"

Who cares? Let him rot in jail, or let him rot in hell. It makes no difference.

Hurria said...

"The marines aren't targeting cities."

Do, please, tell that to the people of Falluja, just for starters. Then, if you survive that, you can move on to Najaf, Tal `Afar, Ramadi, Samarra, Nasiriya, and so on and so on and so on.

"They are targeting (and shutting down) ratlines."

Whatever they are targetting, they are destroying cities and towns, homes, and infrastructure, creating permanent refugees, and killing men, women, children, and elderly Iraqis every day.

Hurria said...

By the way, Moron99, today Muqtada Al Sadr made very strong calls for immediate withdrawal of the American occupation. I guess you won't see him sending his militia to join the Ba`thist thug commandos.

Moron99 said...

yeah, I heard. The "go home amiriki" has become more of a political tool than actual intent for him. Whenever his guys and insurgents square off in a debate, it always ends up with each of them accussing the other of only wanting MNF out so that they can make a grab for power. Sadr is dumb but his organization is not completely stupid. They won't really push for americans to leave if they don't think that they have a legitimate chance for power. They'll keep playing the card though because it resonates and brings them a share of support. "Amiriki go home" guarantees him a fair share of votes. In modern Iraq, votes=power.

actually though, it seemed as if his strongest message was for his mehdi army not to start going off on a half-crazed sunni killing spree. It was nice to see him and sistani singing the same song for a change. Albeit to a different rhythym.

BTW - on a strategic note. Fallujah was the terminus and disembarkment point for the terrorist assets coming up through syria and jordan. Al Qaim was the other end of the insurgency's major ratline. You would like people to think that the insurgency is grass roots. Obviously, it has a central decision making component. Otherwise it would be unable to coordinate simultaneous attacks. This also means that the targeting of civillians is no accident.

So which ratline do you think is next?

Anonymous said...

Ok John so what's the answer? Let that region remain in a state of tribal warfare? A region that has access to Oil Money and Religious fundamentalism that is actively seeking to destroy the west! -Hitech

That part about "seeking to destroy the west" is simply false. They want the US authorities to stop propping up their evil, brutal dictators, especially in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They want freedom, not the US running their countries by pulling stings behind the scenes. Same in Uzbekistan.
Susan

Moron99 said...

It is the people who are propping up the dictators. They do it by externalizing their problems and not questioning their own government. They do it by creating false demons and not addressing those within their own house. They do it by believing every conspiracy theory and rumor. They do it by accepting a false premise that will never be fullfilled - a better life is only possible after a pure society is achieved. It should be noted that Arab states already have the "purest" societies on earth yet they have the least ideal life. The dictators are propped up by their own people who unquestionably accept the status quo and/or are afraid to speak out. It was the same in Europe until Martin Luther posted his notes. It was the same in the southern US until Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus. It was the same in Iran until the people rose up against the Shah. Tyranny can only exist for so long as the people underneath it allow themselves to be tyrannized. The longer they allow the tyranny to stand, the more blood will be spilt when it falls.

Hurria said...

Moron99, I have got to hand it to you. You have a great imagination!

Albatroz said...

With such enlightened Americans as Moron99 I wonder why things are so screwed up in the US. Poverty, urban decay, oppression of minorities... Why doesn't Moron99 (and others like him) turn their attention to all that misery in their own backyard, instead of trying to "save" Iraq? Flattening the Bronx, for instance, might be more efficient than flattening Fallujah... And would keep the top military equally happy... Who knows, maybe someday an Iraqi army will land in New York to do some cleansing of their own...

waldschrat said...

TRUTHTELLER - Be Careful!

Sounds like trouble in eastern Mosul, the Dhubbat district, a good place not to be right now!

U.S. troops and militants clashed in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, with heavy exchanges of machine gun fire heard, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

U.S. forces were seen advancing into the eastern neighborhood of Dhubbat, a known insurgent stronghold in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad.

"Forces were attacked and called in helicopters to support them in the battle with insurgents," said U.S. military spokesman Sgt. John H. Franzen. He did not have further details.

Heavy machine gun exchanges took place in the area between militants and U.S. forces, said the AP reporter who witnessed the clashes.

Moron99 said...

Because Albatroz, life is never stagnant. With each new wave of immigrants society changes and is changed. Some are left behind and some rise to greatness. Some decay and some grow. Whatever you dream, it is here. If you have no dreams, then no dreams you shall get. Those like you, who focus on the potholes, rarely reach their destination.

But - - it still isn't about America. It is about Iraq. It is about living up to the commitment and promises made. This is not 1991 and America will not walk away from her responsibilities. Iraq has the opportunity that her own people can define any future that they wish. This is about that opportunity. It is not infinite. In a few years, America will have met her commitments
1) protect the people who will write a constitution
2) hold nationwide elections to ratify or reject the constitution
3) hold nationwide elections to select leaders from multi-candidate ballots
4) weaken the forces who would topple the constitutional government and strengthen those who support it.

After that America will soon walk away whether the Iraqis have achieved their dreams or not. It is not about America. It is about Iraq.

waldschrat said...

Najma reports trouble nearby, broken glass. I am very worried.

Moron99 said...

She seemed to indicate that it was over - for now. She also sounds like she needs a vacation.

I have heard that Saddam's family just purchased Al Jazeera. Which means that Baathi's treasure is still far from being completely spent.

Anonymous said...

Moron99 (Yessiree, Ah come from a long, long line of morons) says:
In a few years, America will have met her commitments
1) protect the people who will write a constitution
2) hold nationwide elections to ratify or reject the constitution
3) hold nationwide elections to select leaders from multi-candidate ballots
4) weaken the forces who would topple the constitutional government and strengthen those who support it.

And charge for it all, on a no-bid cost plus basis, presumably.
What if it all goes the other way? What if America gets tired of her commitments, and walks away leaving Iraq as a splintered, devastated sectarian mess. You have to admit it is possible.
(Ever hear of a place called Vietnam?) Will America proudly accept responsibility then?

TruthTeller, recent news reports refer to a reduced US presence around Mosul, only 6000 troops or so. What are conditions like there now, is there any restoration of normality and order, any sign of improvement? You need to understand that you Iraqi Bloggers, like it or not, are an important news source nowadays.
John

Moron99 said...

Anonymous,

It is very possible. America's responsibilities are clearly outlined in TAL. If Iraqis fail to capitalize upon their opportunity it does not change the point at which America has fulfilled her obligations. It is doubtful that the American public, through the mechanisms of free elections, will approve a contract extension. We would much prefer to spend the next $500 billion on ourselves.

Albatroz said...

Moron99,

What about hopping on the next plane to Iraq and going, personally, to help all those Iraqis you seem so concerned about? There are enough NGO's that would be happy to count on a extra pair of hands to clear the rubble, to assist the wounded, to teach the children. I might then be prepared to believe in your good intentions. But then you would run the risk of becoming another item of colateral damage, isn't it?... Better stay at home and help with the war propaganda... It's definitely less dangerous, although not so heroic...

Moron99 said...

Who said I have good intentions as you would define them? I'm no saint. My world is almost perfect. Heaven on earth. Loving, healthy, and gifted children ... house on the beach, trading orchids with neighbors, boatrides to islands, good fishing, clean air, retired at 32, traveled the world, complete freedom and all the time in the world ... hey, life is almost as perfect one could possibly desire. The US is in Iraq to protect my little slice of heaven from the next 50 years of mideast decay. I'm cool with that.

Now why would I leave heaven to go to hell? I'm no soldier, I'm no saint, I'm no martyr. Too old anyway. It would be nice if Iraq could have a little slice of heaven too. Almost everyone in the US is hoping for something like that. But it's Iraq's choice, not ours. They have a contract and they have a clear opportunity that no other gulf state has had in a thousand years. Will they take it? Who knows. We got a contract and we will know when our responsibility has been met. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Truth teller said...

waldschrat

Thank you for asking.
Najma, HNK, and little Aya were at home together, the rest of us were in our daily business when the situation burst out. Heavy machine gunfire, mortors and helicopters missiles continued for about an two hours.
They knew what to do, as this is not the first time they expose to such events (but it is the most dangerous).
They are all OK now except for some fear and horror.
I will write more details when I have time.

Albatroz said...

Moron99,

"The US is in Iraq to protect my little slice of heaven from the next 50 years of mideast decay. I'm cool with that."

Finally some honesty. And I'm sure that all that Iraqi oil will be of some assistance in protecting your little slice of heaven... Not a bit troubled by all that "colateral damage" though?... I guess not. They are nothing but ragheads, after all...

Moron99 said...

Truth,
Can we send anything to help? Are there supplies unavailable in Mosul that you would like to have?


Albatroz -
get over the oil. The US will be long gone before the $500billion would ever come close to being paid back. It's stupid. You want people to think you're smart? Going on about oil doesn't make you look good.

John said...

Truth, praise be your family is safe and unharmed! One can never be certain when this insanity will ever end! The Americans seem to be relentless and unabatted in spite of their ever increasing death toll!

I read today your American election, "purple fingered" democratically elected Prime Minister was meeting today with Iran's Foreign Minister!

Any good news here? There declaration of mutual frienship and goodwill might send a message to the Americans that their prescence will eventually require a permanency!

Theres no surprise a former ten year exile would embrace the country that took him in, yet the Americans continuing incompetent foreign policy usually responds to these situations with a typical baffoon like idiocy!

May the occupier one day be put on trial for their war crimes, may that criminal Bush face the same fate as any war criminal!

And do you ever tire of Morons incessant war mongering stupidity, it would start to grate on me if my families lives were being compromised by the occupier. I think I would fantasize about a missle exploding in his back yard!

Anonymous said...

That wasn't me.
John

waldschrat said...

The US military does not seem to present a consistent account of yesteday's events.

==============
U.S. military spokesman Sgt. John H. Franzen said American troops were investigating reports that a homemade bomb was planted in the area when they came under fire from militants.

"Forces were attacked and called in helicopters to support them in the battle with insurgents," Franzen said.

He added that U.S. soldiers reported minimal damage to the two buildings and found no injured or dead insurgents.

But Lt. Gen. Ahmad Mohammed Khalaf, commander of Mosul's police forces, told a press conference later that U.S. aircraft destroyed two homes where the militants were holed up, killing 20.

He said U.S. soldiers fought 80 militants who had fled to Mosul from Qaim, a town near the Syrian border that was the scene of a recent weeklong American military operation aimed at destroying supporters of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

A statement released earlier by U.S. and Iraqi forces in Mosul said troops detained nine suspected terrorists in separate operations Monday and Tuesday.

==============

In Sacramento I have a rental house I bought recently as an investment. On my list of repairs which I need to do on the house, there is a bullet hole in one window, apparently from some argument in the street near by. One bullet hole seems like a small thing, today.

waldschrat said...

More trouble rported in the same part of Mosul today, mortar rounds directed against a police acadamy by people with very bad aim, it seems.

========================
All of the Mosul attacks took place in the eastern part of the city, a predominantly Sunni Arab district, and four of the rounds hit its police academy but caused no injuries, police Brig. Gen. Wathiq Mohammed said.

One round landed in front of a grocer's shop in the al-Masarif neighborhood and killed the owner, said Dr. Bahaa-Eddine al-Bakri of the Jamhouri Teaching Hospital.

Another struck a car and killed its driver and injured a passenger, al-Bakri said, while seven children walking to school in the al-Jamaa neighborhood were injured by another.
===================


Truthteller, it seems your perception of a similarity between Al-Qaim and Falluja was accurate in more than one way. Both were scenes of intense violence. After both incidents, insurgents attacked police in Mosul, where they perhaps fled.

The inaccurate use of extremely powerful weapons is insane and irresponsible.

I hope you will report your situation. I am worried, and I am sure all readeers of your family's posts are also worried.

Hurria said...

Moron99,

I am still waiting for you to point out to me where the IRI poll you have cited actually addresses the issues you cited it for. I have so far been unable to detect any mention in that poll of support for U.S. withdrawal, or support for "insurgents". I am sure this is due to a deficiency on my part, and would appreciate it if you would help me to locate the information you insist is there.

Truth teller said...

waldschrat

I saw a plastic bag in the middle of the road full of what seem to be a trash.
About one hour later a nearby bureau opened and one of the emploee saw the bag and suspected that it contains a bomb. It was infront of the buraeu no more than 15 m. a way. He called the police and told them about his suspicion. Few minutes later an American force came and inspect the bag, they started shooting fire toward the bag several times, but it didn't explode. They think it was a false alarm, they asked one of the bureau workers to go and take the bag away!!! but he refused.
At that time there were sounds of several gunshots (sound of Klashinkoof) But there is no injured or any sign of the bullets.
There is an empty house at the corner of the road about 100 m. from the American. The Americans started fire at that house heavely, then two helicopters started fire at that house also. The house suffered medium damage as Franzen said. There were no injured or dead insurgents.
I think there were no insurgent from the start. I heared this story from an eye witness who was at the spot when it happened.

"But Lt. Gen. Ahmad Mohammed Khalaf, commander of Mosul's police forces, told a press conference later that U.S. aircraft destroyed two homes where the militants were holed up, killing 20."

Either he was talking about another accident or simply he was exaggerating.

What happened at the police academy is a different srory.

The so called police academy is a buildings out side the city used by traffic police. Earlier this year it was used to train the new policemen, but not any more.
It is now a base for the Peshmerga, they made a check point there to search or inspect the cars which are going to the north. It is few Km to the north of mosul. This place were bombed several times by mortar round. What is happenning, is that every time they exposed to fire they started firing mortar rounds in all direction including toward the city of Mosul!!!!!It looks unbelievable but it is true. And always the police or the ING said that the insurgents are who fire the bombs!!! and they killed so and so. It is strange . Isn't it?

waldschrat said...

Truthteller, "strange" is not the word, what it sounds like is lunacy, utter madness. It is not sane to use weapons against a target which is not clearly identified. It is not sane to waste ammunition shooting an empty house. It is not sane to spend two hours shooting with machine guns and rockets, then find that nothing worth shooting can be found to have been hit. It is not sane to kill people and injure children who were never reasonable targets for anybody. It is all madness.

Moron99 said...

Waldschrat,

do you read Michael Yon? This might pop up on his blog too.

Moron99 said...

Truth,

you once said I should spend time in Mosul. Hmmm ... definitely not now. Definitely not in any areas that pro-government forces would label as "pro-insurgent".

With Quaim shut down the northwest routes seem the next most likely. Turaybil and Tanf aren't good candidates as neither one provides plausible deniability to Jordan/Syria. Iran is making diplomatic overatures to Bagdhad and so the eastern border has good chance to be secured diplomatically. Habur is out of the question. That leaves Kujik and Sinjar. All that suicide stuff has to get in somehow and it has to be stored somewhere before being sent out to the cities.

