At the start we used to believe that story. But when think about it logically, we find it unbelievable. Why a person who have a goal to kick the occupiers out of his own country, did hurt his own citizens leaving the occupiers safe.
One of the Iraqi bloggers write some thing worth reading:
"One of the larger blasts was in an area called Ma'moun, which is a middle class area located in west Baghdad. It’s a relatively calm residential area with shops that provide the basics and a bit more. It happened in the morning, as the shops were opening up for their daily business and it occurred right in front of a butchers shop. Immediately after, we heard that a man living in a house in front of the blast site was hauled off by the Americans because it was said that after the bomb went off, he sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman.
I didn’t think much about the story- nothing about it stood out: an explosion and a sniper- hardly an anomaly. The interesting news started circulating a couple of days later. People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.
The bombs are mysterious. Some of them explode in the midst of National Guard and near American troops or Iraqi Police and others explode near mosques, churches, and shops or in the middle of sougs. One thing that surprises us about the news reports of these bombs is that they are inevitably linked to suicide bombers. The reality is that some of these bombs are not suicide bombs- they are car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs. All we know is that the techniques differ and apparently so do the intentions. Some will tell you they are resistance. Some say Chalabi and his thugs are responsible for a number of them. Others blame Iran and the SCIRI militia Badir.
In any case, they are terrifying. If you're close enough, the first sound is a that of an earsplitting blast and the sounds that follow are of a rain of glass, shrapnel and other sharp things. Then the wails begin- the shrill mechanical wails of an occasional ambulance combined with the wail of car alarms from neighboring vehicles… and finally the wail of people trying to sort out their dead and dying from the debris."
This with similar accidents of explosions in areas where it is almost impossible for the resistance to reach and plant their roadside bombs, make one believe in the assumption that there are other hands which did those terrorism for other purposes than to resist the occupation.
176 comments:
I think the purpose is to bring down the elected government rather than to attack the Americans. Otherwise, why so many attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure? If the country can be reduced to chaos, then the Baathists or the Islamists can hope to grab power.
Oh my God, this blog is becoming a parody of itself.
Truth Teller,
You're right. It's the Americans "planting" the suicide bombs. The "resistance" is not involved in such atrocities. Zarqawi does not exist. He is an elaborate plot. His recent statements about suicide bombings and civilians are a hoax. All the stories about Saudis celebrated in their hometowns after "martyring" themseves in a suicide bomb attack are hoaxes. It's all an elaborate plot. You found us out.
Are you happy now? Does your world make perfect sense to you now?
...make one believe in the assumption that there are other hands which did those terrorism for other purposes than to resist the occupation.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
In a roundabout way, you are starting to understand the true nature of the "resistance" you laud. They have "other purposes" than resisting the occupation. And, no, it's not Americans planting the bombs. So what conclusion will you draw?
Despite ample evidence to the contrary, I still have faith you may arrive at a correct answer.
Hey Baathi Lies Teller,
Read this and this; and tell your riverbend friend that her dady Saddam is washing his underpants by hand and pissing himself :-)))
Hey, if it's the Americans planting the "suicide bombs" why not just send the Giant Spiders to attack them? That'll stop them!
Strykerdad,
You said it yourself rumor had it!
He is and was part of what we Iraqi call "Taboor Khamis" which is a group of Saddamites that spread lies/rumors to deceive people. They were active since the Baathi took control.
I am not saying that Americans are planting bombs throughout Iraq to generate bad feelings between Iraqis and the insurgents. But does anyone really think that Americans would be incapable of such? Is torture of prisoners better than planting bombs? Is accepting "colateral damage" as legitimate any better than planting bombs? So why think that Americans would be incapable of planting bombs for the above mentioned purpose?
From BBC News:
"Seven US soldiers have been killed in two separate bomb attacks in Iraq."
Victory is at hand for the occupation forces. Insurgents are near total defeat.
From the American press:
"Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain, said the rate of attacks against American forces are the same as any time during the conflict - but the key difference is the increasing capabilities of the insurgents.
"We would have hoped that the insurgency would have decreased in line with the ability of the Iraqi security forces to hold the ring and become more capable," Heyman said. "But it doesn't appear to be panning out that way with the insurgents increasing in their abilities to kill, attack and strike when and where they want."
So much for Moron99's wishful thinking...
"In the light of that how do you explain all the attacks on the electricity and oil infrastructure in the 22 months before there was what you call an "elected government"." ____ Same motive. Same reason Saddam released 80,000 criminals. The aim is to make sure, if possible, that things are worse after the invasion than under Saddam.
don cox
"Saddam released 80,000 criminals. The aim is to make sure, if possible, that things are worse after the invasion than under Saddam.
I totally agree with you, and add, when the Iraqi police recaptured those criminals, the american released them the next day. But for different motive.
@Stukasdad & his lamentable ilk.
Repeated criminal acts on the part of the US troops on a daily basis have been well proven in Iraq, with no shadow of a doubt.
Not just the humanitarian organisations (like Amnesty International) reported them, but the British military keep criticising the criminal behaviour of the US military in the London 'Daily Telegraph' (the Tory, Conservative paper, not some lefty rag).
Even the US military was compelled to prosecute some of its soldiers for the most undeniable cases; like the ten animals scapegoated for Abu Ghraib, Lt Pantano (who got acquitted, of course), Lt Saville & Sgt Perkins (who got just a slap on the hand for beating up and drowning into the Tigris the cousin of Iraqi blogger Zeyad), the murderer who 'finished off' a wounded 17 year old Iraqi in Sadr City, and the murderer who killed three wounded Iraqis in a Fallujah mosque. These prosecutions on the part of the US military are just window dressing, as everybody knows; the Italian officials were told, in the recent Calipari case, that the US cannot prosecute any more soldiers, otherwise the morale of its troops would completely crumble (and that it's already near to breaking point).
As all Iraqis and foreign observers know, these cases are just the very thin tip of the iceberg (nobody was even prosecuted for wiping out more than 40 Iraqi civilians at a wedding party, for instance). Some American soldiers who were not criminal apes did as well speak out on the current practices of the US military in Iraq.
Why do you keep lying, Stukasdad & Moron99 & Co.?
You are not doing yourselves & your (criminal) 'cause' any favours in front of all the readers of Truth Teller's blog.
As for the 'mysterious' indiscriminate bombs, killing Iraqi civilians, more later.
O.K. Truth teller, you aren't a former regime loyalist. You just give a good imitation of it. But can't you at least tell your friends to come up with some NEW propaganda? This old stuff is getting tediuos.
Lynnette in Minnesota
Hurria,
Regarding your comment on the other post about Falluja and the terrorists. If you think they came only because of us, then do we not have an obligation to try to get rid of them? If we leave do you honestly believe they will just pack up and go? They seemed to be settling in nicely in Falluja.
Lynnette in Minnesota
Hurria,
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq has asked the U.N. Security Council to let a U.S.-led multinational force remain in Iraq, acknowledging it was as yet unable to assure its own security.
The request came in a letter from Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari circulated at the United Nations on Wednesday.
"As we stand now, our country continues to face an armed insurgency, which still includes foreign elements opposed to Iraq's transition to democratic rule," Zebari said in the letter to Danish Ambassador Ellen Loj, the Security Council president for May.
"Despite continuing efforts to build up our security forces, these forces cannot as yet assume full responsibility for maintaining our national security and defending our borders," he said in the letter, which was dated Tuesday.
Um Khadija
Truthteller -
In my personal opinion, the idea that U.S. forces would plant bombs and blame them on insurgents is clearly unbelieable. If it were reported that American forces found a bomb and left it there, this might possibly be true, since it is extremely unsafe to be near a bomb and the best tactic is to retreat and call an expert to dispose of it.
I also suspect that rumors that Saddam impregnated his own camels are also untrue.
One possible way to get at the truth of the matter would be to find the man that turned into a donkey, and ask him what really happened.
Did people forget about the suicide bombing against Shiite Mosques, Shiite events, and the people going to voting booths during elections? Or are they excluded as acceptable within the Sunni community?
"Oh my God, this blog is becoming a parody of itself." ____ The author is this blog is living in the middle of a battle zone, under great stress. We may not agree with all his opinions, but let's be polite.
"Demanding an end to the American occupation was one of the primary campaign planks for the lists that won the majority of seats. The election results showed clearly that American withdrawal was a priority for the majority of Iraqi people."
___ It's a priority for everyone. The sooner the Iraqi forces can take over and the Americans at least withdraw to bases, the better. The only down side is that the Iraqi forces are likely to be more brutal in their treatment of captives than the coalition forces.
"If the group currently referred to as the "government" " ___ They look like a government to me, or at least as like a government as Blair's government in Britain. They were chosen in a free and fair election with a high turnout. If there was any pressure from the Americans it was to use proportional representation, so that it would not simply be a Shia government, but would include representatives of all the main groups. Are you one of those Muslims that believes elections are evil?
"Don Cox: "Same motive."That makes no sense whatsoever."
The motive of the Baathists is to restore the Baath party to power. The motive of the various Islamists is to bring their particular variety of Islam to power. None of them wants freedom or democracy. They are willing to kill and destroy in order to bring about a state of chaos.
From Asia Times:
"The United States has accelerated arms sales to some of the world's most repressive and undemocratic regimes since September 11, 2001, according to a new report from leading arms trade researchers.
The report, from the Arms Trade Resource Center at New York-based New School University's World Policy Institute, says the increase in sales and military grants is a payoff to countries that have either joined what the White House calls its "war on terror" or have backed the United States in its military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan."
"According to the study, countries defined as "undemocratic" in the State Department's annual human-rights report are also major recipients of US military aid or weapons systems. These include: Saudi Arabia (US$1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million), and Uzbekistan ($33 million).
"Arming repressive regimes while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues," said Frida Berrigan, co-author of the study, "US Weapons at War 2005: Promoting Freedom or Fueling Conflict?"
So, Moron99, is this how the US fights for democracy? Are we supposed to believe your simpleminded propaganda about US objectives in Iraq?...
hurria said:
"In my personal opinion, the idea that U.S. forces would plant bombs and blame them on insurgents is clearly unbelieable."
While I do not believe they have used that tactic in Iraq, it is not unheard of for Americans to do such things.
5/26/2005 07:21:04 PM
Hurria, if it's not unheard of when and where did you hear of the US forces doing such a thing? Please share details.
Umm Khadija
@Truth Teller.
There is some 'humourous' fellor, 'Rama', who posts this gibberish in an invented language in order to sabotage your comments page.
As far as I can see, it is not an existing language, but something made through a computer program (with just a couple of mentions of 'Iraq' inserted to make the gullible believe it is a real tongue).
Please, challenge the 'prankster' Rama to reveal what it is; and, if he does not answer, please remove his useless posts, which take a lot of room, and put against him a blocksender.
@Umm Khadija, 5/26/2005 07:35:56 PM.
"if it's not unheard of when and where did you hear of the US forces doing such a thing? Please share details".
I'm not Hurria, but I can answer. In 1954 Colonel Edward Landsdale (who later on became deputy director of the CIA) went to South Vietnam with a special team. The French had just withdrawn. Col. Landsdale, known to his men by the nickname 'The Ugly American', had elaborated a counter-insurgency technique according to which, in order to strengthen the centre ground against 'insurgents' on one side and 'reactionaries' on the other to the benefit of the US, you have some 'special operations' to conduct. These consisted in putting around 'mysterious' bombs to kill civilians at random, in pubs, restaurants, cinemas, markets, city squares, etc.
That's what Landsdale's team kept doing in Vietnam from 1955 to 1963, killing in that way some hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. The bombings were not attributed, or attributed to the ones or the others, but not of course to the ones putting them, the Americans. The general idea was that the increasing social alarm would promote the pro-American 'centrist' Government of Diem (similar to the Jaafari Govt. now in Iraq).
In Vietnam the brilliant theory of Col. Landsdale didn't work; being a country 90 % rural & with no TV, most people didn't care so much about what happened in Saigon or in Hue.
It was the British secret services that spilled the beans, being angry at their American counterparts because of the 1956 Suez fiasco. One of their men, who was a most brilliant writer of novels, Graham Greene, published at the end of 1957 'The Quiet American' (with a pun on the nickname of Landsdale), where he revealed what the Americans were doing in Vietnam. I advice all our Iraqi friends to read that 'novel' ASAP; it has much more to do with what is happening now in Iraq that one might think.
In another country, mostly urban & with modern mass media, Landsdale counter-insurgency theory did instead work very well. It was Italy, in the years from 1968-69 to the early Eighties. The students-workers movement of that period had worried the US, making them imagine the danger of a Communist takeover. 'Mysterious' bombs started blowing up on trains, in banks, in city squares, in railway stations. On the whole, about two hundred Italian civilians died (& mind that Italy was an ally of the US, and in NATO!). The bombs were variously blamed, first on 'Anarchists', then on 'Fascists'. The people did indeed get scared, and supported the 'centrist' pro-US Govt.; there was no 'Soviet' takeover. It was only from the Nineties that Italian magistrates found out in their inquiries that they had been put by the US secret services, assisted by some of their minions in the Italian ones, following the criminal 'counter-insurgency' theory of Col. Landsdale.
Similar 'techniques' of callous terrorism were applied by the US services in Central America in the Eighties.
Does it seem so strange to you, Umm Khadija, that the Americans apply the same techniques of unattributed terrorism in Iraq? The Iraqi resistance is not yet united in a single front; there are several groups, mad Jihadis, criminal gangs, sectarian militias, etc. It is very simple (much simpler for the US than in Vietnam in the Fifties or in Italy in the Seventies) to disseminate 'mysterious' bombs all over, deliberately targeting Iraqi civilians & increasing sectarian tensions, in order to scare the Iraqi people, and to make them regard the puppet Government & the US troops as the only defence against chaos, the 'lesser evil'.
But, in all probability, the indiscriminate terrorism targeting civilians is the work of the same 'benevolent' occupiers.
Rama,
rama lama lama ding dong, abop a wowwow. I have made a little effort to determine the language, if it is one. The only google matches I have found involve sites based on Slavic languages--maybe Czech?
No, Anon, I can tell you it is not a Slavonic language, nor any language in the world. If you notice, the structure is only superficially similar to a 'language'.
There is no recurrence either of words or, more importantly, of particles of the language (such as conjunctions, etc.). It is just generated by a computer program, with a proper mixture of vowels and consonants, and sillables put together looking like words.
Please, Truth Teller, this 'Rama' is just one of these disgusting warmongering Americans who wants to wreck your comments page: kick him out, and delete his posts!
So now "italian" is referencing a fictional novel to buttress his arguments. Brilliant.
As for your other assertions, you will need to provide concrete evidence not opinion, either yours or anyone elses. I have googled Lansdale and his counter-insurgency activities and found no evidence to support your claims. Please provide your evidence.
One possible way to get at the truth of the matter would be to find the man that turned into a donkey, and ask him what really happened.
