Dear Zeyad,
I was going to post a comment along these same lines, but I see that you did it first!
@ Zeyad.
You are confirmed as the most politically savvy Iraqi blogger.
And it is incredible the way this poor American public (see the warmongers posting at Iraqi blogs) is kept in a cloud of grotesque disinformation: the poor gullible beings believe that the Iranian interests are represented by Muqtada and his movement, not (like it is actually the case) by their rivals and now enemies, the SIIC/Badr and the several Da'wa parties !
What is happening (the defence of the US-Iranian condominium over Iraq by the US military and the Bush Admin) confirms that the fears of my friend Bruno about an American attack against Iran are misplaced ...
Poor Iraq !
Poor Iraqis !
This report, on the other hand, is so surreal. It looks like there is no limit to the gullibility of the invasionists. This Roggio guy has it completely backwards. I mean, seriously, if those Americans believe Iran is backing Muqtada then why do they think Maliki and Hakim gave Ahmedinajad a king's welcome in Iraq a couple of weeks ago?
Sadr's Mahdi Army has been formed by Iran's Qods Force along the lines of Lebanese Hezbollah. Imad Mugniyah, the senior Hezbollah military commander who was killed in Syria in February, was among those behind the formation and training of the Mahdi Army.
What about the Badr Brigade that forms the background of the "Iraqi security forces"? Who do you think formed them and trained them? Where does Hakim (Badr's leader) go for vacations? No one denies that Iran has certainly used some elements of the Mahdi army to its advantage (mainly to attack US and British troops in the south), but they have much more interest in wiping out Sadr in order to form the friendly Shi'i Hakim statelet in the south (which Sadr vehemently opposes). The US has the same goal as Iran, from the way it looks.
From Cole's blog:
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked.
1. Cheney meets with al Maliki.
2. Resolution for provincial elections finally moves through the council.
3. The al Maliki / shia' coalition moves against the Sadrists with US support.
Am I crazy or is this move against Sadr all about ensuring that ISCI and Da'wa win those elections and consolidate power?
A very good comment from NIW's blog:
Anonymous said...
Hi again NIW, Glad to hear that you're well. I was a bit worried hearing about the mortar attacks which are becoming more frequent. Make sure you take good care, it's no joke as I am sure you know that.
As for the latest show down between the Army and Mahdi Army, I think it's a sign that Maliki has decided to take the side of Al Hakeem having realized that Al Hakeem is the safer bet. This is a war to clear the decks for the planned and anticipated "Southern Province" in Iraq. Moti has been strongly against it cause it's simply against his interests at the moment. Al Hakeem on the other hand has been planning and preaching for the Southern Province for quite some time with the help and support of Iran and I'm sure he's quite happy to see things moving to the next phase especially when somebody else is doing the dirty work for him (The Iraqi National Army!). This would be another serious step towards dividing Iraq and believe me, Iraqis, the real Iraqis, the ordinary Iraqis will be the last to benefit from and the first to pay for it. This is the best case scenario for Iran and on the other hand the US is scrambling to get out so they don't give a rat's a$$ about Iraqis. I can't see any good coming from this. It's a power struggle and the government has taken Badr Brigade's side. If Hakeem gets what he wants, then prepare for a carbon copy of Iran to be established in Iraq and that would be a tragic loss for me at least.
I would also like to let out some steam here and please do remember I’m also an Iraq who happens to be living abroad. Now back to the point, we Iraqis always tend to blame the US and Coalition forces for anything that goes wrong in our country and we always seem to fail to recognize that we as Iraqis are partially to blame for it as well. Otherwise, you would not see a government and a parliament who literally could not care less about the interests of their home country or the people who elected them! I sometimes ask myself, how comes that we have such a bunch of traitors controlling the country? it can't be a coincidence? Can it? I know that most Iraqis are good human beings who just want to live their lives in peace but it was Iraqis who elected this bunch and gave them the power that they have, right? and the elected government have done absolutely nothing to make people's lives better. You know why? Because they can? and because they know that the same tricks that was pulled off last time will work next time and I'm sure you'll find that the majority of the parliament and government will stay after the next elections (they may just shuffle the chairs, like Saddam's days! Well, we have an example already Solagh the butcher).
Bottom line is, if the average Joe Iraqis keep on voting for one political party or the other just because God (or one of his so called Caliphs on earth in any packaging they come with!) said so, then good luck for them! Most of the political parties in Iraq are playing on the religion/sect chord because Iraqis are ignorant and naïve to believe in them. Unfortunately, seeing what’s going on now in Iraq, I don’t think things have changed and comes the next election, the same tricks will be played and the Iraqis will vote the same way they did last time and we can kiss Iraq goodbye for a long time.