If you suspect one of these distribution centers might be in your area, then maybe you should rent a summer house on the other side of town.

Truth teller said...

This is an important article I found today about the late events happened in Iraq, and the expected outcome.
here

Hurria said...

"you once said I should spend time in Mosul. Hmmm ... definitely not now."

It would be nice if you spent time anywhere in Iraq. Even better if you spent time in Iraq as an Iraqi. Best yet if you actually learned something real about Iraq.

Albatroz said...

Moron99 reminds me of a saying in my country which goes as follows: "Those who know study, those who don't know teach"... He is personified ignorance, always full of useless advice, offensive in his arrogance. The typical "ugly American" whose only competence is strengthening the world's distaste for the US...

Moron99 said...

It's just a series of observations.
1) Mosul now accounts for something like one in every eight clashes or bombings in Iraq.
2) The suiciders come from outside and the baathi come from the inside of Iraq. They need supply lines, meeting places, safe houses, and storage facilities in order to meet their logistical needs.
3) Pro-government forces have been pursuing a stretegy of cutting supply lines and denying sanctuaries. The modus operandi seems to be US troops flush the insurgents from an area and then IP/ING establish permanent law&order. Their greatest limiting factor is available numbers of trained IP.
4) Looking at a map and also looking at locations of conflict - a route through Sinjar with a distribution center in Mosul appears to be the next most active
supply line.

Truth probably has a feel for whether or not any of these facilities are near his neighborhood. If they are, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is a bad place to be. But - if so, then it might not be possible to leave.

The recent law which gives the government the power to seize assets is troubling. It remains to be seen how they use it. But, let us say that you leave town for a month. Insurgents see your house is abandoned and start using it. Now the government can lawfully seize your possessions because insurgents are using your home. Since your house has legally become their property they can destroy it. You come back from vacation and your house is a pile of rubble. You ask the government for compensation and find out that it isn't even your house or land anymore. You start pushing the issue and find out that they can legally seize your savings, freeze your bank accounts, take your car, anything ...

It is a very troubling law. It too closely resembles the way of the baathi. I wonder how the general population of Iraq feels about it. Their approval vs. disproval would give good insight into whether or not they trust the government. The ex-pats seem to be thrilled. But, then again, they're on the outside looking in.

So anyway - it's just an observation. Things seem likely to heat up in Mosul this summer. It would be a good time to be somewhere else, if you can.

Moron99 said...

Truth,

Qaim was obviously a first staging area for incoming suiciders and supplies to be directed towards regional cells. The nature of the entrenched defenses indicates that it was at least a semi-permanent insurgent base. The amount of expensive assets including things like body armour indicates the presence of higher level command and control.

Not mentioned by anyone so far is the lack of ING. If you are looking for an insurgent victory or a solid bit of propaganda fodder, that's it. The government doesn't even trust their own ING. The PM and Minstry of Interior directed the Americans to do it without them because the insurgency has been so successful at infiltrating IP/ING.

richsanter said...

Moron99 --

[m99] “Albatroz - get over the oil. The US will be long gone before the $500billion would ever come close to being paid back. It's stupid. You want people to think you're smart? Going on about oil doesn't make you look good.”

Well, I don’t know about that. Considering the hiding you have already received over the oil issue, I’m surprised that you keep plugging away at it.

What was your reasoning again?

Ah yes, the USA, the country of business and hard nosed financial decisions, spent 300 Billion and 25000 casualties to free some Arabs which they don’t like anyway from the regional despot in order that they may live in peace and freedom, without expecting ANYTHING in return. *sniff* The magnanimity of America just brings tears to my eyes.

Reality: Iraq was supposed to “finance its own reconstruction”, the lions share of which was unilaterally awarded by the invaders to US companies which have strong links to the decision makers to go to war. That’s quite apart from the BILLIONS of Iraqi dollars that have ‘accidentally’ gone missing under the Occupation.

Reality: Iraqi oil is the cheapest, most easily extractable oil on the globe, and the neocons never intended to stay this long or expend this much money or blood.

You’re right on one aspect though: going on about the oil doesn’t make you look good.


Hurria --

No mercy on the poll thing, huh?

>:]

Bringing up figures of Iraqi opinion on US withdrawal are never wise if one is a warmonger. I mean, what if people mention articles like this one:

******
Zogby International – 28 January 2005 Abu Dhabi TV Poll
“The poll also finds majorities of both Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from their soil. Zogby International polled 805 Iraqi adults from January 19 to 23, 2005 on behalf of television broadcaster Abu Dhabi TV. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points.
The survey, to be released at 5 p.m. ET on Abu Dhabi Television, found three-quarters (76%) of Sunni Arabs say they definitely will not vote in the January 30 elections, while just 9% say they are likely to vote. A majority of Shiites (80%) say they are likely to vote or definitely will vote, as are a smaller majority of Kurds (57%). Majorities of both Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) also favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place.
The poll also found that of Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds believe the U.S. will “help” Iraq over the next five years, while half (49%) of Shiites and a majority (64%) of Sunni Arabs believe the U.S. will “hurt” Iraq.”
******

Wow, I guess articles like that could suck, if you were a warmongering American trying to excuse the presence of US troops on Iraqi soil.

Nevermind, I’m sure the IRI will conduct another poll soon, where they ask Iraqis whether they think about cabbages, carrots, potatoes or terrorism the most. People like Moron99 could then cite the results to us as ‘proof’ that Iraqi insurgents are reviled and have no support base, and that they want US troops to stay evermore.

strykerdad said...

As a warmongering American, I hope we eventually leave Iraq and our weapons to the Kurds and let them resolve things as they see fit--they are owed that much.

The American shelling is radar guided response to a brief increase in rocket and mortar fire from the Sunni dominated areas of Mosul. Some 'innocents' may have been killed or injured, but if you see people setting up rockets and mortars in your neighborhood and do nothing about it---well just how innocent are you? Might provoke a little neighborhood watch form teh 'nuetral' residents.

Moron99 said...

Albatroz I read those pre-election polls. Post-election is different story. Iraqi's are turning increasingly hostile towards the insurgents and increasingly accepting the elected government's decision to retain US presence for now. The current government of Iraq operates under the assumption that they are accountable to the people of Iraq. The Shia and Kurd form the majority. As long as the Sunni give shelter to people who target shia and Kurd and refuse to participate, then the sunni will find their voices in government weak and under-represented. It's their choice. It is quite obvious that the government is going to win this war. All the sunni are accomplishing is placing themselves in long term political disadvantage. They didn't vote in the last election and look where it got them. Now they don't want to participate in forming a constitution. Guess where that will get them? The shia will still treat them fairly - just not quite as fairly as a sunni would if he were on the committee. Then come the next set of elections. Just how stupid are the sunni? Will they again refuse to climb out of sectarian sickness and try to blow up anyone who threatens to make them mere equals?

On a bright note - if Talha is removed at about the same time that the supply routes are disrupted then its possible that mosul might find peace without having to go through violence.

Link

Albatroz said...

From the International Herald Tribune:

"U.S. military commanders in Baghdad and Washington have given a sobering new assessment of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to make a trip to Baghdad last weekend for talks with Iraq's new government.

In interviews and briefings Wednesday, the generals pulled back from recent suggestions - including those by some of the same officers - that positive trends in Iraq could allow a reduction in the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq late this year or early in 2006.

One senior officer suggested Wednesday that U.S. military involvement could last "many years."

Strange, no word about the Iraqi government and their position on this... Could it be that Americans might be considering staying in Iraq even against the new government's wishes?...

Moron99 said...

You've got it backwards Albatroz. There is a loophole in TAL that the Iraqi government could exploit to prevent US troops from leaving.
Do you know what that loophole is?

Hurria said...

"the BILLIONS of Iraqi dollars that have ‘accidentally’ gone missing under the Occupation."

Make that tens of billions, please. :o}

waldschrat said...

Truthteller -
The best maps of Mosul that I have found online are here:
Mosul Maps Link

Do you know of any better maps?

Some of the things on the map are fascinating!

I found two areas southeast of Mosul University identified as "Nineveh Ruins".

West of Mosul University, near the Tigris River, I found an area identified as "Mintaqat Ghabat Ninawa (Nineveh Woods)", with three restaurants or cafes nearby and an amusement park to the south.

South of the university, and near the ruins, there is even a place identified as "Tourist Administration", on Al Humiyan Street. Different portions of this same street are identified as "An Nabi Yunus Street" and "Ashur Banibal Street" - perhaps the map maker asked people along the street what it was called and everybody told him something different.

It seems clear from the presence of several rivers in the city that it is largely flat land, good country for riding a bicycle because there are few steep hills. I wonder if many people ride bicycles in Mosul.

Hurria said...

"Post-election is different story. Iraqi's are turning increasingly hostile towards the insurgents and increasingly accepting the elected government's decision to retain US presence for now."

And you know this exactly how, Moron99? To the best of my knowledge only one national poll has been conducted in Iraq since the election. As far as I can determine, attitudes toward neither the "insurgents", nor the U.S. presence were addressed in that poll. Since you have repeatedly cited that poll as supporting your assertion that "Iraqi's (sic) are turning increasingly hostile towards the insurgents and increasingly accepting the elected government's (sic) decision to retain US presence ", I was sure I must have missed something. For that reason I asked you to point out to me where that poll addresses those two issues. Given that you have yet to even acknowledge my repeated requests, I am beginning to suspect that I was not missing anything because there is nothing there to miss.

Given that you cannot possibly be basing your assertions about declining support for the "insurgents", and lack of support for U.S. withdrawal on the only national poll conducted since the election, it appears you have no basis for it whatsoever.

waldschrat said...

Aha, there ARE people in Iraq crazy enough to ride bicycles!

link

Moron99 said...

Hurria, it has nothing to do with content. I don't have powerpoint. The pdf link has been broken for weeks. The webmasters will fix the link sooner or later - hopefully more sooner than later.

Anonymous said...

Truthteller:
You posted a link earlier to Dahr Jamail. He seems to be on a roll, and has posted several more articles since then, in both his Weblog and Hard News sections. The story of the blinded girl is very sad. What he reports (admittedly second-hand) about Al Qaim is interesting.
But I was very impressed by his report about the Iraqi truck drivers in Jordan, the sort of things they were saying. Can you comment on their comments? Is this what lots of people are saying in Mosul?
John

Hurria said...

"it has nothing to do with content."

It has EVERYTHING to do with content. If the poll does not address the issues of support for "insurgents" and US withdrawal, then there is nothing there that supports your argument.

It is suddenly looking very suspiciously as if you have no idea what is in that poll and what is not in it.

Moron99 said...

I read the poll from cover to cover before the .pdf link broke. There are many questions that relate to the present and future course of Iraq and people's priorities. In all cases, the removal of foriegn troops was a significantly less important issue than in previous polls. Even if you remove the Kurdish segment, the results were still a majority. Including the Kurds, it represents a mandate for the elected government to continue following the path that they are now upon.

Regarding the direct questioning "do you support the insurgency?". Aw, c'mon how dumb do you think pollsters are? You can't knock on someones door and expect an honest answer. An honest answer might get them killed. Read the poll again and you will see where they asked this in several roundabout ways.

better yet, why don't you cut & paste between powerpoint and acrobat. Stick the pdf on the net and we won't have to wait for the link to get fixed in order to be specific and granular.

Now, there was a poll in Najaf where they did directly ask about insurgency and troop removal. It was only 63% in favor of phased withdrawal, but it did ask the question directly. Considering the lack of Kurdish opinion and the presence of Sadrists, this is still consistent with other findings. Dude, you're trying to something that isn't there.

An Italian. said...

@Truth Teller & all.

I find this remark by 'Strykerdad' (5/19/2005 08:02:50 PM) about what's happening in Mosul absolutely incredible, and up to now nobody seems to have noticed it: "The American shelling is radar guided response to a brief increase in rocket and mortar fire from the Sunni dominated areas of Mosul. Some 'innocents' may have been killed or injured, but if you see people setting up rockets and mortars in your neighborhood and do nothing about it - well just how innocent are you? Might provoke a little neighborhood watch from the 'neutral' residents".

The man (possibly the father of a US soldier in Iraq) is candidly spilling the beans: the US military DOES violate on purpose the Geneva Convention (the original one, the one it signed back in 1949).

To consider a district in a city a 'legitimate target' because the population harbours 'insurgents' or guerrillas is explicitly forbidden the Geneva Convention, as is reprisal or retaliation on the civilian population.

To admit, like this 'Strykerdad' does, that they freely kill & injure civilians ("well just how innocent are you?", this criminal says, forgetting that the point is not the political sympathies of the victims, but if they are combatants or not) in order to compel them to turn against the insurgency is incredibly cheeky, but at least, for once from a warmongerer, honest.

@Strykerdad:
Have you ever thought that if your 'Strykerson' were to come home minus some paws, or in a coffin, he wouldn't be a maimed or fallen 'American Hero' (LOL), but just a maimed or fallen WAR CRIMINAL?
Ever heard of the Nurnberg trial?

Moron99 said...

Italian, maybe nobody mentioned anything because they assumed that the radar guided shells were being aimed at the mortar tube location.

Read a great quote today. But first some background.
1) recent autopsies have shown three suicide bombers to have down's syndrome
2) Zarqawi just released a tape in which he makes it clear that he is willing to kill an unlimited number of Iraqi civillians

So here's the quote intended to summarize the insurgency:
"Mass murderers and mental incompetents managed by Saddam supporters trying to restore a dictatorship, all led by a Jordanian thug with a one track mind and a fast mouth. Welcome to Iraq."

It's a tragedy. When will they just give up and let the era of peace begin?

Hurria said...

"I read the poll from cover to cover before the .pdf link broke.

So they converted the PowerPoint presentation to .pdf - big deal.

"There are many questions that relate to the present and future course of Iraq and people's priorities."

Utterly irrelevant. You have repeatedly cited the IRI survey as evidence of two things: 1) declining support for the "insurgents", and 2) lack of support for U.S. withdrawal. There is not a single question in the survey that relates or even alludes to or hints at support for the "insurgents", or support or lack of support for U.S. withdrawal.

"In all cases, the removal of foriegn troops was a significantly less important issue than in previous polls."

Complete rubbish. In no case was the removal of foreign troops even hinted at or alluded to.

"Even if you remove the Kurdish segment, the results were still a majority."

What on earth is "the results were still a majority" supposed to mean? That phrase makes no sense whatsoever.

In any case, whatever it is you were trying to say there, there were no results at all that concern either support for the "insurgents" or removal of foreign troops.

"Including the Kurds, it represents a mandate for the elected government to continue following the path that they are now upon."