LOL! Good one, Waldschrat.
That oddball stuff in those long posts might be produced using an online "gibberish generator". There seem to be quite a few out there (LINK
Too many of the words defy google search for it to be any common language. Some of the shorter 2-letter words are found in Yoruban.
So, what does it mean? It seems somebody somewhere perhaps decided some comments here make no sense and deided to respond in kind and at length. A fascinating statement, quite creative and entertaining in my opinion.
This small quote from a 1963 "Memorandum From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Taylor) and the Secretary of Defense (McNamara) to the President" (on Vietnam), shows how much the US cares for "democracy" when their interests are at stake:
"Obviously, clear and explicit U.S. support could make a great difference to the chances of a coup. However, at the present time we lack a clear picture of what acceptable individuals might be brought to the point of action, or what kind of government might emerge. We therefore need an intensive clandestine effort, under the Ambassador's direction, to establish necessary contacts to allow the U.S. to continuously appraise coup prospects.
If and when we have a better picture, the choice will still remain difficult whether we would prefer to take our chances on a spontaneous coup (assuming some action by Diem and Nhu would trigger it) or to risk U.S. prestige and having the U.S. hand show with a coup group which appeared likely to be a better alternative government. Any regime that was identified from the outset as a U.S. "puppet" would have disadvantages both within South Vietnam and in significant areas of the world, including other underdeveloped nations where the U.S. has a major role.
In any case, whether or not it proves to be wise to promote a coup at a later time, we must be ready for the possibility of a spontaneous coup, and this too requires clandestine contacts on an intensive basis."
Of course, for Moron99 and others, things are now very different, and the US commitmrnt to democracy in Iraq is total...
The US administration can talk about ending the occupation of Iraq but it is not planning actually to do so anytime soon. Their view appears to be that, if they cannot force Iraq and Iran oil to be traded in US dollars - well, then it must not be traded at all, and in my view the current US administration will stop at nothing to try to maintain the petro-dollar. Thousands of young Americans will be expected by their government to die in order to prevent Iraq and Iran oil being traded in euros.
However, the World Trade Organisation has just said that Iran can start negotiating to join the WTO (hitherto the US has blocked Iran's membership 22 times); and, for my part, I am sure that the day is not far off when the flow of money funding America's aggression will suddenly run dry - when all the other countries in the world (except America and Israel) sign a treaty to trade oil in euros. All it takes is a stroke of the pen. From that day, America will no longer be a rich country, and will be unable to afford to spend what is currently - and has been for decades - a really obscene amount on so-called defence.
Rachel, a Brit in London
Moron99 is not for real!... He seems to think the world is some type of a game, like Risk or Monopoly. He invents rules, he tells people how they should rule themselves, he lives in an unreal world, like a computer game. In short, he is a hopeless nut case... Just like his boss, GWB... Are there sane people left in the US?...
Latest news:
"TIKRIT, Iraq - Two Task Force Liberty helicopters received small arms fire while conducting operations in support of Coalition Forces near Baqubah at about 10:50 p.m. May 26.
One aircraft landed safely at a Coalition Forces base after sustaining damage. The other aircraft crashed and the status of the aircrew is unknown at this time.
Coalition Forces responded to the scene and secured the site.
The incident is under investigation."
The insurgency is on its last legs... Victory by the brave US troops is around the corner...
@Waldschrat.
"It seems somebody somewhere perhaps decided some comments here make no sense and deided to respond in kind and at length. A fascinating statement, quite creative and entertaining in my opinion".
Oh fascinating Waldschrat, it is just called spamming & wreaking & sabotage, nothing fascinating about it.
@One of these over-cowardly Anon apes ('Jay'?), 5/26/2005 08:47:45 PM.
"So now 'italian' is referencing a fictional novel to buttress his arguments. Brilliant. As for your other assertions, you will need to provide concrete evidence not opinion, either yours or anyone elses. I have googled Lansdale and his counter-insurgency activities and found no evidence to support your claims. Please provide your evidence".
As far as Italy (1968-85) is concerned, should I copy some tens of thousand of pages of inquiries and sentences by the Italian judicial system? Obviously not. Or the links to them? That would be better, but I'm quite sure you could find the links yourself. Apart from that, I'm even surer that then you would just disappear (or, in case, complain that all that is not in English).
And Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' (you get it in the Penguin Books edition, if I'm not mistaken) is a "a fictional novel"? Even when you know its background? Even if you have confirmation from other sources? Oh, yeeeaaah...
One should be a specialist in the truly vast bibliography on the matter of US foreign policy & US secret services actions in order to satisfy you at face value... but it would not work, you lying animal, as you know very very well. Apart from that, obviously you would say that it is a matter of 'interpretation', and that there are no primary sources.
Oh what an intelligent discovery! Your US secret services would be even more idiotic that they are, if there were ANY primary sources accessible!
At least, Anon, our Pollyannish moronic Moron99 has been, in this case, a bit more honest than you are...
@Rachel, a Brit in London, 05/26/2005 11:39:55 PM.
Tonight I chanced to be at a dinner with people active in the international financial community here in Italy (not radicals of any kind).
I said, "Maybe the Iranian Govt. should immediately switch to the Petroleuro, and abandon the Petroldollar in order to be safe from US aggression".
They answered on the spot, "If the Ayatollahs were to do anything like that, not just the US would for sure attack them, but they would nuke Teheran immediately".
This is the way 'moderate' people in Europe perceive the US, and its foreign policy.
@Moron99: Are you still trying to fool us with your fake 'benevolent' honey utterances?
Who is the fool who would believe you?
And you have the cheek of talking about 'Iraqi brothers'. Sorry Moron, as far as I know the Iraqis have got only two hands at present, not four: so they cannot be your 'brothers'.
@Anon ('Jay'?), 5/26/2005 08:47:45 PM.
Lest I forget, do read what Albatroz reported some posts above. And do 'google' the Northwoods Project, 1962 (by the same clever Col. Landsdale; President Kennedy apparently rejected that one). Maybe you would enlarge your mind, & get some useful idea about who did organise 9/11...
They answered on the spot, "If the Ayatollahs were to do anything like that, not just the US would for sure attack them, but they would nuke Teheran immediately".
This is the way 'moderate' people in Europe perceive the US, and its foreign policy.
Then that's their own perception problem. Not mine.
Maybe you would enlarge your mind, & get some useful idea about who did organise 9/11...
LOL. You just destroyed ANY shred of credibility you hoped to hang on to. Saner heads like Albatroz and Hurria (even though we disagree on many things) are surely thrilled to have you arguing on their side. Ha!
But you should hang around anyway because you amuse me greatly.
Oh my god, angry italian. Please don't go there, with the whole "the CIA is behind 9/11." Or was it the Israelis? Jesus, what a pathetic joke you are. Please, get a life, and a job, a girlfriend, and an education. You are spending way too much time on the internet looking kiddie porn. You are now banned from this discussion. Leave, go. You are a weak, pathetic excuse for a human being.
Karzai's visit to Washington:
"Shocked by the front-page story in the Times about U.S. forces slowly, brutally torturing two Afghan detainees to death, Karzai called for all Afghan detainees to be transferred to the custody of the government of Afghanistan.
He also called for more control over U.S. forces' operations in Afghanistan to be handed over to his government.
He also blamed the "international community" and, in particular, the United States lack of sufficient support for his government's opium-eradication efforts.
If Afghanistan was truly a sovereign country, then, of course, the least one could expect is that it would have the right to control of detainees on its own soil and to restriction of military operations on its own soil. Bush's response was to completely ignore Karzai's requests, saying only that U.S. operations in Afghanistan were on a "cooperate and consult" basis with the Afghan government.
Bush displays Karzai at the White House to trumpet the great democracy created in Afghanistan, introducing him as the first elected leader in Afghanistan in 5000 years (who was elected in 3000 BC?); at the same time, he makes it very clear that Afghanistan's sovereignty is a mockery and that it is no more than a colonial protectorate of the United States. And nobody wants to see a contradiction. Welcome to democracy in the 21st century."
Long live democracy (US style...)!
From the American press:
"Everyone agrees that Ligaya Lagman is a Gold Star mother, part of the long, mournful line of women whose sons or daughters were killed in combat for the U.S. armed services.
Her 27-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, was killed last year in Afghanistan when his unit came under fire during a mission to drive out remnants of Taliban and al-Qaida forces.
But the largest organization of such mothers, the American Gold Star Mothers Inc., has rejected Lagman for membership because - though a permanent resident and a taxpayer - she is not a U.S. citizen.
"There's nothing we can do because that's what our organization says: You have to be an American citizen," national President Ann Herd said Thursday. "We can't go changing the rules every time the wind blows."
Great country, the US. Great democracy too... Americans have a lot to teach poor ignorant Iraqis...
"It is the fault of Truth Teller and his kin that the Bush administration not only launched a war of aggression based on lies, but has also failed 100% in their responsibilities as the occupying power" - said by Hurria...
My god - I've never read such an overt misrepresentation. Who said any of this is Truth Teller's fault? "War of agression" is a legal term that applies to the 18th, 19th and early 20th century European conquest wars. The Iraq war started as a war to remove a crazy anti-American dictator from power - nothing more or less. Responsibilities are with the Iraqi people, not the American people - unless, of course, what you want is an American colony in the ME. And based on what lies? That SH initiated a war of aggression against Kuwait? That, during that war, he launched scud missiles into SA and Israel? That he killed thousands of Kurds and Shiites in the aftermath of that war? That he continued to thumb his nose at the US and the UN in their attempts to determine whether or not he had a nuclear program? Not to mention the fact that he was, in general, an egomaniacal psychopath who murdered his way into power and, throughout his rule, used all the standard ruthless intimidation tactics to suppress any dissent. Oh, and I forgot about him paying off the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and providing safe refuge to terrorists. Oh yea, and his "dreams" of ruling over an Arab empire that stretched from Egypt to Iran. But I guess this stuff doesn't matter - since Truth Teller was allowed to live a life sheltered from it all.
Hello Truthteller,
The 'illogic' of the suicide and trapped car bombs is the logic of war, which is anti-human. My impression is that much of the bombing is not occupation resistance, but religious, ethnic hatred, and most important for MONEY!! Understanding such a logic is useless. Perhaps the Sunni/Islamic scholars opposition should condemn these unacceptable methods before they become polluted by their silence and not condemning them utterly.
@Superman (or 'Jay'), 5/27/2005 12:22:01 PM.
Ludicrous thing that you are, the 'official' US version of what happened on 9/11 2001 is by any chance a dogma of your faith?
Who killed President Kennedy in 1963? Was it the 'Islamofascists'? Don't think so. And if in more than 40 years the truth on the Kennedy assassination has not yet surfaced, how can you reasonably think that your version of 9/11 is the 'real' one? And after one reads the 1962 Northwoods Project by Landsdale (by then deputy director of the CIA), ANY suspicion seems fully legitimate...
BTW, the most serious researchers on what TRULY happened the 9/11 are Americans. Of course, Americans who are still human beings and who have still got an average intelligence, differently from you.
And, apart from your being a brainless creature, one can note you exquisite courtesy towards our host Truth Teller: "You are now banned from this discussion. Leave, go".
Maybe this is Truth Teller's blog, don't you think? Or would you like to take control over his blog by force of arms, like you did over his unlucky country?
With you warmongering buffoons one never knows...
Angry italian - what did I say in my previous post? You are not allowed to post here any longer. You are a waste of time. There are other blogs where you can intellectualize about conspiracy theories. We all know your answer already - it was the CIA...or the Jews. Now, please - go away.
@Anonymous, 5/27/2005 06:44:48 AM.
"'This is the way 'moderate' people in Europe perceive the US, and its foreign policy'.
Then that's their own perception problem. Not mine".
Oh yeah, brilliant Anon! Most of the world perceives the US as dangerous & irresponsible bullies, and it is not your problem!
Well, then I'd suggest that you become Secretary of State of the USA... (in order to ensure your faster defeat, of course).
Remember, oh warmongering genius, that only one out of twentyfour inhabitants of the world is an American... and perception seems to be rather crucial in foreign policy...
@Mirko, 5/27/2005 06:48:10 PM.
"I'm italian, and I understand that 'An Italian' blogger, if he is italian, is from the far leftiest party".
Caro stupidello, disgraziatamente ti sbagli: non sono di sinistra. Se in Italia ci fosse una destra seria, responsabile e decente (e rispettosa della dignità europea e nazionale) la voterei. Il resto che dici a mio riguardo sono pure sciocchezze (Translation: Dear silly boy, unfortunately you are mistaken: I'm no leftwinger. If there were in Italy a decent, responsible & serious right wing, a Right respectful of European & national dignity, I would vote for it. The rest of what you say about me is just bunkum).
Then you go ranting on about our host: "This 'Citizen of Mosul' is in the same crew. He live in a delusion, because it is too heavy for him". Are you an Iraqi, or do you know any Iraqis, to be so sure of your truly deluded aspersions? What do you know to be able to say that what Truth Teller says is 'delusional'?
Did you by any chance go to the US, & undergo a brain transplant there?
That would explain many things about your post, Mirco...
@Superape, 5/27/2005 08:58:40 PM & 5/27/2005 10:27:25 PM.
"The Iraq war started as a war to remove a crazy anti-American dictator from power - nothing more or less".
Dear four-handed clown, than it IS a war of aggression, like Hurria says, isn't it?
Or, possibly, you do not understand the meaning of your own language, which wouldn't surprise me in the very least.
And, again, you write: "You are not allowed to post here any longer. Now, please - go away". My dear simian friend, did you get the contagion of your Ape in Chief Bush's delusions, by any chance?
Your tinfoil hat is slipping, Italian. Be careful. Don't let the CIA mindrays get you. :-)
Angry italian - you are hilarious. You should do standup with your "superape" bit. I get it, I'm not a super "man" but a super "monkey." Very, very funny.
Since you refuse to leave, as I have politely requested, I will now have to take more drastic measures and report you to the CIA and the Jews. Or maybe I'll just put a voodoo spell on you - ready? booga booga...booga booga booga...
Hurria, your problem is that you argue the United State went to war based on one factor (WMD), when in fact there are several, or several hundred thousand if you want to count all the Kuwaities, Iranians, Kurds, Shiites and your everyday dissenter killed over the years. I agree with you, in that any one of the factors I mentioned (and of course there are many more not mentioned) is not justification in itself to go to war. Rather, it is the combination of these that led to the decision. That is why the US has not gone to war to remove other dictators (and I would also argue that none are as bad as Saddam Hussein was) - because America knows that many innocent people will be killed and it is, therefore, better to leave the bad guys wehre they are. In this case, the benefits of removing Saddam outweighed the costs. Good try, though! And be careful - I might ban you as well if you don't stop acting like an arrogant sociopath.
Hurria, so you concede that there were other justifications for war?