Finally, please remember that the interest of Iraq and the US will not necessarily coincide. In fact, they rarely do. They are working to make sure that their interests are served in Iraq and the region and, I have to say, since 2003 they have had more misses than hits considering the fact that they presented Iraq on a gold plate to Iran and they are trying to run away now but that won’t change the fact that we Iraqis should stand up for ourselves.
I’m sure that many Iraqis will not be in agreement with what I just said but that is what I believe and if you disagree, that’s fine, we can talk about it but may not now as I have to go.
right now the US is helping Iran split up Iraq - but that will change - the overall goal, I believe, is to have the Arabs fighting the Iranians in a massive war.... then, the US will back the Arabs, just like they are now backing and arming the Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
It is a big game of "let's you and him fight". The overall goal is to make everyone else so weak that the US can control the area and the oil.
The US has a long history of arming, training and funding our future enemies..... like bin Laden and Saddam. The political elites over here just love their wars - it's like a sporting event to them, that they and their children never have to suffer from.
It is all very sick.
More info on what is happening daily in Iraq at Iraq Today blog:
http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com
pictures:
http://facesofgrief.blogspot.com
An Italian ate my hamster!
Imagine how confusing this must be for the next war president elect John McCain.
His advisors are going to require weeks to try and explain to him who these rival Shi'ite factions are and which one might, in the end, feel less inclined to kill Americans. Or could it possibly be that they share an equal hatred of the occupier.
And then, surely, if Iran's best interests are being served, that couldn't be in the best interests of America as well, could it?
Just after he had figured out why the Sunnis hated Americans, now he's going to have to wade through all this other civil strife. Not an invasionist's dream, Iraq, is it? Nor an easy press conference for the next mentally impaired president who wants to carry on with the good fight?
Iraq is much the same as Afghanistan in the sense that foreign occupations are never truely embraced to any large extent! Foot patrols will remain lethal and a constant for Americans for years to come as will Iraqi civilian deaths.
The helpful American bombing in Basra, trying to rid the city of criminal Sadrist elements has killed dozens of civilians in the last few days alone!
John the Ba'athist:
You are correct! It's just too confusing to attempt to sort out all these Muslim vermin.
There is an old American rule of thumb that could be useful here: Kill them all and let God sort them out.
Alternatively, we could throw them into pits full of boiling excrement and see which ones float. We used a test like that quite effectively a while back. (I believe that most Canadians failed the test.)
The analogy to Vietnamization is interesting, and in many regards parallel to whats going on now in Iraq. Both the much ballyhooed, but disappearing Iraqi army insurgent sweep of Mosul and now the sweep of Basra recall the incursions into Cambodia and Laos by the ARVN (with U.S.assistance) that were largely conceived of as PR campaigns. Designed as demonstration models to showcase Nixons program of turning over the war to the Vietnamese, for the purposes of showing the progress of ARVN military development (and competence) politically, that was suppose to intimidate the VC and NVA. It also allowed Nixon to to claim steps were being taken to wind down the war as so promised in the last election. And he began to withdraw large numbers of troops, both out of combat rolls and out of country.
The problem was that both ARVN operations into Cam&Laos turned out to be minor disasters, that if they demonstrated anything, it was the means and manner of the incompetence of the ARVN. Not the least of which turned out to be the enormous gulf in commitment and motivation compared to especially the NVA.
And what I suspect is also (motivation & commitment) the great failing of the current Army fielded by the Maliki government. Because unlike SVietnam, the Maliki government has virtually no political currency within the population. And therefore, the army. Even compared to Thieu, Maliki is on very thin ice, with many armed men within his military who are if not unmotivated, are alternately motivated, against his rule. Every time he announces one of these showcase operations to (please the occupier) he demonstrates the
exact geography of his weakness.
Yes. The US is fighting Iran's war. Of course the Bush admin is frothing at the mouth for Iran to make a provocative move... As Iraq falls apart and the US sinks deeper into the sand and into debt the world waits.
News:
"A US airstrike has killed five Iraqi civilians including a judge in the northern town of Tikrit."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4452862a12.html
Latest massacre by America?