Utterly irrelevant. The issue is your repeated contention that the IRI survey supports your claims of "declining support for the insurgents (sic)" and lack of support for U.S. withdrawal. It not only does not support your claims, it does not address your claims whatsoever.

Regarding the direct questioning "do you support the insurgency?". Aw, c'mon how dumb do you think pollsters are? You can't knock on someones door and expect an honest answer."

Yes, you can, and a number of polls and surveys have asked direct questions, such as whether or not attacks on occupation forces are justified, whether or not attacks on Iraqi police and soldiers are justified, and whether or not attacks on civilians are justified.

"An honest answer might get them killed."

Complete Rubbish. Confidentiality and anonymity are fundamental to conducting opinion surveys.

"Read the poll again and you will see where they asked this in several roundabout ways."

No, I won't, because they didn't even address it, hint at it, or allude to it.

"better yet, why don't you cut & paste between powerpoint and acrobat."

Wouldn't it be easier just to look at the version that's available on the web?

Better yet, why don't YOU give it a try. That way you might learn something about how .pdf format works, too.

"Stick the pdf on the net and we won't have to wait for the link to get fixed in order to be specific and granular."

Perhaps you can explain how copying and pasting the PowerPoint presentation into an Acrobat file will make it more "specific and granular" than it is as a PowerPoint presentation.

"Now, there was a poll in Najaf where they did directly ask about insurgency and troop removal."

But you just said pollsters couldn't knock on doors and ask directly about the "insurgency", and it would be really dumb for them to do so. Now you are saying that in this poll in Najaf they did ask directly about the "insurgency". Some people might see this as contradicting yourself. Or perhaps you are saying that the people who conducted the poll in Najaf are dumb.

"Considering the lack of Kurdish opinion and the presence of Sadrists, this is still consistent with other findings."

With what "other findings"? Please list them, and provide sources if possible.

"Dude, you're trying to something that isn't there."

It looks like you are the one who is trying to something that isn't there.

I saw the extremely brief article in an Iraqi newspaper on the poll to which you are referring. It does not contain information about the design or methodology of the poll. There is no information at all on the wording of the questions, or the response choices. They also did not report on the full results.

Oddly enough, Chrenkoff's blog is the only other source for this poll. Chrenkoff is not even a secondary, or a tertiary source. He is, at best, quaternary source. The primary source is, of course, the report written by those who conducted the poll. The secondary source is the newspaper article. Chrenkoff's source - his "special correspondent and translator", who is in the US, not Iraq - is the tertiary source. So, when we hear about this poll from Chrenkoff, we are getting it fourth hand. Every other mention of the poll uses Chrenkoff as their source, and most are simply copy/paste jobs directly from his blog.

You claimed that "there was a poll in Najaf where they did directly ask about insurgency". According to the article in the Arabic newspaper, and even according to Chrenkoff (who is undoubtedly YOUR source), they not only did not ask directly about the "insurgency", they didn't ask about it, allude to it, or hint at it in any way whatsoever. There was not only not a direct question about the "insurgency", there was not so much as a single syllable about the "insurgency" in that poll.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
strykerdad said...

An Italian---you surmise correctly, but even an Italian should know that a military force is justified in returning hostile fire, whether it comes from a neighborhood sympathetic to the enemy or a mosque as these cowardly animals are prone to hide behind. Our fighting men can place around with 20 yds of a hostile shot before the hostile round hits the ground. Not smart to allow enemy to operate in your vicinity repeatedly, and if you do you will suffer consequences. Many in Mosul are willingly cooperating out of a desire to realize the potential of a free Iraq--others are cooperating out of a desire to preserve themselves. And so far as judging who is a hero or a criminal--do you really think an Italian would be the authority on such matters? My grandfater, also an Ameican warmonger, had some experience with Italians in the 40's--liked the women, but never referred to the men as heros, that's for sure. Now he served with a couple of Americans of Italian descent he thought highly of, so maybe it is a geographical thing with you Europeons. Thank God for the English Channel so GB has some resistance to whatever it is that makes you folks' testicles shrink into insignificance, which describes most of 'old' Europe accurately.

Dan said...

Yes. Fallujah is being repeated.

American soldiers are kicking the fucking shit out of more cowardly terrorists.

---Dan

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

Fine. I will install the microsoft bloatware pig Powerpoint. But before I do, answer these two questions:

Do you, Hurria, think that the government of Iraq is headed in the right direction?

Do you, Hurria, think the killing of policemen and NG's is justified?

Albatroz said...

Strykerdad is a perfect example of a dumb American trying to sound intelligent. The fact that back in the 40's we had reason to be grateful to the US for the assistance given against nazi Germany, doesn't mean that we have to agree with any later idiotic actions by your country. In matter of fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union your behaviour has been consistently appalling, bordering on the criminal. This second Iraqi war is by far the most disgusting American action in a long time. And the most disgusting thing is the fact that you have absolutely no idea of the crimes you are committing. Maybe the fact that the US served mainly as a dump for the garbage we had in Europe explains why violence is the only language you seem to understand. Balls you may have, but they are a poor substitute for brains...

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Moron99 said...

Albatroz,

While you pontificate of the great injustices the a country you don't live in does to another country you don't live in - all the while never expressing one drop of concern for the living people who inhabit either - there is something important going on. Something more important than your real and imagined monsters and witches. You think the world revolves around Washington. It does not. The single most important thing to happen in the early 21st century is in Bagdhad and it will be done by Iraqis. They are going to try and draft a constitution for governance that bridges the gap between Islamic culture and the modern world. Something that brings economic prosperity without sacrificing Islamic values. Something that respects their history and culture but is at ease with modern inventions.

You, my Portugese friend, are on the wrong side of history this time. Get past your anger and hatred and perhaps you can see the immense promise. Someday very soon Iraq is going to be, by far, the most powerful nation in the gulf. No other gulf state is in a position to compete with her combination of natural resources, public support, education, and compatability with modern global economies.

Does it scare you? Iraq that is. Soon to be more powerful than almost any European nation.

strykerdad said...

Europeons always feel that way about dumb Americans---until they need us to do what they won't or can't---Bosnia for instance, lot's more. And of course America is full of the offspring of European trash----even you have to realize how incredibly stupid that statement is--but amusingly so. That explains America's dominance and success and explains why the populations of old Europe are shrinking and relying on third world immigrants to keep their economies functioning on a barely perceptible level while surrendering their national identity. What incredible insight you have! You made this warmongering American descended from immigrant eurotrash since 1687, very happy today--thanks.

waldschrat said...

It doesn't make much sense to me to pqint entire nations, populated by millions of unique individuals, with a broad brush, pretending they are all of the same color and character. In every population there are good people and bad people, smart people and stupid people, beautiful people and ugly peple. The fiction that entire nations think with the same mind and act with the same will is an attractive delusion and typical of the rhetoric of fascists and fools.

strykerdad said...

Speaking for myself, who was admittedly reponding in an emotional way to someone accusing me and my son and my nation as war criminals, I was referring primarily to the will or lack thereof of nations, not individuals. Sorry if it seemed as though I was referring to individuals, though it seems pretty clear to me.

Hurria said...

stykerdad,

Okay, so you think it is just fine to lob deadly and destructive devices into neighborhoods because you think there are "insurgents" there. If in the process you kill and maim a few kids, moms, grannys, grandpas, and family pets, and destroy a few homes and businesses, oh well, you are doing the right thing. After all, those cowardly "insurgents" shouldn't be there, right?

And then I suppose you are astonished and hurt when the moms, dads, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters of those kids, moms, granny's and grandpas you killed and maimed join the "insurgents" and fight against you.

And I suppose it never occurs to you that you are the ones who have started it by violently and aggressively forcing your way into their homeland, destroying and killing and maiming as you go. You, not they are the attacker, and they are defending against your violence, not vice versa. When I hear Americans whine that "they are shooting at us", I wonder if they have ever considered that the only reason "they" are shooting at "you" is that you started it by shooting at them.

strykerdad said...

I do not believe American forces are maiming and killing innocents any more than is unfortunately neccesary to end the insurgency and terrorists who are targeting those innocents as a matter of tactics and using thme as sheilds behind which they do their evil. War is a nasty terrible business, many pay the price who wish only to be left alone, it has always been that way. The solution is for the 'innocents' to cooperate in every way possible to rid their area of the enemy. Most neighborhoods do that, some allow the enemy to operate among them. It is only those neighborhhods where attacks originate repeatedly and after several visits by the MNF seeking assistance that have been subject to precise radar guided mortar fire. And then only after making it clear to the residents what to expect. I know this from a source I trust with my life. This blog is hosted by a fellow claiming to be THE Truthteller (who interestingly thought it possible giant spiders had been sent by Alah to do battle aginst American troops), so let me inject some truth through a quote:

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill

Hurria said...

Moron99,

You have repeatedly cited the poll taken in Najaf as proof for your assertion that support for the "insurgents" is declining. Most recently you stated in your usual authoritative manner that poll participants were asked "directly" about "insurgency".

In light of that, how do you explain the fact that there is not only no direct question about "insurgency" in that poll, there is no indirect question about "insurgency" - in fact, there isn't so much as a tiny hint or allusion to "insurgency" in the entire poll?

An Italian. said...

@Srykerdad.

"And so far as judging who is a hero or a criminal - do you really think an Italian would be the authority on such matters?".

The authority, Strykerdad, in this case is the Geneva Convention, 1949 (not an Italian or anybody else; & it's a matter of obscene criminals, not of 'heroes' here).
BTW, the military occupier of a country, according to the same Geneva Convention, is legally responsible for any damage or casualty inflicted on the civilian population.

To answer to guerrillas with 'radar guided shelling' on a city district inhabited by non combatants is, precisely, a war crime according to the Geneva Convention.
The last ones who did something of the kind in Europe before the Yugoslav conflict were the Nazis in Warsaw, 1944. They ended up at the Nuremberg trials, and those doing the same in Yugoslavia ended up at the Hague court. Sooner or later Bush, Cheney and your military will suffer the same fate.

So the US military and Administration are WAR CRIMINALS, according to the Geneva Convention, and like you yourself admitted.

Your son in Iraq is indeed a WAR CRIMINAL, and you an advocate of war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Can you deny it, Strykerdad?

And, again, do consider what Hurria tells you: you have no right whatsoever to kill ANY Iraqi.
BTW, on the crap on the oh so wonderful 'nation building' in Iraq that Moron keeps ranting about, it IS another illegal act, according to the same Geneva Convention, where 'nation building' of any kind is explicitly forbidden.

Apart from all that, you convalidate Albatroz about the brainlessness of you warmongering Americans & of your military. Like Hurria (and the British military, and any human child older than seven) remarked, your brilliant theory of 'maximum force protection, maximum infliction' is not just criminal according to the Geneva Convention, but self-defeating, because you create in that way more & more enemies, and as a consequence the security of your military gets more & more compromised, with increasing losses. You truly do not seem to have the thought processes of all human beings.

An Italian. said...

@Srykerdad.

You quoted John Stuart Mill, "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself".

To whom does it apply to? To your beastly, brainless & cowardly soldiers, invading a country thousands of miles afar for no legitimate or just reason at all?

Methinks it is instead dawning on all Iraqis that the sentence does indeed apply to them; and more and more Iraqis will join the ranks of the patriotic resistance, because they are realising that kicking the criminal American invaders out is indeed the only way & chance to be free.

IRAQ said...

@Srykerdad

'I do not believe American forces are maiming and killing innocents any more than is unfortunately neccesary to end the insurgency

Zarqawi said a couple days ago that he will do the same thing to end the accupation.

so American forces = Zarqawi

and the only victim in the middle are the Iraqi civilians

An Italian. said...

Again, Strykerdad:

"I do not believe American forces are maiming and killing innocents any more than is unfortunately necessary to end the insurgency".

Maiming and killing innocents is a WAR CRIME, regardless of any supposed 'necessity'; and according to the Geneva Convention it is even a worse crime when committed in a country by the occupying power.

I'm quite happy that you warmongering apes are more & more showing your true (Nazi) colours for all the world to see; your words, Strykerdad, counter most effectively all the lies touted by Moron99, Lisa-NY, and other disingenuous propagandists.

Go on, Strykerdad, please!

strykerdad said...

An Italian, you really need to find a subject upon which you can speak authoritatively, because you are wrong on all accounts. The proof is that there is absolutley no legitimate accusations of such violations before any court anywhere or the UN. Name one documnted case of civilians being deliberately targeted...You have zero proof, no legitimate case, and internet anectdotal evidence gleaned from the internet from supposed Iraqi sources with a clear agenda and all seem to have gone to the Bagdad Bob School of Reality. Your charges could very well have come from that clown's own mouth. History rolls on and you and your insignificant ilk are being proven losers every day and the forces fighting to secure Iraq, many brave Iraqis among them and more joining every day at great risk to themselves, are being vindicated. I am certain that the "neutral' Iraqis will be the first in line to claim their 'due' when this insurgency is sent to hell or realizes their error.

An Italian. said...

@Strykerdad,
"you are wrong on all accounts. The proof is that there is absolutely no legitimate accusations of such violations before any court anywhere or the UN. Name one documented case of civilians being deliberately targeted..."

Are you getting chicken, or what? Since the US did refuse (and it is quite obvious why, given what they are doing around the world) to be under the jurisdiction of ANY international court, the accusations are there alright, to international courts and in front of the magistrates of different countries, but it is unlikely that the US defendants will be brought in front of the courts any time soon.

A couple of cases of "civilians being deliberately targeted", just the thinnest tip of a huge iceberg?
What about the cousin of another Iraqi blogger, Zeyad, who was beaten up and then drowned into the Tigris river by an American patrol?
Or what about the two unlucky Iraqi civilians who were shot in the back (these cowardly 'American Heroes', LOL) by Lt Pantano?
What about Fallujah, Najaf, and now Qaim?

strykerdad said...

An Italian, you can't possibly be so ignorant of the rules of war and conflict to believe that an enmy force can set up operations in a civilian neighborhood, fire upon military positions, and be immune from a military response? The forces firing mortars on enmy positions are firing on positions used REPEATEDLY and only after the residents in those areas have been warned that a continution of those activities will result in counterstrike. If American forces had denied civilians the ability to leave that area, they would be violating the Geneva Conventions. They have not only followed those rules, they have exceeded them by responding only after warnings. Your heros, the insurgents and terrorists, make no effort to follow even basic human decency, much less abide by the Geneva Conventions---waiting for your proof.

An Italian. said...

@Strykerdad.
"If American forces had denied civilians the ability to leave that area, they would be violating the Geneva Conventions".

That's precisely what the US military, by their own admission, did in Fallujah in October/November 2004. They decided, against precisely the Geneva Convention, that no male between 14 & 65 years of age could leave the besieged city (!!!).
Most families were compelled in that way to stay on, being caught in the US onslaught.