Why are idiotic Americans attracted to this blog like flies? Don't they have any useful work to do, like killing treacherous enemies of the great US of A? Like the British used to say about Americans during WW II, the trouble with them was that they were oversexed, overpaid and overthere... I don't care if they are oversexed and overpaid, but I am starting to dislike them being overhere...
Why are idiotic Europeans attracted to this blog like flies?
Found on the net:
"In an almost unnoticed move, President Bush on Thursday May 19 extended for one year the blanket immunity from legal action conferred on US corporations doing business in Iraq."
Well, well, well...
Albo, the Bush Administration is trying to increase investment in Iraq. If we can get more companies to do business there, jobs will be created. A good thing, no?
Question:
Why would a "blanket immunity from legal action be conferred on US corporations doing business in Iraq"?
Is the US government expecting them doing something illegal? Something having to do with oil, for instance?...
1) Anything is possible. Americans could be planting bombs, SCIRI could be planting bombs, the British or Iranians could be planting bombs... without any real evidence all of this is unknowable. I haven't seen any real evidence that ties Americans to bombs that kill civilians. If someone wants to prove that here, then they need to provide some actual evidence that can be corroborated.
2) On the other hand, we know for a fact that Marla of CIVIC was killed by a car bomb by a non-American. We know that there are individuals who stand in front of cameras and say they are going to kill anyone who participates in reconstruction with Americans, and that there are organizations who state publicly, through papers and all media they can get their hands on, that they have no problem with murdering civilians.
3) When the occupation first started, there was a variety of bombings against the electrical infrastructure. It was determined, after investigation, that a large percentage of towers that were downed were downed by engineers and leaders in outlying areas of Iraq who were bitter that Baghdad got 24 hour power from outlying local power plants. So they downed all power lines that sent their electricity to Baghdad, and whenver these towers were repaired, they downed them again. In addition, people punctured water lines, and downed power lines in order to gather water for themselve, and to sell the copper for scrap. IN ADDITION, the hundreds of thousands of displaced Marsh Arabs who no longer had any form of livelihood since Saddam destroyed their tribal lands, went around shooting people and stealing their cars (living a bandit lifestyle). At the same time, individuals whose homes were shot up by American soldiers took their vengeance on them, while others who had been oppressed by their neighbors took their vengeance on their neighbors. That's just for starters.
Iraq is the NUMBER ONE country for conventional munitions, with over 500,000 tons of unsecured weaponry lying across the desert and it has THE HIGHEST RATE of civilian maiming from civilians attempting to loot munition site for fuel for their stoves, which invariably ends up blowing their own hands off.
To sum up, if Americans are so evil because they use violence to achieve their ends. Then why this feeling that the people who fight against the Americans are so noble? Isn't the whole argument here that when you resort to violence to solve your problems, everyone comes out worse in the end? And the people who pay the price are the innocent bystanders?
It can't be denied that the loudest voices coming from the Middle East preach violence as the answer. If the U.S. is morally bankrupt because it is too violent, then who is morally superior in the entire Middle East?
Iraq owed over 300 billion dollars to its neighbors for damage it did in its previous wars. It has been forgiven the majority of that debt, and now it believes that America owes it reconstruction money, even though it doesn't think it should pay reconstruction money for the violent mistakes in its own past.
The literacy rate in Iraq is below 60%, and it contains some of the most heavy environmental damage in the entire world.
America is not a perfect nation by any means, and I am certain we have soldiers behaving badly in Iraq, and I am certain that many of them are not being held accountable for their actions. We should always strive to do better.
Yet on the same hand, what do we do with the thousands of policemen who brutalized Iraqis under Saddam's reign?
And what about Sadr's army (like the one that beat up and blinded the Christian university students), and the many other Iraq-based militias, that are behaving very badly. There seems to be no check at all on their abuses. No one was arrested in the university incident, or the other incidents where Sadr's men were known to have killed shop owners that sold alcohol, among other religiously-motivated murders.
Absolutely, American soldiers should be held accountable for illegal actions. At least there is some method to do so. But how many are dying because of bad Americans, and how many are dying because of the actions of others?
Faiza's car wasn't stolen at gunpoint by Americans, Marla wasn't blown up by Americans, and Americans certainly didn't spend $5 billion on a new electrical grid, only to blow it up the day they finished it.
And I suppose it was Americans that dropped the grenades on themselves while they were playing chess outside a hospital in order to prevent it from being looted.
I've read Truth Teller for quite some time, so I know he doesn't believe that all Americans are bad, and all Iraqis are good.
I just hope everyone else is aware of that too. (As well as the fact that not all Arabs are bad, and not all Americans are good).
jemy
Why would a "blanket immunity from legal action be conferred on US corporations doing business in Iraq"? - says Albo...
First of all, I haven't read the law and don't believe that it says "blanket immunity" - just doesn't sound very official. But, to answer your question, certain legal obligations are generally reduced when a government wants to promote business. For example, a government will reduce taxes in a certain area if it wants business to set up shop there. Or it may reduce a business obligations to ensure premises security, for example, during a time of war. What the hell would it have to do with oil? Are you saying that this "blanket immunity" will allow American companies to steal oil from the ground, pack it up in barrels and send it back to America so we can have cheaper gas? Ridiculous.
So, Hurria, are there ever any humanitarian reasons for going to war - say, for example, during a genocide, like Sudan right now? Not trying to be a smart, and I'm not saying there was a genocide occuring in Iraq when the US invaded, but would this be a legitimate military intervention? Or is this off limits also?
Hurria, I appreciate your straightforward response and I respect the fact that you appear to be a true pacifist. I just hope you are unbiased in condemning the use of force by all sides in this conflict.
hurria,
I'm a peacenik myself, so I agree with you. I'd have to say I subscribe to McNamara's new philosophy, and I think that real change in the world comes from aggressive reconstruction, not war. War only makes things harder for everyone, and gets the crazy people to come out of the woodwork.
But what do we do now? I agree that American troops leave much to be desired, but what's the other options?
I don't know for certain what abuses Americans are committing in Iraq, but I do know that Iraqi soldiers and police also commited the SAME abuses our soldiers are being accused of, yet no one believed that meant there should be no Iraqi army or police force.
Many here make arguments that sound like American soldiers always react perfectly, and they should never be held accountable. I find these arguments offensive as well.
But there seems to be far less accountability going on for the bad decisions of Sadr, and the Iraqi government. Who is the mayor of Mosul? Who is the police chief? What are they doing? Who are the engineers? Who is in charge of the power lines to TruthTeller's neighborhood? Who is in charge of water?
What needs to be done? What are the reasons those things are not getting done?
None of this information is being talked about, and this is the kind of thing that will really make a difference.
There ARE ways to get American compensation for damaged buildings, and there ARE funds to start up economic development for Mosul. Certainly, us Americans are doing a terrible job of properly organizing the process, but I don't see Iraqis doing a very good job of organizing either.
If you can't take advantage of the opportunity to land free money for your community, then what is going to happen to you?
If reconstruction in Iraq fails, America will be blamed, but Iraq is the one who is going to have to live with the aftermath.
If you could struggle for a better country under a terrible man like Saddam, why not struggle even harder under the poor leadership of American occupation?
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
hurria,
I have to add, as Gandhi said, If we all took "an eye for an eye, the whole world would be blind."
@Superape, 5/28/2005 06:07:08 AM.
"I just hope you are unbiased in condemning the use of force by all sides in this conflict".
What a nice bit of utter hypocrisy, Superape!
The Iraqis using force in their country are, precisely, IN THEIR COUNTRY. This is true for all Iraqi factions, including the puppet Government, the different party/sectarian militias, all the factions of the resistance, and even the gangs of common criminals.
And to judge on their acts is up to the inhabitants of that country, the Iraqis (and the future will tell what the sentence of their majority will be).
The US military using force in Iraq are there in an unjust occupation of a foreign country. They have no right whatsoever to use ANY force against ANY Iraqi, and they should simply NOT be there. So, by definition, they stand already condemned in the eyes of world opinion.
BTW, Superape, I never used the word 'Jews' in my posts, as far as I can remember. So, what were you ranting about?
@Moron99, 5/27/2005 11:24:13 PM.
"They say that Zarqawi has died. It is probably true because the insurgents are claiming that he is in perfect health".
In all probability, Moron, oh great expert on Iraq and all things of the Old World (LOL!), this Zarqawi died in March 2003 already.
His presence and relevance were invented because of the irrepressible American need to personalise & demonise: like little children reading comics, they (at least, the fools amongst them, that are many) need to hate some imaginary enemy. See for instance the post by your not cleverer clownish pal Superape (5/28/2005 01:09:15 AM): "I would also argue that none [dictators] are as bad as Saddam Hussein was" (boom! the Saudi royal family is very nice, right? & that gentleman Karimov...).
This tendency was apparently exploited by somebody in the Iraqi resistance, who used Zarqawi the Ghost to claim the less defensible actions.
Whether this propaganda & media invented ghost disappears, or not, it is totally of no relevance for the future of Iraq and of the war.
Hurria, whether you choose to accept the label of pacifist or not, it is now clear to me that you would not support the forced removal of a dictator by foreign powers under any circumstances. Plain and simple, something I can not really work with or argue about.
Yes, angry italian, I'm sure you love jewish people.
Jemy, your first post is disorganized and disjointed to the point of incoherence, but I will try to respond to some of what you said:
I haven't seen any real evidence that ties Americans to bombs that kill civilians."
You haven't?! Are you saying that the half ton and one ton bombs they have been dropping for nearly 27 months on cities and towns and villages and vehicles driving on roads do not kill civilians? Are you saying the bombs they used to destroy Falluja did not kill civilians? Are you saying the bombs they have used in the predominantly Turkmen and Christian city of Tal Afar did not kill civilians? Are you saying the cluster bombs they have used for the past 26 months all over Iraq do not kill civilians? Are you saying American bombs do not kill civilians?
"On the other hand, we know for a fact that Marla of CIVIC was killed by a car bomb by a non-American."
We do? And exactly how do we know that "for a fact", and if it is a fact, what is its significance? We do know for a fact that Nicola Calipari was killed by American troops who nearly killed Giuliana Sgrena. We know for a fact that Americans have killed a large number of journalists and others from all over the world.
We know that there are individuals who stand in front of cameras and say they are going to kill anyone who participates in reconstruction with Americans and that there are organizations who state publicly, through papers and all media they can get their hands on, that they have no problem with murdering civilians."
Really? How do we know that? Have you actually seen them making these statements? And if so, how did you understand what they were actually saying?
"When the occupation first started, there was a variety of bombings against the electrical infrastructure."
You must mean the bombings by the Americans, of course. American bombings of electrical infrastructure did not stop in the early days of the occupation, though. They do an excellent job of destroying electrical infrastructure, often as a precursor to attacking a city.
"It was determined, after investigation, that a large percentage of towers that were downed were downed by engineers and leaders in outlying areas of Iraq who were bitter that Baghdad got 24 hour power from outlying local power plants...." etc.
Determined by whom? Who made these investigations? Where did you hear about all this?
"To sum up, if Americans are so evil because they use violence to achieve their ends. Then why this feeling that the people who fight against the Americans are so noble?"
Can you honestly not see the difference between the U.S. leaving its own soil and travelling halfway around the world in order to attack, invade, and occupy a country that has never attacked it and poses no threat to anyone, and Iraqis standing on their own soil fighting against their country's invaders? You don't see the difference between flying over the cities of a foreign country dropping one ton bombs on them, and fighting in your own land against those who are doing this?
Maybe you could try to imagine what Americans would do if their country were attacked, invaded,and occupied by a foreign power. Do you suppose they would not fight to rid their country of the foreign invaders?
"Isn't the whole argument here that when you resort to violence to solve your problems, everyone comes out worse in the end?"
Who in this case is the one who chose to resort to violence -overwhelmingly deadly and destructive violence - as the first option to solve a problem that didn't even exist? Who continues to use massively deadly and destructive violence as the first option in every case? Iraqis did not choose violence in this case at all, they had it forced on them. Why is it so shocking that they respond violently to being violently attacked?
I genuinely do not understand how it is that you people can find so unacceptable any use of violence by Iraqis while they are being so violently and horribly attacked, and yet you remain silent about the party that traveled half way around the world to initiate the violence.
"And the people who pay the price are the innocent bystanders?"
When Americans kill them they are collatoral damage - regrettable, but unavoidable. When Iraqis kill them they are innocent bystanders whose deaths are an unspeakable crime.
"It can't be denied that the loudest voices coming from the Middle East preach violence as the answer."
Oh, that old racism-and-bigotry-based canard again. On what basis do you make that assertion? What do you know about all the voices in the Middle East and what they "preach"? Did it ever occur to you that in the U.S. you are not hearing even 1% of all the voices from the Middle East, and for that 1% you are hearing someone else's interpretation of what some other person translated, probably inaccurately?
"If the U.S. is morally bankrupt because it is too violent, then who is morally superior in the entire Middle East?"
Are you saying that the entire Middle East is violent? How interesting considering the extreme rarity with which Middle Eastern countries initiate violent conflict. How interesting in light of the fact that for nearly 27 months the country committing by far the greatest amount and magnitude of violence in the Middle East is the United States of America. And how interesting that by far the most violent Middle Eastern country is not one of those horrible Arab Muslim countries, but Israel.
I will try to respond to the rest of your comment later.
micro
"This "Citizen of Mosul" is in the same crew.
He live in a delusion, because it is too heavy for him"
The citizens of mosul never lived in a delution, you don't know the citizens of Mosul or of Iraq, they were lived 12 years under strict sanction and every now and then American warplane bombed the infrastructure of thier cities. During your unjustified war thousands of bombs were thrown over the city damaging the electricity, the water supply system and all the infra structures of the city. Add to that what your friends and allied did immediatly following the war (the looting of all the government building, including the musiums), while your troops were watching every thing and happy.
"Then he project the guilt he feel to others. The guilty are others. The other are in fault not him or his kin
Why to feel quilty??
Did I help the invaders to destroy my country? Did I see the crimes comitted by the American and there allied and I said thank you America? Or I just stay mouth closed when your propoganda try to destroy the moral and ethical motive of the honest resistance.
"what would you say to your children? How could you maintain your and their respect?"
Me I and any Iraqi faithfull to his own homeland are proud to die defending it. My children knew this very well.
Some of the Americans contributing to this discussion seem to believe that Americans have a duty to stop foreign dictators killing their own people. Although the killing of any people bothers me, I think only the concerned people can - and have the right to - stop such dictators. Americans have not been appointed the world's policemen, and do not even have the moral standing to aspire to such a position. As Hurria has stated, only actual or imminent aggression can justify going to war. Iraq was no threat to the US, so the US shouldn't intervene.