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look...e=2&
NrSection=1
So sad:
"The U.S. military says two American soldiers have been killed by small-arms fire in separate attacks in Baghdad."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2...-
Casualties.php
Soldier Suicides: veterans are killing themselves in record numbers
http://articles.citypages.com/20...ing-themselves/
OH NO, THE ANTI-INVASION PEOPLE WERE RIGHT AFTER ALL:
"This week the United States suffered its 4,000th military death in Iraq. That number will surely increase, as violence is now exploding across the country. Iraqi forces are clashing with the powerful Shiite militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. As if to offer denial in the face of disaster -- and commit the U.S. to losing many more soldiers and Marines -- the Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office."
http://www.washingtonindependent...ring-
permanence
Speculation about US - Iran deal on Iraq:
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/...isit-to-israel/
In other important Iraq news, it appears that Maliki's ISF are being less than successful against the Madhi Army:
Maliki ordered out of Basra by Sadr:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...26/
wiraq326.xml
"Maliki’s government busy trying to save face by issuing a dead line for Mahdi fighters, but the reality is another way around it is Al-Sadr asks AL-Maliki to leave the city, Maliki was saved by the American helicopters when the fighters surrounded his resident in Basra, Al-Qabas reported"
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/...basra-campaign/
So much for the great "ISF". Methinks plan B will be put into operation now - ceaseless airstrikes by US and UK aircraft:
"An assault by [30] thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers to regain control of the southern port city of Basra stalled Wednesday as Shiite militiamen in the Mahdi Army fought daylong hit-and-run battles and refused to withdraw from the neighborhoods that form their base of power there."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/2...all&
oref=slogin
Sadr City: "Shiite militiamen are everywhere. Police and Iraqi army checkpoints are nowhere in sight. U.S. soldiers are keeping their distance.[...] "We are now better organized, have better weapons, command centers, and easy access to logistical and financial support," added the commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media."
http://www.boston.com/news/world...s_in_sadr_city/
and
http://media.www.dailyillini.com...q-
3286208.shtml
Divide, divide, divide and rule:
"The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community – which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime – is splitting apart for the first time."
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...hia-
801214.html
Zeyad, if you read this, thank you very much for this latest and interesting post by yourself.
Yay, new thread. The last one was getting a bit tangled!
Will PeteS be nicer to me in this one?
What if I promise not to sneer?
Think I'll hold off for a while on speculating on this latest development in Iraq - still trying to figure out who, if anyone, are the good guys here.
Meanwhile, just for fun, here's another amusing bit from my favorite travel blog - American kid in NZ working in fruit-picking gangs to finance his travels. Seems a pretty casual sort of dude.
http://www.travelblog.org/Oceani...log-
259892.html
"I have a couple thoughts on being an American in a foreign country. I think New Zealand may be a little different than other countries because they are SO laid back..." Then he goes on about foreigners simplistic ideas about religion, guns etc in the US, and ends up: "After these topics are covered, the conversation usually rotates back to politics and Iraq. It is amazing how much more aware of the world around them these people are than Americans. I swear, Kiwis know more about American politics than Americans do, and that is pretty depressing. Also, if you think Bush is unpopular in America, it isn't even close to over here. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Every person I have met, from every country in the world, hates him. They yell at me about how stupid he is, and I say "hey, preaching to the choir here", which is a religious reference they don't usually get. It is literally unbelievable how much they despise him. And the ones that understand also hate McCain. It is refreshing, however, to realize that these people don't judge you just because you are an American. They understand, I think, that Americans aren't their government, and I will respect the entire country of New Zealand for that. Also, as an American, because of the scrutiny our government is so severe, you feel a certain pressure to represent the US well. I am usually overly nice to everyone and always polite to show how nice of people Americans are. It's weird, and I don't know if I explained it well."
I think you have.
Wonder how RhusLancia would make out?
Raed on Alternet: 5 things you need to know about the latest violence in Iraq:
"It's a relatively straightforward story: Iraq is ablaze today as a result of an attempt to impose Colombian-style democracy on the unstable country: Maliki's goal, shared by the like-minded allies among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that dominate his administration, and with at least tacit U.S. approval, is to kill off the opposition and then hold a vote.
To better understand the nature of this latest round of conflict, here are five things one needs to know about what's taking place across Iraq."
http://www.alternet.org/waronira...q/80580/?
page=1
[johninnz] "What if I promise not to sneer?"
No more sneery assholery? Surely PeteS deserves at least a minimum dose for the "coffin" joke we were subjected to? 
[johninnz] "Wonder how RhusLancia would make out?"
Very well, I suspect. He'd tell the blokes with the bulldog-in-the-helmet tattoos straight off what he thought of them and how he, as the self-appointed Yank Enforcer-in-Chief, would straighten them out.
Yeah, that'll larn 'em.
Maliki's offensive hits a snag:
"Khaldoon Faisal, a 35-year-old taxi driver in Basra's Jamhoriyah area, said the Mahdi Army was putting up fierce resistance with grenades, bombs, mortar shelling and sniper fire.
"My neighborhood now is under the control of the Mahdi Army," Faisal said. He said Iraqi armored vehicles were in the main street but that "they cannot go deep into the neighborhood."