Have you got the cheek to deny it?

strykerdad said...

That is simply a damned lie--not only were they allowed to leave, refugee camps were set up and transportation provided--I know that for a fact. Males of a certain age were subject to being detained and questioned, but they were not forced to remain. You have exposed yourself as an ignorant liar or a calculating liar, neither of which is worthy of further debate. But should you honestly believe you are correct, then you should make every effort to begin or join an effort to bring evidence to any world body you can--pissing into the wind making outrageous claims is what a coward would do with your claimed convictions.

So far as the quote reference, the Iraqi people will have to decide--US or Zarqawi? and suffer the consequences or reward of their choice. And eventually the entire Middle East will have to make that choice---the Islamofascists forced that choice upon everyone. We can no longer coexist and they choose to be our enemy, it will be resolved eventually. I know which side I'd bet on--lot of history to base that choice upon.

Hurria said...

"That is simply a damned lie--not only werea they allowed to leave, refugee camps were set up and transportation provided--"

THAT is the damned lie. As if it were not a sufficiently horrendous war crime - a crime that rises to the level of a crime against humanity - to drive hundreds of thousands of people out of their city in order to demolish it, and slaughter those who were unable to leave, the benevolent U.S. did not set up a single refugee camp, nor did they provide transportation for a single resident of Falluja.

"I know that for a fact."

No you don't. You heard it, and you would prefer to believe that lie rather than know the truth.

"Males of a certain age were subject to being detained and questioned, but they were not forced to remain."

Males between 14-65 years were forced back into the city when they tried to leave in both the April and the November massacres. In many cases forcing them back forced their entire families to return to the city since most Fallujan women do not know how to drive, and many families could not bear to be separated.

There are mulitple, consistent reports of convoys of vehicles filled with fleeing families being attacked from tanks and helicopters. Some of those accounts have been confirmed.

In November there are multiple, consistent, confirmed reports of Falluja residents being shot by U.S. troops, sometimes by helicopters, as they tried to flee the city, many of them by the only available route - across the river. One journalist reported witnessing American troops killing a number of Iraqis this way, and of narrowly escaping death himself as he tried to flee the city.

Aside from the numerous, very consistent reports from witnesses and victims of the Falluja massacres of April and the November massacre and nearly complete destruction of the city, many of us are related to or personally acquainted with people from Falluja, or have friends or neighbors who are. While many Fallujans ended up in pathetic tent camps (that were NOT set up for them by the U.S.), or took shelter in abandoned and/or bombed out buildings in other towns and cities, many others were lucky enough to have relatives in Baghdad, Mosul, or other towns, cities, and villages, who took them in. The refugees all tell amazingly consistent stories of their experience, and they do not match with yours.

John said...

Stryker Dad, as formidable a choice as that might be, I can't imagine anyone I know who would be comfortable presenting a person such as yourself as their dad!

You seem tired, old, unsavory and unworthy of debate. It surprises me that Italian is willing to engage someone such as yourself in any limited primary school discussion. Your position is as enlightented as John Waynes role in "Green Beret"!

Cue lyrics: "Fighting soldiers from the sky, Fearless men who jump and die, Men who mean just what they say
The brave men of the Green Beret!

Silver wings upon their chest
These are men, America's best
One hundred men will test today
But only three win the Green Beret

Trained to live off nature's land
Trained in combat, hand-to-hand
Men who fight by night and day
Courage peak from the Green Berets

Back at home a young wife waits
Her Green Beret has met his fate
He has died for those oppressed
Leaving her his last request

Put silver wings on my son's chest Make him one of America's best
He'll be a man they'll test one day
Have him win the Green Beret

Fighting Soldiers of the Sky! Fearless men who jaunt and die!"

Now given that Strykers don't lay claim to nearly the same romantic appeal as the Beret, the Colby Buzzels of the world just don't seem to have that same jaunt and die personna. Whats your point. You lost Vietnam, but by God your heroic troops are prepared to stay the course in the Middle East! Consider, Strykers Dad, its just a pathetically inadequate military vehicle, and all you are is another sad apologist for another one of America's sad ventures in a tyrannical war of oppression! God it must suck being as dillusional as you've revealed in every comment you've posted!

strykerdad said...

How do you know the giant spider's didn't eat them instead? Bagdad Bob lives! Pathetic, backward, ignorant, gullible people---if you have any proof that what you say is true, bring it forward. There are plenty of people worldwide and in America who want nothing more than to bring down the effort in Iraq and even mildly palusible proof of what you claim would do the job. Put up, shut up, or join the rest of those with your mindset and blow yourselves up along with your fellow Iraqis who actually are trying to accomplish something worthwhile and hopeful---a sad anomally among Arab states. You have picked your side, stop being a coward and try to do something about your supposed convictions.

Hurria said...

Strykerdad, you appear to cling to the spectacularly illogical and demonstrably contrafactual delusion that there is no crime until and unless there is a prosecution. The absurdity of that notion should be absolutely clear, and is so easily demonstrable that it is only by the force of will born of desperation to remain blind to reality that anyone could possibly genuinely believe it.

I don't know what your son has done in Iraq, so I do not know whether he is a war criminal or not. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is itself a war of aggression, which is the most grievous war crime possible. Everyone from the top down who participated in any way in the mistreatment, torture, and killing of detainees and prisoners is a war criminal. It was a war crime when U.S. forces, based on a rumour that Saddam might be there, dropped three one ton bombs on a building in the residential district of Mansour, killing at least 26 innocent Iraqis, including one whole Christian family. And of course Saddam was NOT there.

The Falluja massacres of April and November were both enormous war crimes, during which U.S. forces committed countless smaller war crimes, including attacking medical facilities, ambulances, and medical personnel. The November demolition and massacre in Falluja probably rises to a crime against humanity, and it was initiated by a series of smaller war crimes, including the complete destruction of a medical clinic, and siezing the main hospital (in order to prevent it from being a source of reports of the carnage the Americans were about to commit), abuse of its medical staff and patients, including dragging patients out of their beds, and even interrupting doctors as they performed surgeries and births. (This reminds one of the falsehoods about Iraqis pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, except that there is eyewitness and documentary evidence for the U.S. crimes in Falluja.)

I could go on and on and on and on. I could list every one of the confirmed war crimes and atrocities I know about without beginning to scratch the surface of what the U.S. has done.

Hurria said...

"War is a nasty terrible business"

Then don't start them.

Anonymous said...

Or, to put it another way, if Strykerdad was living in Nazi Germany, he would call himself Stukadad.
Good grief, man! You claim that it wasn't about oil, or WMD or links with Al Quaeda, or profits for Halliburton, oh no, it was all about bringing "freedom and democracy" to the benighted Iraqis.
You've been there for over two years now, and the one thing that is clear is that the overwhelming majority of the benighted Iraqis hate your presence and can't wait to see the back of you. Your troops haven't been ambassadors for freedom and democracy, or for kindness or fairness or justice or friendliness or humainty. They've just been alien stormtroopers.
Not a single one of them, after two years, could walk unarmed down a single street in the whole of Iraq.
The British in the South have done it ten times better with their "minimum force" military doctrine, and even then they're only being tolerated until they leave, which probably will be quite soon.
Could it be that, basically, you're just nasty people? Bullies?
John

strykerdad said...

What I cling to is the knowledge that if any of the 'war crimes' you claim to be certain of took place, there are countless persons who would go to any expense to reveal those crimes and document them for all the world to see. I'm not talking about bloggers, or silly Arab 'news' sites that tell of 10's of thousands of American dead, or giant spiders, or ghostly appritions sent by Allah to defend Iraq--I'm talking about incontorvertible proof which would exist if your assertions were true. Somr abuses have occurred with detainees and I have no doubt 'innocent' Iraqis have died and suffered as innocents always do in armed conflict. So far as the whole conflict being illegal--by who's law? By some crazed imam who encourages beheadings and suicide bombers law? I know Arabs seem to be so proud, yet so humiliated at what has become of the culture and it leads to fantasies of a world they long for instead of the one that exists--but you gotta face up to reality at some point. Cry, whine, lament all you want about what has happened, but there is a future to be siezed by those that will just reach for it. Many are doing just that. Fanatical Islamists have forced the issue and it is going to be settled one way or another.

strykerdad said...

John, I never claimed it wasn't about those things--I think it was about all those things. It is about a region mired in a radical, backward philosohy which has access to money and the potential to buy weapons they could use to destroy Western Civilization as they seem to feel is their duty to do. That has to change. If they had no oil, no means to finance the spread of fanatical religious beliefs encouraging defeat of the West, no ability to acquire weapons that would make the 9-11 attack a mere footnote, I'd say let them enslave their women, race their camels with slave boys, murder one another to their hearts content. But that is not the way the world is. The Middle East will change, either by some form of liberty and modernization, or by an eventual response to an attack that will result in a armed response which will leave a smoking hole of which Iraq may be the approximate center. Not the way I'd like the world to be, but that is the way the world is at present. This isn't about American benevolence as much as it is American survival--and doing that by bringing Arab culture into the modern world is the preferred way.

Anonymous said...

Stukadad.
Presumably you see no possiblility of "American Survival" if the Americans just stayed home in their own country, and minded their own bloody business, like everybody else in the world does?
At least until they've managed to train up a halfway competent humane, responsible, likeable, fair and friendly military, if they must blunder around trying to put the rest of the world to rights?
John

strykerdad said...

Remember 9-11? It happened. Have you heard the words of bin laden and his like? Are you aware of the spread of WMD ant the increased likelyhood of them falling into the hands of radical islamist who think it their sacred duty to convert or kill? Did I imagine these things? Do you honestly believe we could return to America and they would leave us alone? I'm not willing to take that chance because fantics are irrational. And my wife isn't wearing a burka, so we have an impasse which must be settled.

Hurria said...

"if any of the 'war crimes' you claim to be certain of took place, there are countless persons who would go to any expense to reveal those crimes and document them for all the world to see."

Every one of the war crimes I have mentioned, plus hundreds more have been documented and publicized. Some of them, such as the war crimes committed at the Abu Ghraib prison were pubicly revealed because the perpetrators of those crimes had documented them themselves. Similar war crimes committed in every other American-run prison have been amply documented by the Red Cross, by eyewitness and victim testimony, complete in many cases with physical evidence of damage to the victims, and by internal military reports.

That the attack on Iraq was a pure war of aggression and therefore a war crime has been confirmed many times over by public officials, and international legal experts.

You yourself have admitted that the U.S. drove most of the 300,000 residents of Falluja out of their homes and city and into refugee status so they could bomb most of the city into dust and rubble.
Driving out the population of a city so you can control it is itself a war crime. The destruction of a city, along with the massacre of thousands who were unable to leave is, quite possibly, a crime against humanity. (No one questions that it was a crime for Saddam Hussein to drive hundreds of thousands of Kurds out of Kirkuk and other towns in order to control those locations. How is the U.S. driving hundreds of thousands of Fallujans out of their city - and then destroying the city - in order to control it any different?)

The war crime of destroying the medical clinic in Falluja has been very well documented by many eyewitness reports, video, and photographs, all of which have been published.

Even the mainstream U.S. press reported that siezing the main hospital was the first act of the November atrocity, and U.S. commanders were not at all shy about admitting that they siezed the hospital specifically in order to prevent news of casualties. The way U.S. troops behaved in the hospital, some of which I described here, has also been documented and publicly reported, and much if not all of it, including the mere act of siezing a hospital, qualifies as war crimes.

The war crimes of attacking ambulances which were rescuing the wounded have also been documented by multiple eyewitness reports, and photographs.

I could write volumes more, but why bother? Your desperation to defend the indefensible has mad you willfully blind, deaf, and dumb, I am afraid.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

I am waiting for you to answer the two questions I put before you. I think that you avoid them because you realize the significance and you also realize that they are in the polls. If you disagree, then just answer the questions and we shall see where it leads us.

strykerdad said...

Hurria, I quit reading your post when you started talking about Fallujah bombed to dust--damned lie. I wish we could discuss the philisophical aspects as I have some ability to see the other side, but you continue to lie or repeat lies. I jsut saw a PBS segment on the current situation in Fallujah--and if you don't know, PBS is biased very much against the war--and the video showed so areas certainly destroyed, but the majority is intact and business is going on as before on the streets. Abuses I acknowledge, and they have been dealt with and will contiue to be dealt with, but your claims are outrageous to the point of being ludicrous. I can't debate that.

Anonymous said...

Stukadad
Well despite your lunatic rhetoric about "smoking holes" you are not really going to nuke the Islamic world into terrified submission, all 1.2 billion of them. You are not really going to conquer any more Islamic countries, like Iran. You've failed miserably in the one you've tried. Keep trying, you'll just get more 9/11's.
If there were no US bases and fleets in the Arab world, they would just ignore you and you could ignore them.
Has China or Europe got bases in South America? Has India or Russia got bases in Africa? Why not just stay home - the Cold War's long over, why launch into a new one?
John

Hurria said...

"Remember 9-11? It happened."

And no Iraqi, including Saddam Hussein, had anything whatsoever to do with it. In fact, Iraq was one of three Middle Eastern countries that was found in study after study to be a terrorist free zone. International terrorism has just never been Iraqis' thing - until the last couple of years, that is.

Iraq will never begin to calm down until the biggest terrorists of all, the American, are out of there completely.

Moron99 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
strykerdad said...

John, Failed miserably? Democracy is breaking out all over in the middle east just two years in. Failed? Syria out of lebanon, women voting in Kuwait, local elections in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, democracy movement in Iran possibly on the verge of revolution, and elected governnment in Iraq---FAILURE? Maybe in your fondest wishes. But if things do go into chaos, and a WMD is used against America, if you don't think the Middle East will become a smoking hole, you haven't been paying attention.

Hurria said...

"Fallujah bombed to dust--damned lie."

Strykerdad, unlike you I know up close and personal what Falluja used to look like. Unlike you, I personally know people from Falluja, some of whom have been back to what was left of their homes. Unlike you, I have seen video and photographs of what is left of the city. Unlike you I have read and viewed official and unofficial reports all of which estimate that 60-70% of Falluja's buildings were either completely or mostly destroyed, and most of the rest of the city is uninhabitable. Almost all the infrastructure, including schools, medical facilities, electrical, water, telephone, and sewage facilites, was destroyed. I have viewed and read interviews with residents of Falluja who were unable to leave their city and were therefore present before, during, and after its destruction. I have read and viewed reports by journalists, aid workers, and others who have seen what has happened to that city. I also know that only a few thousand Fallujans have returned to their city.

I know what is and what is not a damned lie.

Moron99 said...