Americans picture themselves as the eternal good guys, all the others being necessarily bad guys. With their simplistic minds they consider justifiable any actions of the good guys against the bad guys. Any intelligent person would quickly see this as an untenable proposition. Why is it that so many Americans fail to understand this? They try desperately to convince the world that their violence is for the good of Iraq. Do they really believe that crap? Iraqis, like any other people, are entitled to their own mistakes. Americans are not entitled to try and correct those mistakes. If they want to better the world I suggest that they start at home, where all the billions spent killing Iraqis could be put to a much better use.
Question: would Americans have bothered with Saddam Hussein if Iraq had no oil?...
Unfortunately this is all about power. The US enjoys being top cat, enjoys using the world to further its own interests. Of course all those billions could do something to improve life in the inner cities, to stop urban decay, to stop pollution, to feed hungry children, to promote racial equality in the US. But that would in no way contribute to maintain superpower status. To be powerful implies using that power, even if it is to kill innocent Iraqis. If other people do not feel your power, than that power is useless. These are childish reasonings, but that's all the reasoning GWB (and some of the present American company) seem to be capable of.
"According to the study, countries defined as "undemocratic" in the State Department's annual human-rights report are also major recipients of US military aid or weapons systems.
These include: Saudi Arabia (US$1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1 billion),
Egypt is holding presidential election with candidates. Meanwhile, president has been uneasy about relations with Us for pressures of democratic reforms, considering strenghten relations with Russia.
Kuwait ($153 million),
Kuwait has recently battled in the parliament for women rights, and this effort for improvement of democracy allows arm sales to be justified.
the United Arab Emirates ($110 million),
It's a small country so I won't be able to discuss about this.
and Uzbekistan ($33 million).
US has recently claimed concerns about human rights. It may also effect arm sales as well. Meanwhile, China and Russia has supported the possition of Uzbekstan.
What about the colonist EU that is planning sales to China, and imperialist Russia supporting dictators, such as in Belarus and Uzbekistan? I also thought US is a collaberator of Jews by some people that US only makes sales to Israel? Did Arabs knew that US also plans to support Palestine with financial aids?
This blog's comment section has become a field for verbal warfare between a limited number of regular "contributors". Much of the material posted is offensive either to Iraqis or to Americans. Insults are exchanged regularly. There is little evidence of any true inclination of participants to achieve any mutual understanding or find useful solutions to any real problems.
A web log ("blog") is conceptually a place for an individual to expose their views and details of their daily life to the world and invite comments. Like a private diary, it can allow a person to record and examine the history of their life, with the added advantage that other people may provide comments containing advice or analysis from another perspective.
This blog's comment section does not seem to be providing any positive benefit to Truth Teller. If there is anything useful to a medical doctor trying to live a rational life in a war zone it is a rarity in the discussions and exchanges I have found here.
I have learned from the blog posts of Truth Teller and his family that there are good, intelligent people in Mosul who are horribly affected by this war.
What have the poisonous comments in this blog brought them? Truth Teller has been provoked by ignorant comments to announce "I and any Iraqi faithfull to his own homeland are proud to die defending it.", this from a medical doctor whose profession is saving and preserving life. His children report being driven to tears by the comments of ignorant, hateful people.
How can a person help Truth Teller and the people of Mosul? Answer me that!!!!!!!!
In Sacramento it gets hot in the summer, up to ~120F (49C) during the day but usually much cooler at night. People frequently open up their houses to the night air, then close all the doors and windows when the sun rises to try to retain the cool of the night as long as possible. This works better when there is good thermal insulation in the attic (between ceiling and roof).
Albo asks if the US would have done anything differently if Iraq had no oil...
Of course - Iraq would be a totally different country. It further wouldn't have the resources to develop into the Arab superpower that it is capable of being. The oil is what makes Iraq such a threat. In the hands of the psychopath SH, Iraq could have continued along with its weapons programs. They would have, of course, sooner or later developed WMD if, in fact, SH hadn't already.
Lord knows Europe or Pakistan would have been more than happy to sell SH the technology. Therefore, SH has been a perpetual threat to the stability of the United States, the ME and the rest of the world since SH had been in power.
Nevertheless, I'd prefer not to argue about the decision to go to war because it doesn't help the current situation. Again, we should be discussing how to end the current violence. Hurria, Albo and others say immediate US troop removal will lead to peace. But I still like Moron99's questions because these are the things that us "warmongers" are so concerned about - the seeming failure to condemn the suicide bombings and other insurgent attacks that target Iraqi citizens. I can't understand why the self-proclaimed "peacemongers" can not swallow their pride and do this...
@Superape, 5/28/2005 08:00:08 AM.
"Yes, angry italian, I'm sure you love jewish people".
You see, my lovely simian friend, my granny was a Jewess, and so many of my relatives are Jews as well.
But it is quite simply wrong to equate the Israelis to the Jews, and even more wrong to equate the Likhudnik criminal Nazi-Fascists (definitely more dangerous to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever was) to the Jews (and to the Israelis, even if too many of them voted for such criminals).
Please Superape, do scratch your head with one of your four hands, and try to understand the more nuanced & complex way humans do think.
Italian Hatemonger - Hitler was part jewish as well. But thanks for correcting me, you don't hate all Jews, just the Israeli ones. I guess we can agree on who you hate.
jemy
"I don't know for certain what abuses Americans are committing in Iraq, but I do know that Iraqi soldiers and police also commited the SAME abuses our soldiers are being accused of, yet no one believed that meant there should be no Iraqi army or police force."
Yes you are right, the Iraqi soldiers and police commited the same abuses the American soldiers are being accuesd of. But both the Iraqi soldiers and the police were trained, directed and supervised by the American. Here in Iraq we all wanted the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police have enough power to control the situation, but not in the present coposition. They are both sectarian and very extremist.
"If you could struggle for a better country under a terrible man like Saddam, why not struggle even harder under the poor leadership of American occupation?"
It sound reasonable question if the American occupation are not really an occupation.
We can't tolerate occupation, even if the occupation was by the very good guys of America.
The secret is in the meaning of the word occupation, whether by American or any other foreign country.
Is Truth Teller the only adult blogger from all of Mosul??
Time for a little grim humor!
LINK
hurria,
You're right, I was very disjointed.
I simply meant that I havent' seen any real evidence of Americans planting car bombs and I.U.Ds. I tried to track down source articles for Riverbend's claims and came up with nothing. When healingiraq made claims that Americans murdered his cousin, I waited until the evidence came in, and it was verified that his claims were true. As soon as I see some evidence, I'll do the same thing that I did with healingiraq, lobby the people that I can to try to make certain justice is done. But so far, I haven't seen anything to verify her claims.
Here's a good article on the electricity situation today:
http://enr.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=enr_document&article=fepoar050530-1
Isam Al Khalisi wrote an excellent article for MEES as well, that covered the guardian story that contained the information that electricity workers in Iraq were sabotaging lines to prevent their power from being siphoned off to Baghdad.
Here's an article that details Iraqis and Americans doing badly in equal measures:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1055697,00.html
And I believe it is that Garumsha that were credited with massive electricity line looting in Iraq that resulted in the lowering of the world price of copper.
As for the rest,
when innocent civilians are killed it is horrible, no matter who does it. Patrick Leahy should be commended for setting up the first American program that establishes aid to civilians who are harmed during war. That's a positive step. Do Americans need to do more? Absolutely.
Our army needs to be trained the way our police are trained. Our police do not shoot at bank robbers in a crowd, and our soldiers shouldn't shoot at insurgents in a crowd.
Would I be surprised if Americans rioted, looted, shot at foreign troops, blew up restaurants, targeted "foreign collobarotors" in the event of an occupation on American soil? No, I would not be surprised. But I would still think that there actions were doing more harm than good.
All humans act alike. rioting in Los Angeles was a bad idea. Even with reconstruction in those areas that rioted, the situation is worse than before.
America is not an economic powerhouse, or a wonderful place to live, because it killed a bunch of British people in the 1770's. It's powerful because of the people who set aside hatred in the aftermath, and worked on their farms, and their businesses. The South, in the U.S., is still crippled economically to this day because it put its honor before its economic well-being. The "Confederacy" is still strong in the south, and so is extremism, fundamentalism, and bad schools.
Iraq can follow the path of the American South. Or it can follow the path of the America North. India rebelled against the British through peaceful means, then one side spent its energy on militancy, and the other spent it on economic improvements. India is transforming into a world power, Pakistan is not.
Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "If Americans were occupied, wouldn't they be looting, rioting, blowing up soldiers, targeting collobarotors, etc" (Yes, probably so) And then say "Americans are behind the looting, rioting, blowing up of their own soldiers, and blowing up of civilians".
A variety of people are planting IEDs, blowing up oil pipelines, electricity lines, killing Iraqi policemen, targeting civilians who work for American soldiers and contractors, killing political figures, engaging in revenge killing, killing people for not wearing veils (drinking alcohol, playing music), etc.
It's a lot like Lebanon.
But remember, Lebanon got better! It gets better every day! And why? Because the people there are slowly learning how to operate politically, instead of through their militias. (I do not claim any American credit for any of it at all) Didn't it all start with the Taif Agreement? So, perhaps politics will lead Iraq out.
And truth teller,
If I add to your stress, I'm truly sorry. I genuinely want to help. I'm probably doing a bad job of it though.
I love your family's blog. Specifically, Najma's picture of your clever electrical "lightbulb" notification system gave me a whole new perspective on Iraq.
Hurria said...
"What would you do if you were the contractor?"
Go home.
Wrong, Hurria. If you were a contractor you would recognize that the insurgents are unintelligent and innacurate in their attacks. You would correctly recognize that the odds of survival are high, the pay is high, Iraqi locals can be paid to take the greatest risks, and your project will benefit Iraq. You would stay, and you would feel good about what you do and the people who help you do it. If you could keep sane you would not learn to hate. You would a better person than you are, Hurria.
"Moron99's contractor analogy is so absurdly out of sync with reality that it is not even worth discussing."
That sounds like a cop-out
If it swims like a fish and looks like a duck...it ain't a trout.
@Jemy, 5/29/2005 01:52:34 AM.
"As soon as I see some evidence, I'll do the same thing that I did with healingiraq, lobby the people that I can to try to make certain justice is done".
It reflects rather badly on American 'democracy' (and especially on American 'justice') that all your lobbying was in vain, Jamy: for a 1st degree aggravated murder Sgt. Perkins got 6 months (& was kept in the US army), and Lt. Saville got a grand total of... 45 days in jail! Much less than one would get in most of Europe for torturing and killing a dog the same way Zeytun was killed.
So, please, be a bit less naive. Actually 'justice' and 'democracy' are two terms that don't apply very much to the US of America nowadays.
@Superape, 5/28/2005 09:36:37 PM.
"thanks for correcting me, you don't hate all Jews, just the Israeli ones. I guess we can agree on who you hate".
No, my silly liar, as was evident from my post I just strongly dislike your Nazi-Fascist pals, the Likhudniks, not 'the Israelis'.
As for your "Hitler was part jewish as well", no, you are wrong, it is just an unsubstantiated bit of speculation (never any evidence of it; do ask any historian of Nazism).
@Moron99, 5/29/2005 03:53:25 AM.
"Hurria, your silence still rings loudly".
As any human being of average intelligence realises, Hurria has already answered you fully, and more than once.
Hot damm...I smell a deeebate a commin' or maybe its just fish guts
@Moron99, 5/29/2005 04:54:06 AM.
"First and foremost, the insurgency doesn't have shit to do with the protecting the integrity of Iraqi soil against american occupation".
Dear pontificating animal, how can you have the cheek of blathering in this outrageous way? Do you personally know any Iraqi 'insurgents' (i.e., Iraqi patriots precisely resisting your beastly occupation)?
"If only they could get rid of the americans ..... it ain't going to happen".
Oh noble fruit of a process of inverted evolution, I see that you gaze into a crystal ball (holding it tightly with your two lower hands), being able to reveal the future to us, blind humans that we are.
Do you remember the Vietnam war (another example of your simian wars of aggression)? There were some grotesque American war-pimps in those days as well: "US withdrawal ain't going to happen... we'll stay the course... we cannot cut & run...".
Do you remember what actually happened? The 30th of April 1975, Graham Martin & your glorious Marines, yellow with fear, running out of Vietnam in helicopters, kicking away their silly collaborators who wanted to escape as well?
I'm quite confident the same will eventually happen in Iraq, please God; the Iraqi patriots will hit your apes-at-arms harder & harder, and you'll have no choice but to go.
Shall we make a bet?
"You [= Hurria] are [a] worthless human being who is unable to accept the fact that you do not have the right to force others into submission".
My dear gentleape, this is very very cheeky of you. Who is trying "to force others into submission", I wonder? And not just in Iraq, but all through the world? Isn't it, by any chance, "the gweatest nation in the world", also known as Apeland?
Hurria, Italian and others - please explain what the appropriate response to Saddam Hussein should have been? Should the sanctions have ended? Should the no-fly zones been abandoned? Should America's military bases in SA been abandoned? Should the US have established a peace treaty with SH, put the Kuwait war behind, and establish normal relations with Saddam's government? What SHOULD have happened? Nothing at all? Please try to debate without the hateful diatribes.
"(holding it tightly with your two lower hands)"
There is something sexy about that, can't quite put my finger on it though.
hurria,
Perhaps I should back up a step. I'm from Mississippi, and my ancestry goes back here since the colonists first set foot here. The South in the civil war reminds me the most of Iraq today.
In the South, after the civil war, the northern occupation force fought against the KKK and the militants that were trying to subjugate black people. The north got tired of the fight, and threw their resources into coming to terms with the white militants, who then used their power to enact Jim Crow laws which denied equal treatment to black people. It took nearly a hundred years, Martin Luther King, and thousands of lawyers and religious men to finally put an end to that injustice.
What would have happened if the North continued to occupy the South until they were certain that black people would have an equal voice in the political process?
The Northern army razed the South. It salted fields, and murdered civilians. There was no law. Civilians who tried not to take sides found themselves hating whichever side harmed them first, since just about everyone was behaving badly. Law and order broke down. Kidnappings, murder, were widespread and prevelant.
My ancestors were unionists. Some of them were murdered by union soldiers. Others were murdered by angry Confederates (Because they were "collobarators"). Their children fled to live with relatives.
Was the union army "evil"? They certainly did horrible, brutal things. Would us Southerners have been better off if the north had minded their own business? Well, the white people might have been.
There was no "justice" for my dead ancestors. no one was ever held accountable. Yet Abraham Lincoln is still a hero of mine.
The sanctions in Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people, and the war killed tens of thousands of people. There are no noble tools around.
I wish I knew a better way. Do I think this war was evil? yes. Do I think the Union way of fighting against the South was wrong? yes. But where do we go from here? more killing?
The Americans WILL go. No American soldier wants to live in Baghdad. You can kill them now, but to what end?
"What the appropriate response to Saddam Hussein should have been? Should the sanctions have ended?"
Yes, for sure, after some suitable UN sponsored negotiations. The sanctions didn't hit so much Saddam as the Iraqi people, anyway.
"Should the no-fly zones been abandoned?"
Of course they should have been. They were a unilateral US-British imposition, anyway.
"Should America's military bases in SA been abandoned?"
That was a matter to be decided between the US & Saudi Arabia; a State (whatever the regime, autocratic like the Wahabi one or democratic) may decide to keep foreign troops inside its own borders. The decision may then create reactions, among its own population, prejudicial to the well-being, or even the survival, of the same regime; but it was up to the Saudis (& to the US, of course) to evaluate the dangers. The case of the Iraq of today is completely different, since the present Iraqi regime was created as a consequence of the US invasion, and the 'reactions' (to use an understatement) have been patent almost from the very start of the occupation. Any comparison with the situation of Germany, Japan, & Italy after WW2 is unfounded as well. In that case the Axis regimes had unleashed a worldwide war of conquest to the death; and the Allied Powers had the moral right of occupying those countries.
The only marginally 'moral' chance of getting rid of Saddam's regime by military means was in 1991, but Bush Senior failed to avail of it (being worried, apparently, by the link between the Shiite insurgents and Iran, and by the Turkish displeasure at the Kurdish insurgents).
"Should the US have established a peace treaty with SH, put the Kuwait war behind"
Since the US never declared war on Iraq, there would have been no need of a 'peace treaty'. From the point of view of the international community, some alert vigilance would have been required to ensure that Saddam would not pose a danger to its neighbours again.
"and establish normal relations with Saddam's government?"
That would have been a decision only the US Govt. had the right to take.
@Moron99, 5/29/2005 07:05:26 AM.
"You need to understand that Hurria wants to wear the hooded robes. Anything else is a travesty of existence".
Everybody by now knows that you are just a pompous liar, moronic Moron, but you seem to become more & more obvious in your mendacity. Have you lost the plot altogether?
Anybody who has read Hurria's comments, to Truth Teller's or to other Iraqi blogs, knows at once that what you say here is completely false (but all your pontificating clownery is, after all, as fake, bogus & false as this, only a bit less obvious at a first glance).
Isn't it, by any chance, "the gweatest nation in the world", also known as Apeland?
"Apeland". I'll have to put that on my "to-do list". Sounds like a fun place to take the kids this summer.
Riverbend is stupid enough why the bomb did not explode when the US Armed Force was near by. Did he thought US Armed Force knew nothing about remote bombs and did nothing to counter it? Truth Teller, think about the background of that news before you trust anything from Riverbend. One Iraqi said she was a family member of Baathist party that was working at an embassy overseas. Do you want to trust news from a Baathist party family member?
hurria and italian - by "what should have been the response to Saddam" I mean, is there anything that any country should have done to "contain" him. By contain I mean, to prevent him from re-entering Kuwait, or Iran, or building a nuclear facility, or shooting scud missiles into Saudi Arabia or Israel, or whatever. Your answers seem to indicate that, after the Kuwait war, Saddam was so "weakened" that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbors. You also say the no fly zones and sanctions were both inappropriate. Therefore, how would you have proposed that the world keep Saddam in this weakened state so as to limit Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors? Was Iraq in such a weakened state that there was no threat to worry about ever? Or should everyone have just assumed that the war had changed Saddam for the good, and therefore nothing, really, should have been done to prevent future conflict. No sanctions, no weapons checks, no "no fly zones", nada...If your answer is going to be, "well, the US just should not have done what it did back in the 1980's, or in Vietnam, or it should have saved the Shiites right after the Kuwait war, or should have removed Saddam then..." or whatever, then don't bother responding. My question is about Saddam and whether or not he should have been "contained" - from after the Kuwait war to 2003. And feel free to argue that he should have been "contained" for 3 years, or whatever, and then he changed for the better so that, by 2003, there was no need to contain him. There I did half your arguing for you, now go ahead with the rest...
jemy
Thank you jemy for your nice comment. I really appreciate your desire to help. But I think no body can help us but the Iraqis themselves.
Just for the record:
I strongly condemn any killing of innocent Iraqis, whether as a result of American or insurgent action. At the same time I believe insurgents have not only the right but also a duty to oppose American occupation by force.
Does this satisfy everybody?
"On August 9th, the insurgents in the city kidnapped the two Iraqi National Guard battalion commanders within the city subsequently killing at least one of them. It is another clear example of the savagery of the enemy here. The city is now without any coalition influence other than our fires. The local militia that was created as a solution to the April fighting has become a defensive army that is in collusion with the insurgents. The police are complicit with the enemy and the city is literally run by terrorists.
The Iraqi National Guard battalion commander that was killed was Lt Col Sulaiman Hamad Ftikan. We knew him as Sulaiman. He was the closest thing to a true patriot and leader we have found who is actually from the local Falluja area. He was kidnapped and murdered because he had finally gotten his battalion to stand up to the criminals and insurgents who have had their run of the city all these months.
Of course his murder was not merciful. He was tortured and beaten to death. He was so disfigured by the torture that his friends could not bear to look at his body - this from a people who have seen their share of death and torture. There are still at least two soldiers missing that were kidnapped with Sulaiman and more good men are taken every day.
The city has continued to be an epicenter of terror and instability. With everything that I know, I cannot fathom a resolution of this problem that does not include us being allowed to take the city down once and for all. Time and space does not allow me to recount the horrible tales of torture and murder that have taken place inside this town. Too many good men have been taken into the town and beaten savagely because they are trying to be honest policemen or soldiers. It seems that the favorite torture techniques include hanging people upside down and pulverizing feet and toes. However, we have had bodies show up with various unimaginable wounds including some that have had their faces melted off by welding torches. The enemy is savage and will never come around to cooperate with the coalition or the new Iraqi government.
Sulaiman's death in large part ended the Regiment's restraint around the city. The Marines have invested so much time, energy and passion into training the two battalions of Iraqi National guards that were headquartered in and around the town. The enemy surrounded the two battalion headquarters and threatened to destroy them in total. They lured Sulaiman out with promises that they just wanted to talk and that if he exited, he could spare his men. Long story short, immediately after the commanders left their headquarters with the insurgents, the enemy poured into the buildings and beat the soldiers. After a beating, they chased the soldiers out of the headquarters and proceeded to steal all the weapons and ammunition that we had provided and loot all of the garrison property (trucks, TVs, air conditioners, etc...) that we had purchased to stand up the force. The weapons, ammunition and vehicles were taken and are now in the hands of the enemy. The garrison property was sold in the street. The leading insurgent and leading imam (go figure that) then declared that "the Iraqi National Guard no longer exists in Falluja" and that any soldiers seen in uniform should be killed. This same guy controls the Falluja Brigade as well as other insurgents inside the town."
(Excerpt from a letter from Dave Bellon who was stationed near Fallujah.)
Hurria,
If these are your "innocent inhabitants" of Fallujah then I worry about Iraq's future.
Lynnette in Minnesota
Here is a link to some interesting U.N. stuff about Iraq.
http://www.uniraq.org/
Albatroz said...
Just for the record:
I strongly condemn any killing of innocent Iraqis, whether as a result of American or insurgent action. At the same time I believe insurgents have not only the right but also a duty to oppose American occupation by force.
Does this satisfy everybody?
There is a California law that says a citizen has a right to resist a crime "by any force necessary". I would be more satisfied if the wording of your statement read the same. Except for that, I commend it.
I think all you OUTSIDERS who criticise this mans search for the truth as to why so many blast victims and friends of his are coming to be treated by him, a skilled 56yr old doctor.
Look beyond your own lives, beyond your own eyes and into the hearts of those who are dying, are preparing to die.
The iraqi citizenry are taking the fall for whomever, the americans - SCIRI, Da'wa, Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, believes they have the highest right to impose their belief system and system of governance upon them.
Your comments are wholly unjust in attacking this mans integrity. He is scrambling to find the truth behind the bombings which even the coalition troops themselves can't put a face to, and admit that the bombs are being done by whomever will profit from Civil War in Iraq.
Surely continuing military conflict in Iraq benefits the USA, since it is the worlds largest arms producer. Surely it benefits Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.
Surely it keeps the eyes of Damascus and Tehran busy and away from a steely resolve about Jerusalem.
Whatever your argument tread wisely, this man is very intelligent, and though his english is not 100% I bet your Arabic isn't either.
Do not insult good people and their attempts to understand. You don't understand either, otherwise the troops would be home by now
Olivebranch - nice post. Jeme - nice post. If more people thought like you guys, this war would be over by now. Better yet, it never would have happened.
Hurria and Italian, please try to respond to my last post. What would have been your policy on containment?
Truth teller,
I just saw your previous post where you said Here in Iraq we all wanted the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police have enough power to control the situation, but not in the present coposition. They are both sectarian and very extremist.
I read a few articles where it said that the U.S. went into a community and ended up funding the militia of a local strongman, thinking they were creating a new police force. I think this was in Nassariya? A man named Al-Ghiza? I'll have to track that down. In any case, the locals said the problem was that the police force was loyal to this leader, not to the community, and wasn't helping to stabalize anything.
Is this what you meant? Is Mosul suffering from the same problem? Or are the Mosul police just badly trained?
I'm glad I haven't offended you, by the way. Let me know when I'm being foolish or rude or arrogant.
I think that if the citizens in Mosul can figure out how to cobble together such an elaborate personal electrical generation system (in the face of such bad electrical management at higher levels) then they will certainly figure out a way to establish security for themselves (in the face of poor planning for security at higher levels).
You're right, it is Iraqis themselves that will find a way out of this mess. And your three lightbulb electrical notification system is the reason I think that's true.
Although, I do find it extremely depressing that I can't find a more pro-active way to help.
@Moron99, 5/29/2005 07:38:05 AM.
"Italian, Would you like to own one of the booby trapped pens that saddam's minister of information talked about? For a mere $200US I can send you one".
Poor clownish ape, you seem to be getting more & more incoherent.
So your rants & your lies did not impress anybody (apart, maybe, from some American of the four-handed persuasion), and since you are losing your plot you rave more & more.
What a sad & silly sight.
@Lynnette in Minnesota, 5/30/2005 01:30:42 AM.
Before these Iraqi blogs' comments pages came out, we in the rest of the world used to think of Minnesota as a quiet, woody place, where the most dangerous wild beasts would be bears, or wolves.
Your apparition meant that by now we know for positive that there are other, worse beasts in the woods of Minnesota: homicidal apes of the worst & most lying variety, precisely like you are, oh 'Lynnette'.
So, oh you genius, what do you think ever happened in the world to traitors, collaborators and puppets of an invader, like this poor Col. Sulaiman? In 1944-45 similar scenes took place all over Europe (would you like a nice poster of Mussolini the cowardly puppet & former dictator, executed, well kicked, & then hung upside down?).
I do understand that your brain is about 300 cc (cubic centimetres) wide, but I suspect that your ancestors were human. Don't you know that in the American War of Independence against Britain (1775-83) some thousands of British Loyalists suffered a worse fate than Col. Sulaiman's? Whole families were killed with kicks, bludgeons and pitchforks. Before the killing, the womenfolk were often raped. Mind, beastie, that those 'collaborators' with the Brits were not foreign invaders (like your troops undoubtedly are in Iraq), but of the very same stock as the glorious 'American Patriots'. But they were perceived as 'traitors', and that was it. Didn't they tell you at school, silly 'Lynnette'?
So what you are trying to show, pathetic & hypocritical wild beast, with your "If these are your 'innocent inhabitants' of Fallujah then I worry about Iraq's future"?
As for this Dave Bellon or whatever, "stationed near Fallujah", I do hope that the criminal animal got caught, then or later, by the Iraqi patriots, and that he suffered a much worse fate than this poor puppet Sulaiman.
Most of your ludicrous puppets in Iraq will suffer a similar fate; not being idiotic Americans, they did calculate their odds, and thought they were sort of 'even' (like all collaborators, traitors & puppets always do). But, most probably, they are wrong indeed.
@Programmer Craig, 5/29/2005 09:27:58 AM.
Programmer... what!? You, piteous bully & buffoon, ape of the trailer-trash variety, cannot even write your own language (see, animal Craig, your "American's" and "Iraqi's", a plural spelled as a genitive singular, you illiterate & unreasoning beast)so how can you 'programme' anything?
I do understand why the still human Americans hate the likes of you...
Ahh, "italian's" descent into rabid lunacy continues unabated. As disturbing as it is to witness the complete mental breakdown of a human being, I have to admit it is morbidly fascinating to watch.
Grab some popcorn and pull up a chair, folks. This is getting interesting. :-)
And yes, I see you, Hurria, Albatroz and others, cringing in the background wondering why the fates have intervened to have this lunatic arguing for your side. :-)
"My question is about Saddam and whether or not he should have been 'contained' - from after the Kuwait war to 2003. And feel free to argue that he should have been 'contained' for 3 years, or whatever, and then he changed for the better so that, by 2003, there was no need to contain him".
Now the bashing Saddam got in 1991 did indeed put a final stop to his 'foreign expansion' ambitions. Apart from the rhetorics, there is no sign that the man was able, after 1991, to pose any danger to any of Iraq's neighbours. This, regardless of any sanctions.
Would Saddam pose a danger to Iran ever again? That is laughable.
To Turkey? Again...
To Syria or Jordan? Why should he?
To SA and/or the Gulf States: about those he had got ample vaccination, don't you think?
So, for sure, by 1991, end of the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's regime did not pose any longer a danger to its neighbours. It is not a matter of his 'changing for the better': he just didn't have any longer the ability to harm anybody outside his borders.
So these 'sanctions' were kept up by the US just for the show, as everybody knew: but this massmedial show was extremely costly to the Iraqi population, while it left the regime unharmed.
Here's info on the Hilla bomb that killed 130 civilians back in March. Apparently it was detonated by a jordanian guy named Raed Mansoor Albanna as reported by a paper called Al Ghad. Don't know how accurate all of this is. I'll try to do more fact checking.
http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2005/03/jordanian_suici.html
Hurria - are you avoiding the questions? I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. And I didn't ask whether or not Saddam was "effectively contained..." I asked whether there was a need to contain him. Italian said, basically, there was no need to contain him because his military was destroyed. Therefore, I'm wondering why he didn't just build the military back up. Did he become a pacifist or something and realize that war with his neighbors was not the answer? Seriously, I'm very curious about what you think.
Hurria, my past remarks are my past remarks. I have changed. No reason for you to feel defensive.
Multiple Martyrdom Operations West Of Mosul, More Than 40 Americans Killed, Al-Qaeda Claims Responsibility
In The Name Of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
O Allah! Make our shots hit their intended targets and fasten our feet firmly to the ground.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds. Final victory is on the side of the believers, and no aggression except on those who transgress all bounds. Peace and prayers be on the Imam of Mujahideen, our prophet, Muhammad, his family, and his companions.