Truth, Hurria, anonymous,

If you are Iraqi, the time has come to stop talking about Americans, Jordanians, and Syrians. It is time to start talking about Iraqis and the constitution. If your leaders are urging you not to participate, then they are betraying you. You need to be involved in the discussions early and frequently so that your voices will help to shape the constitution. Unlike previous governments, this one will be shaped by public opinion. It is time to make your opinions heard. Not about Americans or Jordanians. They will both be gone soon enough. The constitution being drafted will affect your grandchildren. It is in your best interests to make sure that your voices are heard.

As an example - the American constitution did not include a bill of rights. There was a minority element that oppossed the constitution and a strong federalist government. They stood up and made their voices heard. In response to their participation, the bill of rights was added. By standing up and making their voices heard, this group of anti-government activists made a difference that changed the world. This, right now, is your chance and your moment to do the same.

We have a saying in English - "Speak now or forever remain silent". Now, is the time for speaking. Well chosen words will have more permanent power than bullets.

strykerdad said...

Sadam was just the best available target, he defied UN resolutions, gave us every reason to believe he had WMD and DID retain the ability to reconstiute, supported suicide bombers in Israel, fired upon US planes pretty reugularly--when it became obivious after 9-11 that the Arab culture was headed into unavoidable conflict, Iraq was the obvious place to try to begin a reformation. The alternative is to see things deteriorate, seem week-after all many Arabs saw 911 as a victory, and wait for another attack. That was never going to happen. Not with the technology and money availabe to those sworn to destroy us.

Hurria said...

Moron99, your lame effort to put the onus on me is clearly an attempting to avoid addressing the fact that you have made a demonstrably false claim about the Najaf poll, and that there is nothing whatsoever in the IRI survey that supports your claims of declining support for the "insurgents" and increasing support for the U.S. presence.

Stop trying to change the subject and explain your false claims about these polls.

Oh, by the way, that oh, so meaningfull "Iraqi" poll in Al Sabah - you know, the online poll that had around 1500 respondents, only 14% of whom supported immediate withdrawal of foreign forces - now has 1843 respondents, more than 20% of whom support immediate withdrawal. How on earth do you suppose THAT happened?

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

Do you think the government is headed in the right direction?

Explain how an insurgent would answer "yes".

Anonymous said...

Stukadad
So since you can't nuke the Arab world into submission, and since they show little sign of being impressed by bullying bluster, the only solution is a state of perpetual war between the US and them? And a thousand more Fallujahs, right?
John

Hurria said...

Democracy breaking out all over the Middle East? Strykerdad, you ARE delusional.

If real democracy ever broke out all over the Middle East, you should be afraid - very afraid - because any genuinely democratically elected government in any Middle East country would be overwhelmingly anti-American. Even prior to your aggression against Iraq, your unspeakable atrocities there, in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo, and your use of religiouse humiliation and desecration to "break" prisoners, you would have ended up in very bad shape had democracy truly broken out all over the Middle East. Now, after everything you have done, you would be completely finished in the region.

Oh - and by the way, Syria leaving Lebanon had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. Here are a couple of other verifiable facts about Lebanon that will not interest you I am sure:

1. Lebanon has had genuine, very well-run elections since the early '40's.

2. Syria did not invade and occupy Lebanon. Syria's presence in Lebanon was initiated at the request of the Lebanese government.

Moron99 said...

John,

The Arab world is easy to force into submission with far less than nukes. The ease with which they are oppressed and decieved is in evidence throughout the gulf by a myriad of dictators and corrupt Imams. All that is required is Mongol tactics such as those used by Saddam. The Arab people will submit as they have been trained to do. The point is not to force them into submission, but rather to teach them how to revolt against it. Such knowledge will spread to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi and all others. The corrupt governments of the mideast will be forced to either listen to the people or loose their chairs.

strykerdad said...

Who says you can't make them submit? I think most Muslims want to live in peace and when they wee that they are in danger becasue of the actions of the fanatical minority, the fantics will be dealt with out of a desire for self preservation. There is evidence of that already.
It is a small fraction who seem to have the desire for conflict, and the ones that do seem to be using retarded and hostages to do their dirty work to an increasing degree--I don't think it is going to come to a nuclear response to a WMD attack. I know some hate it, but we are winning--it only been 2 years really and we've come a long way.

Hurria said...

Moron99,

Stop trying to change the subject. You are a master at sounding knowledgeable and authoritative while slinging tons of pure processed bull food. I want to hear how you are going to explain away the fact that the polls you have repeatedly cited can possibly support your claims of "declining support for insurgents" and "increasing support for continued U.S. presence" while not addressing the issues at all.

Or alternatively you could simply admit that you are busted, but the former would be more fun.

strykerdad said...

You really do live in a bizzarro world--its been fun, but I have some Western decadence to engage in. Peace---after victory.

Hurria said...

"Sadam was just the best available target"

Wrong. The attack on Iraq was pure opportunism, and, as is becoming increasingly clear, a huge mistake. And it was all 100% predictable.

"he defied UN resolutions gave us every reason to believe he had WMD and DID retain the ability to reconstiute"

On that basis, Israel is a far better target. They have defied many times more UN resolutions, and it is a known fact they have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is also a known fact that they possess and have used chemical weapons, and that they have an active biological weapons program. Furthermore, they have been caught spying on the U.S., and selling technology they got from the U.S. to China and other "enemies". And on top of that, five Israeli citizens were seen on September 11 dancing and laughing as they filmed the tragedy at the twin towers.

"supported suicide bombers in Israel"

That is, to use your favourite term, a damned lie. He did not support suicide bombers anywhere at any time.

"fired upon US planes pretty reugularly--"

He fired on U.S. planed far less regularly than those U.S. planes bombed his territory.

The rest of your remarks are such ignorant, racist horseshit that I will not soil my hands by responding to them.

Moron99 said...

The polls included a number of questions that directly resonate with pro-insurgency. Again -

Do you think the government is headed in the right direction?
Explain how an insurgent would answer "yes".

Another popular polling question is what do you think are the greatest issues facing Iraq.
Explain why and insurgent would choose to list something other than removal of occupation forces as the most important issue.

The there are myriad question about killing IP/ING?
Explain how an insurgent supporter would answer this.

You see, Hurria, the rapidly declining support for the insurgency is reflected in many ways. But the most significant indicator of Iraqi opinion is the number of tips and leads being provided by ordinary Iraqis. It is growing exponentially even though the number of insurgents is declining.

Perhaps the best summary of the situation was given by a foreign fighter ....
As'ad Ismail Abdullah (Al-Shimari stated that he didn't see Americans raping Iraqi women, there was no Saddam's Army, and that Muslims were killing Muslims every day and that he did not know why he was in Iraq anymore but was unable to leave.

If you think the insurgency is not desperate, then explain why they have been putting mentally retarded boys into carbombs and then remotely detonating them.

Hurria said...

"Who says you can't make them submit?"

ummmmmmmm - how about the evidence right before your eyes.

"I think most Muslims want to live in peace"

Do you think that might be why they get so pissed off over all the attempts to use war to bomb them into submission.

strykerdad said...

Racist? I have a problem with the culture, but the race? I am in awe of some Iraqis and courageous Arabs. Has nothing to do with race, just a backward culture badly in need of a reformation.

Hurria said...

"The Arab world is easy to force into submission with far less than nukes."

Then how do you explain the total failure so far to force the Arab world to submit to U.S force? How do you explain, in fact, that the more force the U.S. uses, the less submission it gets from the Arab world?

Hurria said...

"I have a problem with the culturea"

You don't know jack about the "culture".

Hurria said...

PS How do you explain the fact that the more force Israel uses the less submission it gets from the Palestinians? How do you explain the fact that the more they try to beat the Palestinians into submission, the less submission they get?

Hurria said...

Moron99,

1. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to justify your explicit claim that the Najaf poll asked directly about "insurgency" when it did not address the subject at all. Why are you avoiding this question?

2. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to explain how the IRI poll proves your assertions about "declining support for insurgents (sic)" and increasing support for continued U.S. presence without addressing those issues once. Please don't play the game of talking about "popular poll questions" and other generalities. Please address the IRI poll, and please be specific.

3. We are talking about two specific polls here because you have repeatedly made explicit claims about these two specific polls. Why are you trying to avoid talking about these two polls by, among other things, bringing in anecdotal (and, as usual unattributed) quotes from alleged "insurgents".

Moron99 said...

If a person answered the poll that they think the government is headed in the right direction ... then please explain how that person could also support the insurgency.

Hurria said...

1. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to justify your explicit claim that the Najaf poll asked directly about "insurgency" when it did not address the subject at all. Why are you avoiding this question?

2. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to explain how the IRI poll proves your assertions about "declining support for insurgents (sic)" and increasing support for continued U.S. presence without addressing those issues once. Please don't play the game of talking about "popular poll questions" and other generalities. Please address the IRI poll, and please be specific.

3. We are talking about two specific polls here because you have repeatedly made explicit claims about these two specific polls. Why are you trying to avoid talking about these two polls by, among other things, bringing in anecdotal (and, as usual unattributed) quotes from alleged "insurgents".

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

If an April 2004 poll showed that 28% of Iraqi's non Kurd population believed that the country was headed in the right direction and a March 2005 poll shows that 66% of the non Kurd population of Iraq believes that the government is headed in the right direction ....

then please spin this in such a way that it does not show seriously declining support for the insurgency. After all, the government openly states that its main goal is to end the insurgency.

So ... spin away. Show us why we should believe you instead of our lying eyes.

Hurria said...

1. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to justify your explicit claim that the Najaf poll asked directly about "insurgency" when it did not address the subject at all. Why are you avoiding this question?

2. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to explain how the IRI poll proves your assertions about "declining support for insurgents (sic)" and increasing support for continued U.S. presence without addressing those issues once. Please don't play the game of talking about "popular poll questions" and other generalities. Please address the IRI poll, and please be specific.

3. We are talking about two specific polls here because you have repeatedly made explicit claims about these two specific polls. Why are you trying to avoid talking about these two polls by, among other things, bringing in anecdotal (and, as usual unattributed) quotes from alleged "insurgents".

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

I am directly dealing with it. You are ignoring the obvious.

If the number of people supporting anti-insurgent actions was under 40% a year ago and now is now over 70% then
a) it is impossible for the insurgents to have majority support
b) it is a dramatic decrease in insurgent support versus last year.

Those are the claims. Both are fully supported by poll results. Your attempts to change the subject by repeatedly asking tangental questions are the cowardly methods of someone who is incapable of debating the core issue. Specifically that the insurgency is operating against the will of the majority and it is rapidly losing support.

The insurgency does not represent the desires of Iraq as a nation. It is a small group of self-interested people who place their own desires above those of all others combined. They oppose an elected government that the majority of Iraqis support. They are willing to kill innocent Muslim women and children. They regularly engage in theft, kidnapping, and sabatuage. They are willing to remotely detonate car bombs driven into groups of innocent civillians by mentally retarded youths.

Deal with these claims first. Repeatedly attempting to change the subject does not invalidate the basic facts.

Hurria said...

"I am directly dealing with it."

No, you are not. To make it simpler, let's deal with the issues one at a time.

I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to justify your explicit claim that the Najaf poll asked directly about "insurgency" when it did not address the subject at all. You have so far failed completely to even address this issue. Why are you so determined to avoid this question?

Hurria said...

"If an April 2004 poll showed that 28% of Iraqi's non Kurd population believed that the country was headed in the right direction..."

Then I would want to know what poll that was, and I would want to be provided with a source that I could refer to so that I could confirm that 1) the poll exists, 2) the poll actually asks respondents the question you claim it does, 3) the results are as you say they are.

"and a March 2005 poll shows that 66% of the non Kurd population of Iraq believes that the government is headed in the right direction .... "

IF all that were true - and you have so far given us no reason to believe it IS true - it would mean nothing more or less than that 38% of Iraqis, plus or minus the margin of error, have changed their views about the direction in which the country is headed.

Hurria said...

"If an April 2004 poll showed that 28% of Iraqi's non Kurd population believed that the country was headed in the right direction..."

The only April, 2004 poll you have referred to does not address the question of the direction in which the country is headed. If you are referring to a different poll, kindly provide a source for it if you expect to be taken seriously.

Hurria said...

In the interest of accuracy:

I wrote: "it would mean nothing more or less than that 38% of Iraqis, plus or minus the margin of error, have changed their views about the direction in which the country is headed."

That is incorrect. I should have written that it would mean nothing more or less than that in March, 2005, 38% more Iraqis, plus or minus the margin of error, believed that the country was headed in the right direction than believed that in April, 2004.

waldschrat said...

OK, I've mentioned before that it's preferable to use nonviolent forms of protest, and Hurria has happily told me that US troops happily shoot protesters, but here's a dandy piece of nonviolent protest in action that may give Hurria and others a warm chuckle.

Link

Admittedly it perpetuates the "U.S. vs Islam, Islam vs the U.S." delusion which the fanatics would like to sell, but it's nonviolent and therefore I offer it as a constructive example.

Albatroz said...

Time differences and the fact that I do other things besides writing in this blog made me miss some of the "pearls" produced by Strykerdad and others.

In the first place I wish to apologize for generalizing my criticism of Americans. It was dumb and the fruit of my anger at the few pompous fools who think it right to kill innocent people. Who quote J. S. Mill forgetting that Iraqi insurgents are the living proof that there are certain things it is worth fighting and dying for: namely the freedom of your people and country.

Fortunately there are many Americans who feel like I do about this war, who write regularly about it, who call Bush what he really is - a criminal fascist. They may be a minority, for now. But I hope they will once more make the US a free and democratic country, worthy of our friendship and respect. Meanwhile we are entitled to vent our anger at the likes of Strykerdad, who deserve suffering the pains they are criminally inflicting on others.

Albatroz said...

Picked on the internet, written by an Iraqi:

"Thank you Americans (those who believe that American troops are destroying Iraq). Those who believe that facts cannot be hidden with chicken mesh. Who believe they have no right to put ideas in the minds of people of a civilized country, a country in which civilization began before the United States existed. Those people who know that democracy is not given, it is obtained. Who know that Iraqis are people who have to live just like any nation. Who believe that we are no different in the ability of our minds because God made us all so you cannot force us to have the ideas of others unless we accept it after we are fully contented. Those people of the world who raise their voices against colonialism, control, force, the invading of other countries… I thank them, I encourage them, and I ask God to save them.

"Other people of the world who are not on these ethics, who don't implement those ideas, I call them to look around themselves, to awaken themselves, to put themselves in our position. To face what we face, to remember that they don't accept in any way to be insulted, nor to be threatened or killed like what is happening in my country by the invaders. I ask God to spare any difficulty from their country rather than being invaded.

"…Is there anyone in the world who can accept to be killed? Or detained for no reason? Is there any of you who can accept to be put in the situation we are facing, to see their houses crashed or demolished, ended, to see your people treated with no respect, to have guns aimed at them wherever they go, to live without electricity when you used to have it, to see roads closed… whether they will live until tomorrow under a normal life, these are, my friends, just a few things to be told.