A lion from the Martyrdom Seekers Brigade, drove his explosive-laden vehicle on Saturday, 20 Rabie Al-Thani (May 28, 2005), towards an American camp, west of Mosul. He detonated his vehicle at the entrance to the first of several check points. The explosion killed all soldiers at that check point and left a hole in the wall, big enough for the second martyrdom operation.
Your honored brother (the second martyr), drove a water truck into the camp through the hole that was caused by the first explosion, except that the truck was full of explosives instead of water. As he arrived inside the camp many cross worshippers came to welcome the brave water delivery driver, but at that very same moment, your brother pushed the buttons and more than 40 cross worshippers fell dead, and more than 80 were wounded, by the Grace of Allah.
Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar
Glory is to Allah, His Messenger, and to the Mujahideen
Okay, so Moron99 feels that Saddam would have / could have waged future wars if not "contained." Is this the case, Hurria? Or is it like italian said, Iraq's military was in such disrepair so as to render him completely impotent for all eternity? Again, I'm not trying to jab or sound sarcastic - just looking to address these questions which, if answered genuinely, allow us to understand where others are coming from. There are many who believe that Saddam (circa 1991) was not as bad as portrayed in the MSM. Therefore, I'm kind of wondering if Hurria and Italian are coming at it from this angle - that Saddam as a tyrant (in 1991) was merely American propaganda. Again, not justifying 2003 war based on this.
Hurria,
Would you be so kind as to remind us of why "insurgents' base themselves in cities, stockpile weapons in mosques, set up ambushes from mosques and hospitals, use women and children as human shields and send mentally impaired people to deliver bombs, when they are supposedly fighting to protect Iraq and it's citizens from foreign invaders?
"Every day, the enemy takes more hostages, assassinates developing Iraqi leaders and savagely beats suspected collaborators. I will give you just one recent example that happened last week. One of our patrols was moving down a street when they saw what looked like a fight. The Marines closed with the scene. It was a family that had come to Iraq on religious pilgrimage that was taken hostage and was being taken into Fallujah. The muj stopped for some reason and the father began fighting. The Marines interdicted and captured two of the kidnappers. Two more ran and the Marines could not get a shot without fear of killing/wounding others.
Every day, insurgents from inside Fallujah drive out and wait for Iraqis that work on our bases. Once the Iraqis leave they are stopped. The lucky ones are savagely beaten. The unfortunate ones are killed. A family that had fled Fallujah in order to get away from the fighting recently tried to return. When they got to their home, they found it taken over by terrorists (very common). When the patriarch showed the muj his deed in order to prove that the house was his, they took the old man out into the street and beat him senseless in front of his family.
Summary executions are common. Think about that. Summary executions inside Fallujah happen with sobering frequency. We have been witness to the scene on a number of occasions. Three men are taken from the trunk of a car and are made to walk to a ditch where they are shot. Bodies are found in the Euphrates without heads washed downstream from Fallujah. To date we have been allowed to do nothing.
I have no idea the numbers of beheadings that have occurred in Fallujah since I have been here. I have no idea the number of hostages that have ended up in Fallujah since we have been here. I just don't know that Americans would be able to comprehend the number anyway. Unfortunately, the situation has only gotten worse. There is no hope for any type of reasoned solution with an enemy like this.
Once again, we are being asked by citizens who have fled the city to go in and take the city back. They are willing for us to literally rubble the place in order to kill the terrorists within. Don't get me wrong, there are still many inside the town that support the terrorists and we cannot expect to be thanked publicly if we do take the city. There is a sense of de ja vu with the refugees telling us where their houses are and asking us to bomb them because the muj have taken them over. We heard the same thing in April only to end up letting the people down. Some no doubt have paid with their lives. The "good" people who may ultimately buy into a peaceful and prosperous Iraq are again asking us to do what we know must be done."
(Excerpt from a letter by Dave Bellon dated 11/04/04)
An Italian,
You are starting to get a little repetitious with the ape references. Is it a fetish or something?
I don't think that what occurred
during WWII can be as pertinent to Truth teller and his family as what is occurring now.
Lynnette in Minnesota
P.S. Lt. Col. Bellon as far as I know is perfectly safe.
Anonymous 10:42:17 PM, -
It was the GIANT SPIDERS that got them!
Beware the Giant Spiders!!!
:-)
Lynnette,
Would you please have the courtesy to answer my question? What was the purpose of your government's depopulation and massacre and destruction of the city of Falluja? What was that intended to accomplish?
Hurria, if you have nothing to be defensive about, then take my comments at face value and answer my question. IF you don't have an answer, then let me know and i'll move on.
Well, well, well. Moron99 oozing around yet another Iraqi blog and being exposed and branded as a liar.
kull bayt wa fihi balu'a wa al ba'ra tadul 3ala al ba'ir, eh, eh?
idha kunta kadhuban fa kun dhakura ya Moron.
fi aman Allah ya Hurria, as-saraha raha habibiti. ash shatra tighzil birijl himar, eh?
Selective sanctions of course are doomed to fail if an external power is infiltrating the weapons inspection teams and using its 'planted personnel' to install monitoring devices at military installations unconnected with WMD stocks or WMD research and production processes, if same external power abuses the weapons inspection process by attempting to subvert it and turn it into a 'mapping' process with a view to gaining intelligence on the entire Iraqi military and of course if said external power doesn't actually want the weapons inspections process to work at all and precipitates a series of confrontations and crises by constant attempts to broaden the range of sites to be inspected to include some that could not conceivably be viewed as WMD storage or production facilities at all. If said external power were to be constantly urging harsher and harsher sanctions and its officials were on record as saying in private and later in public that they were only interested in regime change and did not wish to see sanctions lifted without it then obviously the relentless and escalating misery being inflicted on the people of Iraq could not be alleviated by any amount of compliance with an inspection routine. The usurping of a sanctions procedure and transformation of same into a genocidal weapon against the innocent might be a price some consider worth paying but for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis the price was their lives.
Moron 99, your failed propaganda and lies are all in vain. The enlightened world knows the truth of the sanctions era and your endeavors to rewrite history are as futile as you are. Truly you have squandered whatever humanity was bestowed on you. That's right, Moron, you are human waste.
"He is a sociopath and a megalomaniac, but he is not stupid, and not incapable of learning from his mistakes. That is one reason he survived for so long compared to every other Iraqi ruler." - said by Hurria.
So, Saddam was still a sociopath and megalomaniac after the first persian gulf war, but we can assume that he would not have threatened his neighbors again because he got his ass kicked in kuwait? And all the sanctions, no fly zones and isolation should have ended no later than 1996, since everyone "knew" there were no weapons programs in Iraq at that time? Its an interesting point of view.
Saddam was conniving and manipulative, but I wouldn't necessarily call him smart. Sending his military into Kuwait and underestimating the response from the international community was a huge, huge tactical error. Saying a sociopath "learned his lesson" is paradoxical. Sociopaths don't learn lessons, they rationalize their mistakes and make perpetual excuses. Even when Saddam was arraigned in Court back in 2004, he was still foaming about the Kuwaiti "dogs" that were turning Iraqi women into "10 cent whores..." He didn't really appear enlightened ... I further don't think it is reasonable to expect Kuwait, Iran or Saudi Arabia to "trust" any of Saddam's apparently non-threatening overtures only 5 years after the Kuwait war. Would Saddam have conducted himself the same way without the no-fly zones, or sanctions, or without weapons checks? I guess we'll never know. America was not willing to risk it. In 1996, other Arab nations weren't exactly sticking up for Saddam, so maybe we can assume that Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia weren't willing to risk it either.
"What was the purpose of your government's depopulation and massacre and destruction of the city of Falluja? What was that intended to accomplish?"
Hurria,
Where people such as these:
"The perpetrator of the Hilla atrocity was indeed a Wahhabi from Jordan (Jordanian Wahhabis are the most sick, disgustingly venomous sort. They are to Islam as the Nazis are to Christianity.). I don't recall his name, and would prefer it were erased from all memory anyway."
go, we will go, where they fight we will fight. They will have no sanctuary. The tragedy of that is that there will be innocent people caught in the crossfire.
Now, would YOU do ME the courtesy of answering MY question.
Why do "insurgents" base themselves in cities, stockpile weapons in mosques, set up ambushes from mosques and hospitals, use women and children as human shields and send mentally impaired people to deliver bombs, when they are supposedly fighting to protect Iraq and it's citizens from foreign invaders?
Lynnette in Minnesota
P.S. If the city was depopulated there couldn't have been a massacre now could there?
P.P.S. MSM = Mainstream Media
Anonymous at 12:07:28,
LOL. I loved the Giant Spiders comment.
Lynnette in Minnesota
Hurria,
I'm sorry. Because your written English is very good, I just assumed that your understanding of it was just as good. Please go back and read my comment at 11:15:48 again. Slowly.
You have not bothered to even take a stab at answering my question. Why is that?
Lynnette in Minnesota
The dogs howl and the train keeps on going. So much psuedo pride and narcissistic irresponsibility among you. Meanwhile a lot of truly courageous and selfless Iraqis are volunteering and engaging the enemy, bringing closer the day when Iraqis will provide their own security through their own elected government. And many here will continue to howl---and for the rest of their days will search out 'evidence' they were right, or invent evidence where none exists. There is so much rumor, inuendo, 'facts', biased reporting, that anyone can find ample 'evidence' to support any of an infinite number of sides to an equally infinite number of arguments. Those who focus on the future are the ones that shape it.
To answer this question, complete the following statement: By depopulating and destroying the city of Falluja my government intended to accomplish the following:
Hurria, darling, you're very good at setting up strawmen and demanding answers but not very good at providing answers demanded of you.
Even so, I will interject for Lynette and answer your strawman argument:
Fallujah was temporarily evacuated ("depopulated") and destroyed ("attacked") to wrest control of that very important city from the terrorists who had made it a sanctuary and base for bomb factories, kidnappings and beheadings. It was never intended to be the be all and end all of the fight against terrorists. Some of them continue to move around from sanctuary to sanctuary but it was important to confront them in Fallujah and take it away as a haven. They will continue to be confronted wherever they establish a sanctuary and as time goes on this will increasingly be accomplished by Iraqi troops.
I really hate to burst your bubble, but the overwhelming majority of those "selfless" Iraqis are "volunteering" out of desperation because it is the only way they can earn money to support their families.
See, Hurria, those are the kind of blanket statements you don't accept from anyone but yourself. If one of us said something like that, claiming to know what the majority think, you'd demand to see the poll. So I'll demand the same of you. Show me the poll that proves your statement. I'll be waiting.
Falluja was not temporarily depopulated and attacked. Hundreds of thousands of residents of the city were forced to flee...
Yes. Temporarily. Depopulated implies emptied of people who will never return. Not true.
If your government's intended result in depopulating and destroying Falluja was to remove the "insurgents" they didn't succeed it seems.
Yes they did. I didn't say remove all insurgents from Iraq (aren't you the one always complaining about people twisting your words?). I said to wrest control of that city from the terrorists. That was done.
Still waiting for your poll, Hurria...
I'm going to sleep now but I will be checking in the morning. I hope you won't disappoint me.
Yes, moron99, this is Hurria's established M.O.:
Make blanket declarations, when called on them scream that you are being misquoted, proceed to erect strawmen and twist the views of others, demand proof from others for every assertion they make yet evade questions asked of you and provide no proof when it is demanded of you.
Well done once again, Hurria.
You made the first claim, so you first
Oh, but we're dumb and don't know anything about what's happening in Iraq, Hurria. We need you to enlighten us (where in Iraq are you, exactly?). So don't let us wallow in our ignorance. We're obviously wrong. Don't you want to convince us of that? Why do you insist on keeping all this vast knowledge to yourself? Selfish bas--rd. :-)
Actually, that wasn't me though we anonymi look alike.
So what "anonymous" said is obviously wrong because, as I said, we know nothing about Iraq unlike you who are actually there (right?). So show us the light. Why do you hold back?
By the way, what anonymous said implied nothing about numbers or "overwhelming majorities" (as your blanket statement did). He merely said a lot of truly courageous and selfless Iraqis are volunteering and engaging the enemy.
Let's break it down, shall we?
"A lot" - I think that statement can certainly be supported by anecdotal information absent a poll. Even if you're right that a majority are doing it for money, that still can leave "a lot" doing it for more selfless reasons, like love of country and their fellow Iraqis. Why would you disparage them by disputing that?
"courageous" - yes, it's certainly courageous to put your life at risk every day.
"selfless" - ditto. Even if many are doing it for their family's welfare and not the country as a whole, I'd still call it rather selfless. It's a very dangerous job. I call firemen courageous and selfless when they put their lives on the line every day to rescue people, even though doing so supports their families.
"volunteering" - certainly, just as in the case of the U.S. volunteer military. No one's being conscripted.
"engaging the enemy" - yup. more and more each day.
So why don't you point out exactly which aspects of the statement you have such a problem with and provide evidence for why it disturbs you so to have some of your "fellow" Iraqis lauded as courageous and selfless?
As for Fallujah,
I believe in May of last year, the Governing Council, and many other Iraqis, were asking us why were so stupid to negotiate with the bad guys in Fallujah. There was a period of two months of incessant talk about how the Americans were ineffective, because the best they could do is come to "terms" with murderers.
As for the question, was the solution they came up with in November, the best solution?
Well, it's a solution they've tried in the U.S. too. In Waco, and in Philadelphia:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-After-InfernoNYT15may02.htm
It's just kind of how our military mindset is. Is it a terrible idea? I personally think so. They haven't repeated the example, have they? Now they're doing the cordon around Baghdad. We'll see how this new solution works. But if you think they're doing this kind of thing because they don't care about Iraqis, I have to tell you, they do this kind of thing because they're the military. And these are the solutions they understand.
As for the question, why aren't we rebuilding quicker in Fallujah? The answer is, in Florida, over a year after the hurricanes hit, they still haven't rebuilt a lot of homes. And they're not in a war zone. It took my mother 9 months to get someone out to fix her roof. After 9/11, it took nearly 2 years to compensate the 3500 families involved. And again, that was with full investigations into every claim (because people were lying about their loved ones getting killed, in order to get compensation). And this is also in America, where we are all familiar with our local contractors, and insurance agencies. And where all our systems have been in place for decades.
A compensation system has been set up. names have been taken. And they're slowly, slowly rebuilding the city. They've repaired the water plant, and they're working on the sewage station. They're working on the electricity situation.
Are they slow and incompetent? Yes. Are they slow and incompetent in the U.S. too? Yes.
Is there anyone else who could do it faster? Point to them. I've been looking.
Rawah is now under the control of bad guys (I don't know if they're "insurgents" or what). Do the Iraqis there love this new group of men? They're not an "occupation army". I think there's an idea out there, that if the U.S. just left Mosul, these crazy people would leave too. They wouldn't move themselves in and establish their own form of rule on the city. But they're doing it in other Iraq cities. Why not Mosul?
Anyone who attempts to impose his will on a city, without the authority of the people, is an occupier. Whether it is Sadr, Saddam, or the U.S. The nationality or religion of the person is not the issue.
You need a police force that operates on the will of the people of the city. A police force that doesn't shake you down for money (for whatever reason). The American forces ARE trying to train this force so they can leave. If you want them to leave, then get those forces trained faster.
The other groups are not trying to train these forces. They have their own forces, which they would be happy to impose upon you, in order to further whatever agenda it is that they have. The PUK, for example, have their own forces. While we would hope that they would be fair to non-kurds, I think you would agree that it would be better to have another, more representative group, securing the city.
The United States does not have an armed force that is trained at rebuilding a country. We just don't. Do I find that extremely disappointing? I do. Do I think that an international force that is properly trained would do better? I do. But they aren't coming. They don't want to come. And there aren't enough of them anyway. (Maybe 50,000 of them total) So you're stuck with us, or with a combination of the militia from the PUK, and Sadr, and the Badr brigade, etc. Or Turkey, or Syria, or Jordan.
The best solution is a trained, independent police force.
If you have a better way of getting that done than having the U.S. train them, I'm all ears.
Because I don't like this any better than you do.
Anonymous,
Thank you for clarifying my thoughts for Hurria.
Moron99,
I don't think I'm going to hold my breath waiting for Hurria to answer my question.
Jemy,
My Dad's cousin lives in Florida and had damage done to her roof, porch and dock. It was the shingles that were the hold up on getting her roof fixed. It took forever!
I think what happened in Fallujah was a last resort. They tried to let the Iraqi police handle the city and they tried negotiations. Nothing worked. The city had been turned into a bomb factory, terrorist haven and a lawless kidnappers paradise. In a perfect world military action would not be necessary. But this world is not perfect and there are just some people that you CANNOT deal with.
Lynnette in Minnesota
I think you would have done well in Germany Lynette...
And Godwin's Law strikes again!
(You guys really need a new line.)
is it the water or just an unfufilled, frustrated, wish I could have read more sort of human failure and refuse!
Hmmm, was that sentence an attempt to communicate in English? If so, someone needs remedial help.
@5/31/2005 12:57:44 PM.
"America was not willing to risk it. In 1996, other Arab nations weren't exactly sticking up for Saddam, so maybe we can assume that Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia weren't willing to risk it either".
According to most observers, Saddam was properly defanged by 1991, as far as his neighbours went. The "America was not willing to risk [a resurgent Saddam]" bit is precisely the crux of the matter.
Since the Hague Treaty of 1864 'preemptive war' is regarded as absolutely illegal. Many US commentators keep repeating that 'there is no such a thing as international law': OK then, send all professors of International Law home.
The fact is that most people in the world do not consider the possible danger that in twenty years time (for sure no less: even without military sanctions Saddam would have needed such a time span to become dangerous to his neighbours) a psycho but callous dictator might become dangerous again as a valid, just or legitimate reason to invade his country, provoking tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
Italian - so, had Hitler not killed himself, should the allies have left him in power?
@ moronic Moron99, Stukasdad, Lynnette the Beast in Minnesota, & other assorted American anonymouses of the same ilk.
Now you are jumping up & down, as it is the custom of your new species (Americopithecus Bellicus), rejoycing because Hurria didn't answer to some captious, futile and disingenuous questions you put to her. Since by now you are well known as a bunch of discredited liars (the lies of Moron99 can be tracked on plenty of other Iraqi blogs as well, together with many rebuttals; ah, Moron, what about the 'good news from Afghanistan' today, you clown?), I do not see why Hurria or Truth Teller should care in the least to answer. One answers a question if the one posing the question truly wants to know the answer: if it is simply a silly game, why bother?
Oh oh oh oh! So Hurria did not answer & you are all happy?
Well, jump up and down some more, beasties, feel the winners if you like, and drink a Bud to your great 'victory', you brainless clowns!
Oh, italian, italian.
You almost shocked me in your 12:57:44 PM post by actually attempting to make a reasoned point... then you ruined it by reverting to your silly, "beastie" ways. Ah, well. It was nice while it lasted. Sadly, you're back to being a pathetic joke now. I guess that's what you want to be.
Actually, that was your 06:07:54 AM post. I copied the wrong date from your quote in the post.
@6/2/2005 06:13:40 AM.
"Italian - so, had Hitler not killed himself, should the allies have left him in power?"
No, Hitler had attacked one country after the other, and there was no preemptive war whatsoever on the part of the Allies. It wasn't a vague possibility of his becoming a danger in twenty years time, but an outright military bid for world domination.
That's why I said that the only marginally 'moral' chance of getting rid of Saddam through war was in February-March 1991. As you know, it would have been enough on the part of the US, even without invading Iraq, just to destroy the retreating divisions of the Republican Guard (instead of destroying the Iraqi conscript troops on the 'Highway of Death'), and to interdict all Iraqi helicopter flights.
But, as you know, Bush Senior didn't want Saddam removed at the time (which would have been a fully legitimate choice, if he had not called all Iraqis, and especially the Shiites and the Kurds, to rise against Saddam, leaving then them alone!).
Italian, so should the US have removed Saddam in 1991 or no? If yes, what is the statute of limitations on removing a dictator. If no, then how does the wwII precedent not apply?
@6/2/2005 06:46:08 AM.
"Italian, so should the US have removed Saddam in 1991 or no? If yes, what is the statute of limitations on removing a dictator".
Since the US went to war with a huge coalition (3 out of 5 members of the UN Security Council), the war was already happening, and to dethrone Saddam there wouldn't have even been the need of going to Baghdad and even less of occupying Iraq, and, crucially, since most Iraqis had had enough of Saddam, yes, of course, in Feb-Mar 1991 the US should have removed Saddam, as they promised the unhappy insurgents of those days, instead of betraying them.
"If no, then how does the wwII precedent not apply?"
Again, the WW2 precedent is rather different. Some totalitarian regimes (supported by most of their populations, not like Saddam post-1991; and of then powerful countries) had attacked the whole world in an open attempt to conquer the planet. War was on, and they had to be stamped out (= unconditional surrender).
I don't want to be polemic, but if there has to be a comparison between Germany & Japan (the Italian Fascist regime was not that formidable, and went to pieces rather early) then, and world reality in the years from 1991 to the present, it is not the poor Iraq of Saddam that would wear the mantle of the Axis... it would be another country (even if not yet totalitarian)... guess which one!
Italian, you didn't completely answer my question. Putting your other comments aside, and your personal bias against the United States aside, you basically acknowledged that Saddam should have been removed in 1991. My other question is, when would it have been legitimate to remove Saddam. As in, would it have been okay if he was removed in 1992, or 1993? And let's forget about whether or not America was involved - if, for example, Kuwait had the military power, would it have been legitimate for Kuwait to remove Saddam during a certain window of time after 1991?
@6/2/2005 07:10:13 AM.
"My other question is, when would it have been legitimate to remove Saddam".
It would have been legitimate to remove Saddam only in February-March 1991, with the Kuwaiti war on, and in a 'discrete' way.
"As in, would it have been okay if he was removed in 1992, or 1993?"
Not through a war or an invasion.
"if, for example, Kuwait had the military power, would it have been legitimate for Kuwait to remove Saddam during a certain window of time after 1991?"
Again, it wouldn't have been legitimate.
Italian - thanks, i appreciate your answer. just curious - what do you mean by "discrete?"
I honestly enjoy some of the give and take among a few here, though taking is the most dominant position. But what difference does it make who did what to whom or what would have been the preferable method or ideal postion 15 - 10 -5- years ago? What is happening today is historic and will determine the questions as to its worth you argue today. It is a total waste of intellect, of which some seem to have in abundance. My own is limited to wondering why you waste it on arguments about things yet to be decided. Whethter the US was justified, correct, beneficial will be decided over the next 5-10 years. There isn't nearly enough data to make a determination as yet. My own judgement is that the data is largely encouraging, but maybe because that is because I am an American and we just tend to see things that way. Why the hell wouldn't we? Unless you are just born a jerk, as some Americans certainly are, and many of them think themselves intellectually superior to the rest. Makes life more interesting, certainly amusing.
anonymous 9:25 am - The past has EVERYTHING to do with what is going on now. The 1991 persian gulf war triggered the chain of events that led to war in 2003. The US would not be there right now if not for that war and the subsequent chain of events. many people don't even realize there was a war in 1991, that Iraq invaded Kuwait and tried to annex it. Many people don't know about any of Saddam's atrocities. They think its all american propaganda. Part of ending the conflict, I believe, is helping people understand that there is more to this war than a US grab for oil, that Saddam really did do some horrible things in the past, and that his actions helped bring about the current conflict. Also, isn't that what we're doing here on this blog? Debating the issues? Why else are you here?
An Italian,
"Lynnette the Beast in Minnesota"
LOL. Honestly, Italian, where do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I've stepped into a bad cartoon! Although, unlike John, at least you managed to spell my name!
Strykerdad,
Thanks for the update on Fallujah.
Lynnette in Minnesota
Here is an update on what is going on out west:
IRAQ: Life Style Issues Weaken al Qaeda
"June 1, 2005: American troops operating along the Syrian border find that most of the hostiles they encounter, and kill, are foreigners. Saudi Arabians are the most common, but there are men from as far away as Morocco. The anti-government forces are increasingly non-Iraqi forces. For example, over the weekend, a clash with foreign fighters near the Syrian border ended when a compound was bombed. In the ruins were found two Syrians, an Algerian and a Jordanian. Two Saudis and a Moroccan were wounded and captured. In the rubble were found documents, and the body of Raja Nawaf Farhan al Mahalawi, the governor of Anbar province. Al Mahalawi, a Sunni tribal leader, had been kidnapped on May 10th, much to the distress of many Sunnis in western Iraq. When al Mahalawi was found, he was chained to a propane tank, and covered with rubble, which had killed him. It appears that al Mahalawi was being held to keep Sunni Arabs in line, not so much to negotiate any kind of deal with the government. Iraq is being invaded by hostile foreigners, who kill hundreds of Iraqis a month. The invaders speak Arabic and say they come in the name of peace.
After Fallujah was cleaned out last November, Islamic terrorists and Baath Party nationalists fled to many other locations. There was no longer one large concentration of bad guys, but many smaller ones. This caused friction, because part of the al Qaeda package is severe life-style adjustments. The women have to cover up, no Western clothing, music or booze, lots of facial hair on the guys, and so on. This was not popular in Afghanistan, nor is it here. Al Qaeda enforcers will remonstrate, beat, kidnap or kill those who continually disobey. This has led to attacks on tribal leaders who disagree with al Qaeda, and refuse to buckle under to their rules. Some tribal leaders have been beaten, kidnapped or killed. The tribes have responded with violence. Throughout May, American troops in western Iraq encountered battles between Sunni Arab tribesmen and al Qaeda gunmen. American marines would get in touch with the local tribal leaders and offer assistance in these situations. Perhaps a few smart bombs? Overhead pictures from a UAV? Recording of al Qaeda radio conversations? Especially the ones discussing what they are going to do to the tribesmen once this impious resistance is put down. Over the weekend, Sunni Arab and Shia leaders agreed on how the new government would be run. The Sunni Arabs, or at least the majority of them, have agreed to work with the Shias, and against those Sunni Arabs who back al Qaeda and Saddam's old Baath Party.
Incidents involving Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED, also known as car bombs) ran slightly fewer in May than in April, which was the worst month ever for such attacks since the war began. Otherwise, the pattern of attacks has remained rather similar to that in April; about a third seem to have detonated against the apparent intended targets, with about a third being partially effective, and the balance intercepted or detonated prematurely. Car bombs have become more difficult to use, as the Iraqi police become better at defending high value targets, and spotting car bombs under construction, and on the move. As a result, the terrorists are making more frequent use of suicide bombers wearing explosive vests."
Lynnette in Minnesota
Anonymous,
"Whethter the US was justified, correct, beneficial will be decided over the next 5-10 years. There isn't nearly enough data to make a determination as yet."
Very academic. Unfortunately there are thousands of Iraqis being killed while you are deciding whether US invasion was justified. If in the end you reach the conclusion that it was not justified, what do you propose doing to correct your mistake? And if you - or some members of your family - were meanwhile subject to a possible future draft, would you still hold that intelectual high ground?
Alright, as lovely as strykerdad's version of events is, let's get a fairer assessment of the situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64292-2005Apr18.html
Quote:
There is a feeling of deja vu about rebuilding Fallujah a second time, combined with questions from local residents and U.S. commanders alike about why it is necessary. "If only we had had the resources, the civil affairs, back when we were here in May 2003. We were asking, but we didn't get them," Kennedy said.
Zeman agreed: "Nobody's happy the way Fallujah got solved."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/13/AR2005041301737.html
Quote:
State Department fact sheets on Fallujah claim that 95 percent of its residents have water available in their homes and that $40 million is being spent to overhaul water plants. But when Zoellick asked Khlaid Jumaly, chairman of the city council, if most people have safe drinking water, the answer suggested they did not.
"The drinking water is not really safe for health," Jumaly, who had a long salt-and-pepper beard and wore a white turban, replied though an interpreter. "The whole sewer system is in very bad shape."
Zoellick said he had just seen the rebuilt water treatment plant and wondered whether that would ease the problem. Jumaly said the repairs were insufficient and even damaging. "The people who are working on the sewer are not very clear about what they are doing," he said.
At one point, the council vice chairman, Ibrahim Mohammed Jassam, implored: "We ask of you, please, that you get involved in the situation of the Fallujah people. You guys did this with your own blood, risked your life, for this situation."
--------------------------
We've got to get better at doing this stuff, guys. I think there are much better ways to handle things, but I think we aren't trained to do them in the correct manner.
And the right-wing needs to get behind those changes. More emphasis on reconstruction, more training for soldiers that emphasis a SWAT way of dealing with things, and not a Waco way of dealing with things.
The people of Fallujah are prideful people. They are a lot like people from the Bronx, or from Manhattan. Or Detroit. If we enacted the solutions we have enacted in Fallujah, in Detroit, how well do you think that would work?
Same issue.
The soldiers on the ground know for a fact that Fallujans need more help, and faster help. They aren't getting the resources they need. That's a failure in leadership, and a failure of us as Americans. There IS a way to do this right. Just because no one has done it right before, doesn't mean we shouldn't be working on figuring out a way to do it.
Our soldiers need our help. They want to be responsive to civilians in need, we concentrate on providing them with the tools to respond to the individuals who are violent.
The emphasis needs to change.
@6/2/2005 08:10:43 AM.
"Italian - thanks, i appreciate your answer. just curious - what do you mean by 'discrete?'".
Of course topping a local dictator through military intervention is never 'legitimate' according to the UN Charter & international law (Hitler, the Japanese military junta, Mussolini, & Co., for the reasons explained above were an unprecendented & different case altogether).