"So please tell your friends and people to raise their voices to pull the troops out from invaded Iraq. Seeking that God helps Iraqis to bare the situation done by the troops of the invaders."

Albatroz said...

Please, Strykerdad, look at these pictures:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
images/vv3.bmp

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
images/vv1.bmp

strykerdad said...

Albatroz--I did as asked, but I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Is war awful? Yes, I think I am aware of that. I have seen pictures of people leaping from the WTC, mass graves in Iraq, the aftermath of your heroes attacks on Iraqis waiting to apply for a positions in the Iraqi army or police. I could show you pictures of Iraqis welcoming US troops into their homes, getting health care from US medics, villages getting a clean water supply and sewage system for the first time ever--pictures envoke emotion, but individual pictures tell nothing of the overall reality no matter what side you are on. Your arguments would hold more weight if not for the fact that the vast majority of the insurgents are members of the minority that made up the former ruling class and are attacking the members of the majority. Most attacks are not against the US military, they are against persons in Iraq trying to become a part of an Iraqi future ruled by the majority. I have a son there, as I've stated--I also have a daughter who is a medic serving in Mosul, and she often spends her days trying to save and comfort children injured and maimed by your heroes attempts to retain their power the way they always have--through brutality and terror. I suspect you were a beneficiary of those actions in the days of Saddam as was Truthteller, but those days are over. I don't doubt that the future is scary if you were a part of that regime.

Do you condemn the mass murder of Kurds by the Baathists, the wanton murder of Iraqis by the insurgents, the kidnapping and beheading done by the insurgents, the murder of elected representatives and their familys? If not, your words about fighting for liberty and self respect ring hollow. I knew the quote I posted and to which you responded could be taken as support for Iraqi's fighting against insurgents, or for the insurgents. I also thought it would be interesting who took what side of that equation.

strykerdad said...

chaudes--The French have the same answer, no matter what the question.

Moron99 said...

March 16, 2005

"As we drove out of Fallujah, we went to visit one of the Public Order Battalions. These battalions were formed by the Iraqi government just before and during the battle of Fallujah known here as AL FAJR (New Dawn/Beginning). They showed up in December, following the battle. When they arrived, it was the typical mess that unfortunately what we came to expect of the Iraqi Security Forces - no meaningful training, poorly equipped, no real discipline and corresponding low morale. Now these same young Iraqi men are grouped together with other units and called "the heroes of Fallujah" by the people.

.....Fallujah is now thought of as a "safe zone" by the citizens. The atmosphere of fear and intimidation is now lifted. People move about during the day without fear. The curfew remains at night and frankly, that is just fine with the people. Iraqis outside the city talk of how safe they feel when they come to Fallujah. Talk about a truly incredible turnaround.

Last night we went up to the roof of the building where we stay and looked out over the city. Many lights are back on and more come on each night. It was quiet as could be. Perhaps the best description I can offer is "peaceful." There is no doubt that the muj will continue bring episodes of violence and terror to Fallujah. It is inevitable but they cannot undo the hope that is growing inside the people that things are getting better."


Link

Moron99 said...

Another enlightening tidbit comes to us through Major K.

The Iraqi government requests US troops to accompany Iraqi Army operations in order to reduce civillian casualties.

I had thought that US troops identified targets and then submitted requests to the Iraqi Army and organized joint operations. Apparently, this is not so. The Iraqi army decides on targets. But their soldiers don't have the experience or equipment of US soldiers and tend to cut a wider swath. So ... the government likes to see US troops go along with the Iraqi army in order to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Interesting. The puppet truly has become the master.

Link

Hurria said...

Moron99, why do you continue to avoid my questions regarding the polls you have repeatedly cited?

I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to justify your explicit claim that the Najaf poll asked directly about "insurgency" when it did not address the subject at all. You have so far failed completely to even address this issue. Why are you so determined to avoid this question?

The only April, 2004 poll you have referred to does not address the question of the direction in which the country is headed. If you are referring to a different poll, kindly provide a source for it if you expect to be taken seriously.

What is preventing you from addressing these issues, Moron99?

Hurria said...

"Is war awful? Yes"

The why do you start wars?

Hurria said...

Albatroz, please do not waste your time trying to appeal to the better side of the racist bigot warmonger, strykerdad. In his mind he can find a way to justify any atrocity as long as the U.S. does it.

Moron99 said...

The battle for Mosul, Part II

(A view from the pro-governemnt side of things.)

Link

Moron99 said...

Down in Basra,

Well, it's peaceful. Power plants, water, and sewage projects nearing completion. Border station to Iraq rebuilt. Bit - there's still the problem of the Sadrists. At some point list 169 will have to address the great divide between Sadr and Sistani. (If you weren't aware Sistani recently promised that he would oppose a theocracy or a shia only government)

Link

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

Since you have already agreed with me that there has been a 38% shift since last year and that the majority of Iraqis now support the the anti-insurgent agenda of the government, then I see no reason for further disagreement and I am willing to agree with you on all other points.

Moron99 said...

oops, forgot the link about islamic/shia state sourced from islam. Here it is.

Link

Moron99 said...

and, on the domestic front, here is a nice blogette about an op/ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Link

Now, perhaps someone here knows of a link to a discussion that I would like to find but have not been able to locate. An Islamic discussion about the morality of Imams directing muslims to kill other muslims. I would especially like to know how moderate muslims view it in light of the prophets warnings that Islams greatest threat would come from within and his predictions that one day the mosques would have many worshippers but be inhabited by evil. I am of the opinion that that day of Islams greatest threat is now, but have not found the topic being discussed amoung Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Trying again,

Link discussing WSJ op/ed

Hurria said...

"Hurria has happily told me that US troops happily shoot protesters"

Waldschratt, how do you think it helps your argument to misrepresent what other people have said?

"but here's a dandy piece of nonviolent protest in action that may give Hurria and others a warm chuckle."

Why should it give me either warmth or a chuckle? The protest is against the Bush administration's policy of using deliberate, calculated religious humiliation, including desecration of the Qur'an to "break" Muslim prisoners. There is nothing remotely warm or chuckle-producing about that.

For your information, the non-violent protest in Nasiriyeh on that day resulted in a number of people being wounded when armed guards opened fire on protesters, and members of Sadr's militia, who were there to protect the protesters, fired back in self defense. Fortunately this time no one was killed.

"Admittedly it perpetuates the "U.S. vs Islam, Islam vs the U.S." delusion which the fanatics would like to sell"

Yes, you are right. The U.S. is full of bigotted fanatics some of whose career is devoted partially or entirely to selling the Islam vs. the U.S. delusion and promoting a U.S. vs Islam reality*. The U.S. has Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Jeff Jacobi, Steven Emerson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Robert Morey, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Efraim Karsh, General Gerry Boykin - the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

And then there is the continuing increase and easy acceptance in the U.S. of public and private anti-Islam bigotry and hate speech - of which we have had several examples on this very page - and hate crimes up to and including murder - against Muslims (or anyone who is ignorantly believed to be a Muslim), attacks on mosques and Islamic centers, up to and including arson and bombings.

But the greatest, most powerful, and most effective promoter of the Islam vs the U.S. myth and the U.S. vs Islam reality is the actions of the U.S. government toward Muslims both inside and outside the U.S.

"it's nonviolent and therefore I offer it as a constructive example."

Yes, yes, we get it, Waldschratt. You constantly preach to us about this. While any violence on the part of the U.S. - including initiating a completely unjustified, utterly illegal, and unbelievably violent, deadly and destructive war of aggression against Iraq - is "regretable but necessary", yet those whom the U.S. attacks with overwhelming violence must never defend themselves violently. They are obligated to be strictly non-violent in their response to U.S. violence.

* U.S. vs Islam is anything but a delusion, but maybe it is easy to delude yourself that it is not there as long as you are a non-Muslim and therefore not subjected to it.

waldschrat said...

There has been much talk of polls. Here are some questions for the posters in this forum.

1. Which did more damage, (a) the military actions against Falluja and Najaf or (b) the looting all across Iraq after the fall of Baghdad and subsequent sabotage by insurgent forces?

2. Who has killed more Iraqis, (a) insurgent/resistance fighters or (b) U.S. forces?

3. Which leader is morally superior, (a) George Bush, (b) Saddam Hussein, or (c) Mahatma Ghandi.

4. Would it be better for Iraq if U.S. forces left (a) today, (b) as soon as a constitution is approved and a government elected, (c) as soon as the Iraqi government tells them to go, or (d) never.


My answers would be b-a-c-c. I'd be curious what others would answer.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

You are disingenuous in your words.

First - the shots fired were by Iraqi security guards into the air trying to keep the crowds away from the Iraqi authority they were hired to protect. Elements within the crowd fired back and it went from there. The non-aggressive nature of both the guards and the crowd is reflected in the low number of injuries.

Second - the prophet did not say that islams greatest threat would come from the outside. He said that Islams greatest threat would come from within.

Hurria said...

"Since you have already agreed with me that there has been a 38% shift since last year..."

Oh, no you don't, Moron99. I have not agreed with you on anything at all, and please do not think I have missed your rather clumsy deceptive tactics.

You are not going to slither out of the situation you have gotten yourself into - not as long as I am here.

1. I have repeatedly and very specifically asked you to justify your explicit claim that the Najaf poll asked directly about "insurgency" when it did not address the subject at all. You have so far failed completely to even address this issue. Why are you so determined to avoid this question?

2. The only April, 2004 poll you have referred to does not address the question of the direction in which the country is headed. If you are referring to a different poll, kindly provide a source for it if you expect to be taken seriously.

waldschrat said...

Hurria -


The fighting broke out before noon as about 2,000 members of al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Amy marched toward the cleric's local office, which is near the governor's headquarters.

Armed men guarding the headquarters shot toward the crowd in an apparent bid to disperse it, prompting retaliatory fire from al-Sadr supporters.

An official from Nasiriyah General Hospital, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, said four policemen and four civilians were wounded. Another nine al-Sadr supporters were injured, said Sheik al-Khafaji, an official at al-Sadr's Nasiriyah office.



How were the cops injured by the peaceful protesters? Why did the guy at the hospital differentiate between civilians and Sadr supporters? As I have said before, Hurria, when you have something to offer besides bullshit and insults I will listen to you.

Albatroz said...

Moron99,

On the entrance to Auschwitz one could read: "Arbeit macht Frei". To those who can't read German or do not know history, this means : Work makes us free. Oppression as told by the oppressors is always freedom, so no wonder that marines will always tell of the great things they have done in Fallujah for its inhabitants. To use such blatant propaganda as an argument in favour of American occupation would be laughable, were it not so tragic. I prefer independent reports, such as those published by Dahr Jamail, an American journalist who risks his life everyday to report to us uncensored news about Iraq.

chaudes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Moron99 said...

2004 US media polls

2003 and 2004 oxford polls

2004 IRI poll

2005 IRI poll

Moron99 said...

albatroz - it's not about the Gremans either. It's about Iraqi's being able to write their own constitution, hold a national referendum, and electing their leaders. Those who oppose the process are those who want more money and power than the Iraqi people are willing to give them. It is why they target civillians and sabatauge rebuilding efforts.

Albatroz said...

Question:

Why is it that no non-American has ever posted on this blog any comment favourable to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq? We have had posts from people from many countries in the world and not a single non-American has ever joined Moron99, Strykerdad and Waldschrat in support of the American actions. Why not?

cile said...

Well, i guess everyone should figure out for her or himself if, and if yes, what are exactly mentionable positive developments
_caused_by_the_americans_ in iraq. It all has to do with contemporaneous awareness in and outside Iraq about the variety of 'managing' situations/places/interests in Iraq, and the consequences for PEOPLE. So i re-posted Peter Maass's last article about Americans' Salvador-like 'counterinsurgency options' on Streamtime --> http://streamtime.org//index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=476&blogId=1

or you can go direct to Peter Maass's (NYT-published article) blog "The Salvadorization of Iraq?" --> http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=123&magtype=1
all the best

Hurria said...

"You are disingenuous in your words."

It takes a huge nerve for you, of all people, to say that to anyone!

"the shots fired were by Iraqi security guards into the air trying to keep the crowds away from the Iraqi authority they were hired to protect."

Sure, they did, Moron99, sure they did. That may be the official story - it is always the story when officials attack non-violent protesters. On the other hand, since I have not seen that claim so far in any of the news accounts I have read, and given your history of fabricating stories, it could be that you have just made it up out of your head as you do most of what you post here.

"Elements within the crowd fired back..."

The "elements" within the crowd were militia members who were there to protect the demonstrators because in your lovely "free and democratic Iraq" freedom does not include official protection for non-violent demonstrators.

"The non-aggressive nature of both the guards and the crowd is reflected in the low number of injuries."

Iraqi and other news sources are reporting 89 injuries. Perhaps that sounds like a low number to you.

"the prophet did not say that islams greatest threat would come from the outside. He said that Islams greatest threat would come from within."

So, now you are citing the sayings of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه و سَلِّم), I see. Of course, he did not say there would be no threat at all from the outside, but you would have no way of knowing that.

Albatroz said...

From the American press:

"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — President Hamid Karzai called on Saturday for control of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and demanded the United States take strong action against soldiers who abuse prisoners, following a report of alleged maltreatment of detainees at the main U.S. base here.

Karzai said he was "shocked" by allegations of abuse by poorly trained U.S. soldiers made by the New York Times in its Friday edition. The report cited a 2,000-page confidential file on the Army's criminal investigation into the deaths of two Afghans at the Bagram base in December 2002.

Karzai said he will bring up the issue when he meets American leaders during a four-day visit to the United States starting Saturday.

"We want the U.S. government to take very, very strong action to take away people like that are working with their forces in Afghanistan," Karzai told reporters before leaving Kabul. "Definitely ... I will see about that when I am in the United States."

He also demanded greater control over U.S. military operations here, including a stop to raids by American troops on Afghans' homes without the knowledge of his administration.

"No operations inside Afghanistan should take place without the consultation of the Afghan government," the president said."

Some "liberators"...

Notice the comment on "allegations of abuse by poorly trained U.S. soldiers"... Poorly trained, incompetent, ignorant, etc....

Moron99 said...

Most people have given up hope on the baathi. They have had too many chances to become part of the process and influence the future of Iraq. Chances to deliver real benefit to their children and insure that Iraq will be strong into the future. A chance to build a nation without condemming the shia and kurds to a life of oppression. During Saddams regime, 1.5 million people died over the course of 20 years genocide of Kurds, mass graves, and war with Iraq. This is 75,000 people per year that the baathi murdered. The invasion of Iraq has caused approx 25,000 deaths in 2 years.

The people west of tigris and north of kerbala never saw the murdering before and are now shocked and angered. Imagine what the Kurds and shia feel after 20 years of baathi rule that delivered six times the rate of killing to them. Many of these western inhabitants wish to return to the days of saddam and again turn a blind eye to the daily murders committed in other regions. It will not happen.

The reminaing strongman is in Mosul and this blog will reflect greater sufferring and violence than any other location. So too, the people of Mosul will be more strongly directed not to participate in the new Iraq. They will be told how evil it is and how it does not reflect the true Iraq. They will be told to sacrifice their future in the vain hopes that Talha or other might become the next supreme dictator.

Those who live amoung the insurgents need to realize that their future is best protected by making their voices heard in the new government. Nobody can speak for them as well as themselves. Everyday that they remain silent in the new government is a day that their children might lose something important. They need to protect themselves, not the people who have been denied palaces.

Moron99 said...

"So, now you are citing the sayings of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه و سَلِّم), I see. Of course, he did not say there would be no threat at all from the outside, but you would have no way of knowing that."

So you choose to ignore the major threat and focus on the minor? How blind can you be? The message Zarqawi is sending out to the world is that if you become a muslim then we don't mind killing you. In fact, we will implore you to join us in the killing. How many people will accept this as a religion? How many new countries will Islam go into and the people say "Islam? Isn't that the religion of killing people?" How many generations will it take for Islam to wash away the blood?

But - how about your opinion ...
If Mohammed were walking amoung us today, what do you think he would say about mentally retarded youth driving remotely detonated carbombs into crowds of Muslim civillians?

It is being done right now by the insurgents. Being done in the name of Islam. Do you think he would approve?

Hurria said...

"How were the cops injured by the peaceful protesters?"

You can answer your own question very easily by reading what I posted here, and then reading the excerpt you posted from the news article. What I posted is 100% consistent with what you posted from the article, perhaps because among the things I have read and heard about the incident is that very same article.

The crowd was marching peacefully toward Al Sadr's headquarters when armed guards fired "toward the crowd" (NOT into the air as Moron99 claims), and militia members who were there to protect the demonstrators fired back in self defense - or "retaliation" if you prefer that word.

A group of mostly unarmed, non-violent demonstrators who were doing nothing but marching was attacked by armed guards, and their guards fired back in self defense. No doubt the incident is entirely the fault of the demonsrators and not of the guards who initiated it by firing on a peaceful crowd. By the same logic,of course, the violence and carnage in Iraq is all the fault of "insurgents" for reacting to the Americans' violent attack, and not at all the fault of the U.S. government for starting the whole thing by launching a massively violent war of aggression on Iraq.

"Why did the guy at the hospital differentiate between civilians and Sadr supporters?"

I am not a mind reader (and I think neither are you). Only he knows the answer to this question, so you will have to ask him.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

it is no one's fault and it is everyone's fault. Your had two armed groups on the edge of fear. Neither communicated with the other and both reacted to a perceived threat. There should have been better crowd control and communication so that the incident never started. But there wasn't and it did. Fortunately, there was no one amoung the crowd with malicious intent and the upward spiral of violence never occurred. The most accurate description is that of a tragic accident.

I would like to ask you again - what do you think the prophet would say? Do you not see the permanent damage being done to Islam by people who pursue power underneath its banner? Is not the sanctity of Islam important enough to defend? If you ask me, this is THE most important question facing Muslims today. The five pillars of faith can be maintained either way. The choice is whether or not they allow their religion to be dragged through the gutters and used as a stepping stone for those who seek power.

Hurria said...

"marines will always tell of the great things they have done in Fallujah for its inhabitants."

All one has to do is look at the condition of Falluja, look at the conditions in which its people are living (including the less than one half of 1% who have actually returned and remained in the city), and compare that visible, measurable, on-the-ground reality to what marines are saying. Who are you going to believe, the U.S. Marines, or your own lying eyes?

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

why do you avoid questions of morality by those who act in the name of Islam?

It is so frustrating. There doesn't seem to be a single Arab on the entire planet who is willing to discuss the morality of an Imam. Excuse me, but aren't you suppossed to worship Allah? Isn't blind following of an Imam a form of false idoltry? Jeesh.

Hurria said...

"2004 US media polls"

This is the April, 2004 poll you have repeatedly cited as supporting your assertions about "declining support for insurgents (sic)", and increasing support for continued U.S. presence. It does not address the question of support for continued U.S. presence. It does not address the question of support for "insurgents". Therefore it does nothing for you whatsoever.

"2003 and 2004 oxford polls"

There is no April, 2004 poll listed here.

I do not have time to go over hundreds of pages of very detailed questions. Please point out the specific results that you are claiming support your assertions of "declining support for insurgents (sic)" and "increasing support for continued U.S. presence".

"2004 IRI poll"

This poll was not taken in April, 2004. It also does not address at all support for "insurgents" or support for continued U.S. presence.

"2005 IRI poll"

This poll does not address at all support for "insurgents" or support for continued U.S. presence.

You are going to have to come up with something better than this, Moron99. You are still failing utterly to produce anything that supports your assertions that polls consistently show "declining support for insurgents (sic)" and increasing support for continued U.S. presence.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

Fine, you win.

But you are losing something far more valuable. Islam has been hijaacked and no one has the balls to stand up and ask if it is right or wrong. People like Zarqawi will do to your religion what the crusaders and spanish inquisitors did to Christianity. Is that what you want? Do want Muslim's to hang their heads in shame the same way that Christians do? It has been nearly a thousand years and christianity still carries the guilt of its sins. Do you want the same for Islam?

Hurria said...

Moron99, I am truly in awe of your apparently unlimited capacity to authoritatively spout pure, unadulterated processed bull food. Do you make it all up yourself, or do you copy and paste it from other sources, as I have suspected for so long?

"Most people have given up hope on the baathi."

No, they haven't. Most people did not have any hope in "the baathi" (sic) to give up. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis were only too happy to see "the baathi" (sic) go, and stay gone.

"They have had too many chances to become part of the process and influence the future of Iraq."

Thank you so much for enlightening us, Moron99. All this time we have thought the "de-baathification" program meant purging "the baathi" (sic), including engineers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, school administrators, professors, and so on and so on, from the military, from any government jobs, and from all positions of influence. Now you tell us that all along the goal of de-baathification has been to provide chances for "the baathi" (sic) to become part of the process and influence the future of Iraq.

"The people west of tigris and north of kerbala never saw the murdering before"

Oh, here we go again with your magical, mythical land "west of the tigris and north of kerbala".

And it is always refreshing to see how willing - no, eager - you are to exhibit the true depth and breadth of your ignorance, and to do so in such authoritative-sounding terms.

For your information, Moron99, people in your mythical, magical land "west of the tigris and north of kerbala" experienced plenty of "murdering", torturing, deprivationing and oppressioning as a result of their opposition to Saddam and his regime. Falluja, in particular, was subjected to regular purges and collective punishments for its refusal to support the regime. Particularly in the early years of the regime people in your magical, mythical "land west of the tigris and north of kerbala" were its primary victims.

"The reminaing strongman is in Mosul and this blog will reflect..."

Oh, Moron99, you are sooooo busted! I have always suspected that you are not the author of most of the processed bull food you heap onto this page, and now you have confirmed it. You really should do a bit of editing before you copy and paste material written by others as if you wrote it. That is called plagiarism.

By the way, who IS this "remaining strongman" you refer to?

Hurria said...

"So you choose to ignore the major threat and focus on the minor?"

You have no basis for this assumption. But then you have no basis for any of the complete nonsense you spew onto this page.

Hurria said...

Moron99,

How do you reconcile your claim that the Najaf poll supports your claim of "declining support for the "insurgents" because it "did directly ask about insurgency (sic)" with the fact that there isn't even a syllable in that poll that hints at or alludes to anything about "insurgency"?

Why is it that you are unable to produce a single one of the many polls you insist are out there and that you insist consistently support your contentions?

Hurria said...

"Your had two armed groups on the edge of fear."

How do you know that? Were you there? No? Oh, well, do you have any documentation for it? No, you don't, of course. So, as usual, you are making it up.


"reacted to a perceived threat."

Moron99, perhaps you have never had bullets fired in your direction, so maybe you don't realize that when bullets are fired in your direction it is not a "perceived threat", it is an actual attack.

"There should have been better crowd control"

There was no problem with crowd control. The crowd was perfectly under control, and marching peacefully toward the headquarters of Muqtad Al Sadr. What there should have been was control on the part of the armed guards who initiated the incident by firing at a non-violent group of demonstrators.

"The most accurate description is that of a tragic accident."

1. It was not tragic. No one was killed, and no one, as far as I can find out, was permanently maimed.

2. It is not an accident when armed guards deliberately pick up their weapons, place them in firing position, aim them toward something and fire them. What happened was not an accident by any stretch of the word.

"I would like to ask you again - what do you think the prophet would say?"

I strongly recommend that you refrain from citing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه و سَلِّم), and exposing your ignorance by trying to pontificate authoritatively about Islam.

Moron99 said...

There is someone who likes to call himself Abu Bakr. Obviously, he isn't and he is delusional to think that blowing up innocent muslims makes him so. Discounting him I'd have to say that Abu Talha is public enemy number one. Yup, I know ... salafee. Baathi hide in shadows and tell the salafee who to kill.

BTW - I am not talking about the debaathification program. We both know that most of the names on those lists are shia and most of the people joined baathi to get education and jobs. I am talking about the people who go to Syria for meetings and agree upon who to kidnap, assasinate, or behead and how many carbombs can be built to blow up innocent civillians. They discuss things like how to keep the 2 new electrical plants from being turned on next week, where to blow up pipelines so that the government doesn't have money, how to prevent clean water, and how many people glorious murders have achieved 10 slaughters and can nnow be paid $1500 per month.

Those are the bad baathi. Those are the ones that the government seeks to punish heavily.

Did you know that many Imams were hand selectedby Saddam? What kind of Imam do you suppose he would choose? How much do you think these Imams were paid by the Saddamees? Do you know who they are? How can people blindly follow someone who was placed into power by the hand of Satan? Do the pillars tell you to do so?

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

My realtionship is with God. It is not with my preacher or an Imam. They are men. To place them beyond questioning is to elevate them above man. It is false idoltry of a lesser degree. It is a minor sin.

The greatest sin of all is to kill in the name of God. It is the worst and most sinful wrong that any man has ever or can ever commit. God creates each and every person and gives them a soul. When you kill a person you are killing a small piece of god himself. It is a sin and no amount of muslim scholars can change that. The only sin worse than destroying a small bit of God is to do so in the name of God.

Zarqawi and his like commit the greatest sin on a daily basis. Your sin is allowing him to do so without ever asking why. The blood of his sins will never completely wash away from Islam.

Hurria said...

Moron99, now you - or whomever you were plagiarizing in your last post - are becoming downright incoherent.

Oh yes - and I am so sure the Salafis, who were so brutally supressed by "the baathi" (sic) are now working hand in glove with them. Oh yes! And Zarqawi, who has as a goal wiping Shi`a Islam off the map, is working with the Iranian government too, and sometimes works with Muqtada Al Sadr as well, just as the Bush propagandists were claiming at one time.

Moron99 said...

the batthi and the wahabi are driven to fight a common enemy. if the common enemy is removed, then they would turn upon ech other. But you know that. It just serves your purpose to ignore it.

strykerdad said...

How could a force of 140,000 troops occupy a nation of 26 million with more weapons dumps than trees unless the vast majority acquiesced in the occupation? Logic would dictate that it must be a small minority, even tiny, who truly are opposed--unless it is a population of cowards. I don't think the Iraqis are particularly cowardly, so I am left with the assumption that the numbers strongly opposed are a small percentage, regardless of what anyone may or may not tell pollsters. The insurgency, such as it is, is pretty weak, relying on single carbomb attacks for the most part. And many of those are done by mentally deficients or coerced through terror themselves. The looting, the insurgency, is all due to the restaraint shown in the invasion. The minority who ruled through terror and abuses were allowed to live, the culture and society such as it is, was not totally and ruthlessly eliminated leaving a population waiting to be molded into something which could coexist with the conquering force. The Sunnis do not feel defeated, which is due to the lack of will on the part of coalition forces to truly defeat them in a ruthless, decisive way. They will be have to join in the elected government of Iraq or be eliminated, either while american forces are there or after they leave. But they will have to accept defeat eventually. Surely no one is foolish enough to think they will ever be in power again. They will learn to accept the concept of equality or cease to exist. That is the logical conclusion. the only question is how bloody the path to that conclusion will be.

Hurria said...

"the batthi and the wahabi are driven to fight a common enemy."

Oh yes - that old canard.

No one but someone completely ignorant of both groups would entertain for even a nanosecond that "the baathi" (sic) and "the wahabi" (sic) would ever join forces under any circumstances for any reason. Their ideologies and goals are directly opposed and 100% contradictory to each other, and the bad blood between them flows very long and very deep. Neither group would ever consider taking a single step that had even a remote possibility of helping the other gain any power.

The "driven to fight a common enemy" is pure nonsense.

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

your words on paper are not consistent with actions on the ground. Baathi organize and distribute assets from Syria that are later deployed by AZ's cells against the Iraqi people. There is also testimony by captured terrorists that the baathi recognized that they could manipulate the salafee into attacking baathi chosen targets if they pretended to support certain salafee goals. Are you so naive as to think that the people who orchestrated 1.5 million Iraqi deaths would be unwilling to lie and manipulate?

Hurria said...

"Baathi organize and distribute assets from Syria that are later deployed by AZ's cells against the Iraqi people."

And you know this how, Moron99? Who says so?

"There is also testimony by captured terrorists that the baathi recognized that they could manipulate the salafee into attacking baathi chosen targets if they pretended to support certain salafee goals."

And you heard this exactly where, Moron99? Or are your sources as elusive as all those polls you insist support your claims, but that you can never seem to find?

"Are you so naive as to think that the people who orchestrated 1.5 million Iraqi deaths would be unwilling to lie and manipulate? "

I am certainly not so naive as to take at face value claims and allegations that come from sources that are best known for consistently disseminating false information. I am particularly not so naive as to take these claims and allegations at face value when they fly in the face of known facts, known realities, logic, and reason.

Moron99 said...

There's no need to even link it Hurria. Watch it on TV at 9pm. The government of Syria is Baath. Anytime their agents coordinate people who later end up blowing up agroup a schoolchildren and Zarqawi claims responsibility on his website ... then you have defacto proof of coordination between the two groups.

Moron99 said...

Still,

no one has even come close to answering or even addressing simple questions.

Why is it taboo to question an Imam. He is but a man. To not question him is to accept him as something more than a man. It is false idoltry.