If a dictator is a dreadful pain in the a$$ for its neighbours and for its people, though, as we know in some cases world public opinion would be less outraged for such a violation of international law (example: the removal by the Tanzanian Army of that gentleman Idi Amin Dada. But, mind, it happened only after Amin attacked militarily Tanzania, and the Tanzanian military went home after removing him).
In the case of Saddam, his invasion of Kuwait provoked the UN 'operation of international police'. Of course, the stated aim of the operation was only the removal of the Iraqi Army from Kuwait, not the topping of Saddam's regime, that would have been illegal (so, yes, by refusing to order the acts needed to make Saddam's regime crash Bush Senior did observe the letter of the UN mandate & international law; but it is a pity he did con instead the Iraqi people, who rose against the regime & were killed in their tens of thousands).
What I meant by 'discrete' is, simply, that if Saddam's regime had crashed down as a result of some military decisions while the Kuwaiti war (or 'operation of international police') was on, nobody would have accused the UN or the US. Military decisions such as destroying the units of the Republican Guard & downing all of Saddam's helicopters, for instance.
That would have been very different than invading & occupying Iraq, or sending US armoured divisions up to Baghdad. The fall of Saddam's regime would have been just a 'side result' of the war, obtained 'with discretion'.
To add to a previous answer on my part: after the Feb-March 1991 cold shower (deadly cold indeed), Saddam's opponents & the Iraqi people were no more in the condition of rising against the regime. Bush Senior's betrayal had resulted in the crushing of popular opposition to Saddam. So, again, that (Feb-Mar 1991) was the one & only chance of an acceptable removal of Saddam.
Sorry, Italian - two more questions. OK - at that time, should Bush 1 have gone against the UN mandate to provide discrete support to help the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam, or should he have respected the UN mandate and not provided the kind of discrete support you are talking about? Also, should there have been any discrete support for the overthrow of Saddam after your 1991 window of time?
Strykerdad,
The point of my post was:
"There are thousands of Iraqis being killed while you are deciding whether US invasion was justified. If in the end you reach the conclusion that it was not justified, what do you propose doing to correct your mistake?"
But you prefered not to answer that question.
But really enlightening was the following statement of yours:
"Lots of lessons to be learned, among them is the lesson that an Iraqi city shouldn't allow fanatics to take over their city and burn, dismember and hang Americans from their bridges"
So, this is what it is all about. You destroy a city and kill thousands of innocents to avenge the killing of four mercenaries who happened to be Americans... Says a lot about your character. I seem to recall that Nazi troops did the same type of thing in Europe. For every German soldier killed by the resistance they would shoot twenty hostages... You have come a long way, from a democratic nation to a nation of fascist thugs. Congratulations...
Moron99,
"When I read Strykerdad's comment, I interpreted it to mean that the citizens of a city should never allow their community to deteriorate to a point where four people could be dragged and dismembered and then have corpses hung from a bridge."
But if they do, they shouldn't complain if we destroy their city and try and kill all of them... Is that it?...
Strykerdad,
The (excellent) article you quote came from National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fumento200506010759.asp
Truth Teller,
When Riverbend alleges something that is odds with the consensus of major news media, I have usually found her allegations unconvincing.
The assertion (vague, as usual) seems to be that the US is implicated in some suicide bombings or IED detonations. Such involvement conflicts with US policy and there is extensive evidence that US personnel have suffered from suicide bombs and IEDs and that the US has taken counteraction against such threats. That makes the assertion prima facie implausible. Consequently, the assertion requires an unusually high level of proof and that burden is on those who make such assertions. Neither Riverbend nor you have met that burden, in my opinion. I realize that both of you are individuals in a violent and chaotic situation, in a nation that has no recent tradition of reliable news organizations, so that your resources for obtaining evidence are very limited.
Previous commenters have given a number of arguments against the assertion. Some additional arguments follow.
Before about 1960, there is some chance that the US government would have been able to keep such a secret. During the 1960s, that ability declined, and by 1975 it had become difficult for the US government to keep even the most innocent secrets. For example, one reason the raid to free the Iran embassey hostages failed was that the Joint Chiefs of Staff did the planning themselves. Their subordinate staffs should have done the planning, in greater detail. The Chiefs, however, could not rely on their staffs not to leak news of the plan to the press! Nor could they hope that the press would refrain from publishing critical battle plan information! Abu Ghraib came out (when it did) become someone took (1) unauthorized photographs (2) circulated them and then the media (3) published them.
Bombings have been much rarer in Kurdish areas than in the Arab areas, both Sunni and Shia. The straightforward explanation is that the bombings have been conducted mainly by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and elsewhere. They can circulate easily in Sunni Arab areas and they are not, I gather, noticable even in Shia areas. They would be very obvious in Kurdish areas, because it appears that few, especially among non-Iraqis, speak Kurdish. In contrast, Americans would be uniformly obvious everywhere in Iraq because neither Arabic nor Kurdish is taught much in the US.
If you readily believe the assertion, then you also ought to believe assertions that exculpate the US from responsibility for unpopular actions. Did you disapprove of Abu Ghraib? Did you dislike US tactics in Fallujah? How do you know that both were not the result of Baathist provocations? There are plenty of Iraqis who speak very good English. Riverbend (who is an excellent writer) writes flawlessly colloquial American English. Perhaps some Baathists infiltrated the Military Police reservists that were in charge of Abu Ghraib. President Bush is a little weak on facts; perhaps the Baathists deceived him, too. In Fallujah, perhaps the Marines fired only at buildings occupied by insurgents, but the insurgents blew up many more neighboring buildings to make the US look bad. In short, everybody can play the "agent provacateur" game.
Again, however, those skeptical of the bombing assertion do not need to disprove it. The burden of proof is on those who make the assertion.
Michael in Framingham
@6/3/2005 05:52:40 AM.
"OK - at that time, should Bush 1 have gone against the UN mandate to provide discrete support to help the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam, or should he have respected the UN mandate and not provided the kind of discrete support you are talking about?"
From the point of view of mere 'legality' Bush Senior should, of course, have stuck to the UN mandate like he did at the end of the day; from the point of view of morality instead, especially taking into account the fact that he had called the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam, he should have 'discretely' helped them.
"Also, should there have been any discrete support for the overthrow of Saddam after your 1991 window of time?".
Such 'discrete support' as there was was completely useless by then, and even counterproductive; and the Iraqi people had been completely demoralised after Saddam's repression in 1991, and were under the burden of the economic sanctions.
As a result, those whom the US actually helped (not even discretely) against the regime were for sure not fit to down Saddam, and lacking in any popular support; like the criminal gang of 'turned' Mukhabarat Baathist Allawi bombing civilians in Baghdad in 1993-94, that couldn't of course be of any use in overthrowing Saddam; and the Chalabi-concocted 1996 plan for a putsch, that obviously turned into a provocation, 'outing' many thousands of anti-Saddam people in the Iraqi military & administration (those of them who weren't able to escape abroad were executed).
an italian,
As far as I am concerned, Saddam Hussein needed to go, just as Kim Jong Il needs to go, and just as any other person who murders and oppresses needs to go. The question is, as always, what is the best way to go about doing that. I tend to agree that war was not a good solution, but I also do not think sanctions were a good solution. Just as I think we are not really coming up with any good solutions with North Korea, especially considering millions of people there are starving. What are the good solutions? I tend to think Vietnam and China are showing us ways to curb oppression, through economic change. Whether that is possible with people who publicly state they admire and would like to emulate Stalin (Saddam), and someone who says they'd like to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. (Kim Jong Il), is debatable. I agree with McNamara when he says that sometimes we must accept that we don't have the tools to create good solutions. I wonder if that is the case in Iraq. I hope not.
strykerdad,
Glenn Kessler's article is the better of the two. I would agree that the true story is somewhere inbetween, except I culled out the extreme stories that paint a far bleaker picture of Fallujah. (from christian aid groups, and groups like Al Jazeera) The quotes from Zoellick appear to be accurate. And reports have been coming through from the Fullujah soldiers about their frustration on the pace of reconstruction.
There are numerous sources that verify the claim that 95% of the water is contaminated with sewage. We have statistics on how many people have recieved compensation and what the rate of reconstruction is. (It's low, and few have been compensated).
Also, I can't imagine that the interaction between soldiers and Fallujans at checkpoints is something that Fallujans would enjoy. Checkpoints are humiliating at airports in the U.S., how much worse would they be with biometric identification in a war zone?
In any case, I find the reporting on this story to follow the same patterns as reporting on the electricty situation, which I have followed in detail, and can be summed up in this blog I just found:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/politics/gnfi.html
The annoying thing is, that the U.N. report that came out in 2002 stated it would take over two years to add a single megawatt to the Iraqi power system, yet we promised to do so within 6 months.
As we should have learned in the hurricane disaster in Virginia when all their power went out, it is better to tell people that it's going to take 3 months, and take 2 months to fix the problem, than tell them "any minute now", and take 2 months to solve the problem.
One way, everyone thinks your fabulous, the other way, they think you're an incompetent idiot. Yet the solution was the same.
And it is always better to organize the system so that the leadership of an area is aware of what the problems are, and have some ability to help you fix those problems.
I doubt truthteller knows why his electricity grid is still working so poorly, and if he did know, maybe it wouldn't drive him so crazy. I know it would drive me less crazy.
Moron99 and Strykerdad,
Tyranny cannot be defeated from the outside, only from the inside. It is the task of any people to guarentee the legitimacy of their political institutions. Outsiders must keep their distance, unless they are themselves the target of aggression. That's the difference between present day Europeans and Americans. We consider that it is impossible for a tyrannical regime to prevail against the will of the people. But the people must be willing to overthrow that tyranny. Americans think that they have the right and a duty to do this work for others. That's why you easily become aggressors and we don't. We think that if a people do not overthrow a tyrannical regime it's because they don't want to. Or, at least, they don't want it bad enough. So we feel we don't have any obligation to do for them what they themselves are unwilling to do. That means accepting - accepting, not approving of - the existence of people like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro or Pinochet. Eventually their victims will rebel and solve the problem.
@ the unbelievably moronic liar Moron99.
"the unwanted side effects of their tyranny found our shores on 9/11".
Oh clever one, what had Saddam's (secular) tyranny to do with 9/11??? Could you tell us, oh forked-tongued moronic one?
Possibly the tyranny you refer to would be Saudi Arabia, nothing to do with Iraq...
How is it that you invaded Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, and NOT Saudi Arabia?
@Stukasdad, the four-handed prophet.
"It's only a matter of time before Europe arrogantly demands US participation in preserving their way of life, again. After all, any attack on Europe would be our fault, wouldn't it?".
What's this? Are you having readings in the crystal ball, like you moronic friend Moron99 the Liar? Who would be attacking Europe? The 'Islamofascists'?
Come on, Stukasdad the American Nazi.
Differently from your nation of child-minded apes (and I'm sorry that some Native Americans joined into this inverted evolution, if what you said about yourself is true), we do not get into hysterics because of an act of terrorism, appalling as it may be (e.g. Madrid, 11 March 2004), and especially we do not start wars 'in retaliation' against somebody (like you did with Iraq) who had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Stop fantasising, Stukasdad. You are just making your country even more ridiculous in European eyes.
@ the idiotic Liar Moron99, 6/4/2005 10:40:22 PM.
"terrorism comes from the mideast because that is where the failures of grotesquely bad governance are juxtaposed with the collection of obscene wealth into the hands of a few".
And was Iraq an example of this, Moron? It had, before your beastly invasion and despite your sanctions, a quite efficient social welfare system and a large educated middle class (apart from having nothing to do with 9/11, you shameless liar!).
What you blather about ("obscene wealth into the hands of a few") is, precisely, the very portrait of your long-standing allies in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Barhein, Oman; precisely whence Osama Bin Laden and his followers sprung up.
Again, disgusting liar, what had Iraq to do with it?
Strykerdad,
"A regime with air power, artillery, mechanized armor, communications etc. can never be removed by a citizenry armed with pitch forks"
You seem to forget that those weapons are not handled by robots nor by the tyrants themselves. They are in the hands of common members of that nation. When the tyranny becomes too obscene those weapons are turned against the tyrants. That has happened often enough all over the world. If people were truly against Sadam Hussein it would have happened in Iraq. It probably would have, if Americans had not tried to force Sadam Hussein out by means of economical sanctions. As you should have learned a long time ago (see Cuba), economical sanctions make proud people stand political forces they would rather do without, so they don't seem to be giving in to outside pressure. But obviously Americans don't believe Iraqis can have any sort of pride, and may prefer domestic tyrants to foreign liberators...
Failed Siege on Fallujah
Fallujah Video
@Moron99, 6/5/2005 12:08:36 AM.
"Let me answer your question with a question".
Moron, do you think it very clever to answer a question with a question? Do answer my question first (I think your choice of a nickname is the only occasion you didn't tell lies).
"How would you try to rid the mideast of it corrupt and oppressive governments while causing the lowest total amount of human sufferring?"
You see, Moron, everybody outside the US sees that this is exclusively a matter for the people inhabiting the Middle East, not for anybody else (especially not for four-handed bullies from the USA).
Moron99,
"I never realized that Poland wanted to be invaded by Hitler and then made part of the soviet empire."
Although you sometimes seem to have some difficulty in following simple reasonings, I am sure you are bright enough to have noticed that there is a difference between domestic tyranny and a foreign aggression. Domestic tyranny must be solved by the interested parties, foreign aggression should be stopped by the international community - namely the UN. Saddam Hussein was a typical domestic tyrant whose fate should have been left to the Iraqi people. Hitler's aggression could not have been handled by the Poles alone. I am sure that, if you try, you can see the difference... BTW, American invasion of Iraq is a lot closer to Hitler's intervention in Poland than you would like to admit...
Allowing domestic tyrannies to fester unchecked is what got Europe into many of its myriad disasters over the years.
Italian,
Your 'fourhanded american' insult was funny the first twenty times you used it, but it is getting tired. I imagine you as a stereotypical Italian, wildly gesticualting while trying to type your hyperbolic, often hilariously hypocritical rants---perhaps you have a secret desire for four hands to efficiently express yourself which is behind your repeated use of the 'insult'.
I live in America and I believe you. I do not trust my government. I publish a blog where I am trying to get the truth out about our president and this ugly war. Static Brain
What total garbage, Static Brain.
The left, like many arabs, love a conspiracy. It gives them momentum, a reason for being.
Isn't it true, 'truth teller', that most Iraqis believed that Saddam was a CIA employee?
Read Bobert Baer's book, 'see no evil' for a view of the pre-invasion era Iraq.
But Americans soldiers kiling American soldiers--in Iraq?
....is absurd beyond belief. I KNOW people who are there, and who send me hard information from the streets. There is NO way this would even be possible to cover up, where it even a desirable scenario.
RIDICULOUS.
Post a Comment