Where does the Quran say that you should abandon reason and promote a mortal man to the status of demigod?

Do you not see that when you abandon your right to question mortal men then you are allowing Satan the opportunity to gain control? And he has. Look at Zarqawi and ask yourself, is he an agent of God or an agent of Satan? What right does he have to enjoy the priviledges of being a God? How can a true muslim stand idly by and watch his type do permanent harm to Islam? Have you such shallow faith in God that you do not think his word is worthy of your protection?

Christianity was not above such corruption. The Pope himself once raised money by selling pieces of paper that "guaranteed" god's forgiveness. It was heresey at the time to question the pope. Religion is only kept pure by those who ask questions, demand answers, and apply reasoning. Those who retain power by interpreting religous texts have always been Satan's favorite agents.

Why do you allow this to happen?

Anonymous said...

Several posts above, Stukadad says:
"The Sunnis do not feel defeated, which is due to the lack of will on the part of coalition forces to truly defeat them in a ruthless, decisive way. They will be have to join in the elected government of Iraq or be eliminated, either while American forces are there or after they leave.
They will learn to accept the concept of equality or cease to exist."
Ach so! Now ve know vere ve stand! Eliminate all ze troublesome Sunnis, just like ze troublesome Jews in Deutschland! Female ones too, ozervise zey vill breed!
Goodbye Truthteller, goodbye Najma and Hnk, sorry but you gotta go! Seig Heil!
I feel sick.
John

Hurria said...

"There's no need to even link"

Yes, there is.

"Watch it on TV at 9pm."

What TV? Where? 9 PM in what part of the world?

"The government of Syria is Baath."

The government of Syria has also been an enemy to the Iraqi ba`thist regime.

"Anytime their agents coordinate people who later end up blowing up agroup a schoolchildren and Zarqawi claims responsibility on his website "

Interesting fantasy, Moron99. Did you make it up out of your head, as you do most of everything else you post here, or do you actually have evidence of this?

... then you have defacto proof of coordination between the two groups."

Defacto proof, eh? Wow - you really know your legal terminology, don't you!

And no, it is not proof - not "defacto" proof, and no any kind of proof.

Albatroz said...

Moron99,

"The greatest sin of all is to kill in the name of God."

But I suppose it is alright to kill in the name of "democracy", specially if it is the American type of democracy...

Moron99, sometimes you sound like a religious nut, sometimes like a CIA employee, most of the times like the bloody idiot you have proven to be. Do you actually have any friends in the US? Or do you come here because you have noone to talk to?...

Moron99 said...

Killing in the name of man is not as great a sin as killing in the name of god. When you kill in the name of God you dirty God with the blood of his own children.

strykerdad said...

You are sick, John, if you can twist what I said into Nazi-Jewish holocaust analogy. That is laughable were it not bordering on insane. You would compare remnants of Saddam's regime to European Jews? If a minority group refuses to accept it can no longer rule through terror and brutality as the Sunni dominated Saddam regime did, then either the majority will have to submit to them or defeat that hostile minority militarily--it has always been thus and you are foolish if you think otherwise. The Sunni groups could contribute greatly to the end of this conflict if they accepted that they will have to contribute politically as a minority protected by law instead of as murderous terrorists which is how they dominated before the war. I know it is only a small number who commit these acts and not all members of the regime were sunni and I was unclear by saying 'the Sunnis' as if all were involved, but they could not do much of what they do without tacit approval of the communities in which they live. From what I have learned, Sunnis, Kurds, Shia for the most part do not live in integrated neighborhoods--someone direct me to other info if that peception is wrong. They cannot win, they lost the war. Now they are more at war with the Iraqi government than with the Americans using terror and threats of its continuation to demand more power than their numbers and electoral participation would warrant. But those who continue to fight, will have to be stopped by either being jailed or killed. You have another solution or analyses that is based on reality?

Anonymous said...

Stukadad.
Well, certainly part of the solution would be for people who claim not to be homicidal Nazis to stop sounding like homicidal Nazis.
These Sunnis who must be "eliminated" or "cease to exist" are at least 70% women and young children, just like Americans.
Truthteller is trying to reach out, to bridge the gap between Iraqis and Americans.
How do you think he feels to hear you, as a representative American, casually condemning so may innocents to death?
(Except it now turns out you didn't mean exactly what you said, only half of it, apparently.)
Like I say, perhaps the first step in a solution might be for people like you to moderate your language.
And your thinking. You may have some legitimate reason, perhaps even a personal reason, to hate Iraqi "insurgents," maybe a few thousand of them (although personally I suspect its mainly sour grapes because your conquest of Iraq has turned out all wrong.)
But you have no reason to hate 5 million people of Sunni extraction, the vast majority of whom just want to get on with their lives, like Truthteller and his daughters, and who have never harmed you personally and doubtless never will.
"Eliminate!" "Cease to exist!" It sure sounds like Himmler and Goebbels to me!
John

strykerdad said...

Take a breath, I plainly stated I was speaking of those doing violence and won't apologize for it. The first time I was admittedly clumsy. And yes, I hate the insurgents for a personal reason, I despise the former Saddam regime because I am human, and hope for a free and prosperous Iraq where Americans can do business and get raped by the high price of oil, benifiting all peace loving, profit loving Iraqis of every sect. An Iraqi nation which despises the evil done by radical Islamists as much as I do, because their lives and future are much better without it. Simplistic and typically american? You bet, but the history of the last century was largely made better because of simplistic american ideals, no matter how seemingly naive.

waldschrat said...

hurria -

No doubt the incident is entirely the fault of the demonsrators and not of the guards who initiated it by firing on a peaceful crowd. By the same logic,of course, the violence and carnage in Iraq is all the fault of "insurgents" for reacting to the Americans' violent attack...


By any logic the incident is regretable. Good police methods would have been able to control a non-violent crowd without gunfire. Good demonstration organizers would have ensured no weapons were carried by participants to provoke and justify police gunfire. I assume neither side started the day wanting things to conclude as they did, with gunfire and bullet wounds.

I concede your point that the invasion of Iraq may have been an indirect cause of the incident. I only ask that you consider that this might be a somewhat imperfect example of a "peaceful protest". Perhaps the marchers would have gotten less press coverage if there had been no gunfire, but certainly the related movement to paint US flags on the ground to be tread upon got worldwide coverage without the use of weapons. I continue to contend that non-violent protest is a viable method of producing political change.

I appreciate your sharing your viewpoint, Hurria. Thank you.

Hurria said...

"Good police methods would have been able to control a non-violent crowd without gunfire."

All the available information indicates that the crowd was in perfect control until the guards began to fire at it.

"Good demonstration organizers would have ensured no weapons were carried by participants to provoke and justify police gunfire.

There is no indication whatsoever that it was weapons carried by participants that provoked police gunfire. There is, in fact, no indication whatsoever that the police who fired at the crowd knew that any of them had weapons. It IS clear, however, that it was being fired on by the police that provoked them to return fire.

The demonstration organizers included a small number of armed militia members to provide protection in case the demonstrators were attacked.

"I assume neither side started the day wanting things to conclude as they did, with gunfire and bullet wounds."

Irrelevant. The guards fired at a group of demonstrators who were marching peacefully toward the headquarters of Muqtada Al Sadr. The armed men who were responsible for protecting the demonstrators naturally fired back. There is no question who attacked whom.

"I concede your point that the invasion of Iraq may have been an indirect cause of the incident."

Thanks for the concession, but that was not my point. My point was that Iraqis are consistently being blamed for using violence to defend themselves from violent attacks on them.

"I only ask that you consider that this might be a somewhat imperfect example of a "peaceful protest"."

There is nothing imperfect about the protest when it is subjected to armed attacked by police or troops or guards. That is an abuse of official power.

"Perhaps the marchers would have gotten less press coverage if there had been no gunfire..."

What has that got to do with anything?

"but certainly the related movement to paint US flags on the ground to be tread upon got worldwide coverage without the use of weapons."

Use of weapons by whom? Are you still putting the onus on the demonstrators for firing back at those who attacked them? The protesters in the other cities did not use weapons only because no weapons were fired at them.

"I continue to contend that non-violent protest is a viable method of producing political change."

I have never disagreed with you. However, it is unrealistic to expect people to respond to being violently attacked by singing kumbaya while their attackers are bombing them, shooting rockets at them from helicopters, and mowing them down with high calibre machine gun fire.

"I appreciate your sharing your viewpoint, Hurria. Thank you."

What prompted the sudden change of tone?

waldschrat said...

Another potentially hopeful sign of nonviolent political action seems to be manifested in the meeting of Sunni folks in Baghdad.

Link

Albatroz said...

Strykerdad,

"the history of the last century was largely made better because of simplistic american ideals"

Helas! With the exception of American intervention in WW II (and it took more than two years and the Pearl Harbour attack to enlighten you about the evils of nazism) your actions in the 20th century were an unmitigated disaster. There may have been idealistic Americans, but your policies were exclusively moved by self-interest. Your actions in Central and South America, for instance, have been pure imperialism. Your Vietnam intervention simply criminal. Your Middle East policies have been directed exclusively at controlling an essential power source. "Democracy" has been the smokescreen to fool people like you, who risk losing two children to protect oil interests which are not yours.

"I hate the insurgents for a personal reason, I despise the former Saddam regime because I am human, and hope for a free and prosperous Iraq"

I never cease to be amazed at the way Americans become so outraged about the fate of poor Iraqis at the hands of criminal Saddam Hussein, but then find it justifiable to kill a few tens of thousands of those same pooor Iraqis (many of them innocent civilians, women and children), as a means to "liberate" Iraq... And at the way those same Americans can be so careless about the suffering of some of their own. I'm sure Strykerdad loses no sleep over American urban decay, about innercity poverty, about discrimination of racial minorities, about inequality of opportunities for so many poor Americans. Dictator Saddam was a thorn on your side, but fascist Bush is a hero.

Are we supposed to believe all this hypocrisy?...

waldschrat said...

Hurria -

You said "The demonstration organizers included a small number of armed militia members to provide protection in case the demonstrators were attacked."

Please understand that in this country (USA) that sort of thing would be unthinkable. Although there are private security forces, they usually carry no firearms and rely on summoning the police when necessary. Only in banks and on armored cars carrying large amounts of money do private security forces usually carry firearms.

So, in America cops are expected to protect protest marchers as well as ensure that protests do not become destructive riots. That's the theory anyway.

I have no desire to say that the guards who fired on the crowd were in the right. The proper, accepted way to handle a potentially dangerous situation involving a crowd is to get a BIG bunch of cops to stand in a line wearing "riot gear" (helmets, shields, etc) and block them, or build a fence or barricade, or use water hoses or tear gas, NOT to shoot them.

Similarly, the proper way to deal with armed men is not to scare them. Trust me, I am quite careful not to scare American cops.

So, from my point of view and based on what little I know, both sides screwed up.

You said "What prompted the sudden change of tone?"

Tone is hard to judge in written communication, but your last posts seem to have addressed the facts and reflected your views and you didn't go out of your way to belittle me. I consider you a smart person (for some unknown reason I visualize you as a mature, educated Iraqi lady). Simply put, when I said "when you have something to offer besides bullshit and insults I will listen to you" I meant it. I have no desire to compete in a flame war. I do have a desire to understand events in Iraq. If I could change things there for the better I would. The only way I can imagine of doing that right now is to try to point out that nonviolent action is a theoretically viable way of achieving change and preferable to violent methods. So that's what I try to do.

Albatroz said...

An American view on an American blog:

"We lost this one. We lost this one 2 years ago, especially since we were never planning on winning [against an insugency], we were planning on leaving. Kill Saddam, chunk out the Baathists, install Chalabi, adios friendly Iraqis peoples, we are off to Syria.

Now we're hung up on this stupid notion that we owe the Iraqis a democracy, even though we are losing the car bomb and IED election by a landslide. Stupid.

I can't describe it as depressing simply because I knew this is more or less how this would come out. When you have no hope in that quarter its hard to be disappointed.

Far more depressing is that we're wasting our army and leaving a lot of pointlessly dead Iraqis for nothing and our elites are too goddamn stupid to do what has to done.

Dumb and dumber!"

I'm glad to see they are not all "Morons" overthere...

waldschrat said...

On the subject of contamination of drinking water, I have the impression that folks in Iraq are accustomed to drawing water from the municipal supply using pumps.

The only way to ensure that sewage does not infiltrate into the municipal system is to maintain the water pressure above that of the adjacent ground water! Privately operated pumps drawing directly from the municipal mains can defeat this goal!

Usually water usage peaks in the summer. Water pressure in mains may drop due to high demand.

Truthteller, do you usually see more disease attributable to contaminated water in the summer?

Albatroz said...

Another American view on the same American blog:

"It is extremely tragic to see so much death and destruction in Iraq being basically shrugged off as either no big deal or even as proof of the success of the mission by claiming the insurgents are desperate because they are losing. What is worse in some ways is that the way this is seen inside America and the indifference of most Americans versus outside of America, and the apparent callousness/indifference of the American public to these events under their government's responsibility is not doing America any favours. Bad enough that America let itself be conned into this war, that America cannot even appear to be bothered by the continuing deterioration in Iraqi deaths and injured only reinforces the image that only American lives matter, anyone else is expendable and not worthy of consideration. This doesn't exactly jibe with the image Bushco is trying to sell, of course. That image is of an America more willing to respect other countries and peoples, so it is claimed by Bushco these days. So yet again we see where reality and image/perception as described by this Administration are in total contradiction with each other."

I'm feeling a little better. We may have real people to talk to, in the US...

Albatroz said...

One more:

"Pretty soon we'll have tossed half a trillion dollars at the Iraqi ulcer that we've currently given ourselves, with the largest, most powerful, and most advanced military the world's ever seen-- supported by more spending than almost all other countries combined-- and yet we'll still be facing defeat at the hands of just tens of thousands of relatively poorly-equipped, yet fanatically determined insurgents. Vietnam was never so damaging to us as a defeat in Iraq would be, yet that's precisely the direction in which we're proceeding."

Strykerdad, Moron99, what are you going to do to those miserable unpatriotic Americans?...

Albatroz said...

I'm enjoying it more and more:

"One "wins" a war against an enemy. What we were promised in Iraq by Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld was a battle (which we won, no doubt about it), followed by a liberation, a brief occupation, and a big thank-you letter from the Iraqi people as our troops went home.

If one is fighting to "win" against the people one was supposed to be liberating, one has already lost. Pointing this out is in fact a Citizen's patriotic duty."

Why didn't I think of this earlier? It is a lot simpler to use American arguments against Americans, and we do not risk being called no-balls Europeans...

Anonymous said...

Hurria-

You process the same vast quantity of BullFood here that you did at the Kadhim site. Amazing how productive you are.


Shirin

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 275   Newer› Newest»