Police Lt. Col. Ali Sabri said the Mahdi army was surrounding a police training center in northern Basra but that "fierce fighting is taking place and police are defending the site."
Essam Abbas, a 31-year-old barber in western Basra, said "the Mahdi Army controls an Iraqi army base in the area because Iraqi troops fled the scene, leaving their vehicles and weapons."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2...Iraq.php?
page=1
Ah, the return of Bruno Spamalot.
Wonderful.
And some people wonder why this comments page sucks?
*
@ Jeffrey -- New York, 03.27.08 - 12:19 pm.
Caro topaccio di fogna mentecatto,
the thing that most sucks (& stinks) in here is you (plus your associates).
Oh cowardly imbecile, some drivel on Bruno ( ) but no comment whatsoever on Zeyad's post, and on what is happening in Basra and most of Iraq ?
Fuck off, ye worthless King Troll and King Rat !
@ All.
Look, good people !
I wrote above, referring to our four-handed fwiends, the Ahmehwican warmongers: "the poor gullible beings believe that the Iranian interests are represented by Muqtada and his movement, not (like it is actually the case) by their rivals and now enemies, the SIIC/Badr and the several Da'wa parties".
Now, somebody could have thought: 'This eeeevil Eye-talian, bein' anti-Ahmehwican !'.
But instead, just after I had written it, look what happened at '24 Steps':
"David,
The Mahdi Army and Al-Sadr are very much connected to Iran.
Here is an overview of what is currently happening and some good background information.
Lynnette In Minnesota, 11:45 AM".
Truly, in the waters of Minnesota, some essential salts must be missing ...
!!!
Zeyad, should JAM and al-Sadr be left alone in Baghdad and the south?
_
Marcus, Jarn, any other non-rabid 'antiwar' folks: if we were not in Iraq, do you think the 'antiwar' movement would be more active against Afghanistan? Oftentimes they say they oppose US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iraq is clearly the focus. If Iraq went away, would they go away too, or would they just go elsewhere?
_
An Italian, Bruno, John the Ba'athist, Um Ayad, etc.: what do you think of this guy:
http://www.spiegel.de/
internatio...,543768,00.html
??
_
Too much Bullshit here,
no one has mentioned the Alliance between Chalabi and Muqtada al Sadr.
I love the smell of burning Shiites in the morning.
Hi sellout Layla! Do you think said Alliance is Chalabi's way to muscle into the gov't? How can there be an alliance, though, if Chalabi is an Iranian stooge and al-Sadr is not?
_
Italiano,
The funny part for me is that Zeyad's is the only comments page you're allowed on. So you're right at home in this brackish backwater. Your foul-mouthed idiocy complements Bruno's Spamalots just fine. Now if Layla the Psychoba'ath becomes a regular then the asylum will be full.
Bruno, Italiano, and Layla the Psychoba'ath all in bed together.
*shudder*
*
Zeyad,
Nice to see some new (er...sober) keystrokes from you.
I am beginning to think that there is no one in Iraq who is not underhandedly working with the Iranians. *sigh*
Seriously, though, I don't know how this will end. But I think you know that the area around Basra has had problems for quite some time and that there are elements in the Mahdi Army that are engaged in criminal activity in other areas of Iraq. You've talked about it enough. Would you prefer their hold to be cemented? I know you don't like Dawa and ISCI, but what realistic choice does Iraq have? They are part of the government.
I'll have to come back to read the rest of the comments section, but I did read one:
An Italian,
*sniff* Well, it's about time. I was feeling forgotten, forsaken and forlorn. You hadn't copied a comment of mine in sooo long.
If it brings you joy to assume that our guys on the ground don't know anything about what is going on, fine. But they might really have some idea of where munitions are coming from and going to, as they are intimately involved in the receiving end of those weapons.
Btw, have you read Abbas's post on the Kurds and the link he supplied?
There was a comment in that last link, Zeyad, that I thought rather good. I will paste it here:
Important to keep in mind that the dynamic described in the article is not unusual for a democratic government anywhere in the world. The actions of government officials are always, in some measure politically motivated. Even keeping security, a state function, can be "easier" to accomlish when your enemies are also political opponents. Just as in America, the official actions of government don't always mean they are the actions of the "good guys". Nevertheless, the sovereign must exercise a monopoly on the use of force. That's even true under a dictator. Here, even though certain factions have greater influence than others over the operations of the Iraqui government, there is at least a sharing of power to an extent unknown under Saddam's dictatorship. This is the essence of democracy. It is good to critique the shortcomings, but we should be careful about writing them off because they don't exhibit qualities (selfless, apolitical devotion to the rule of law) that we are ourselves don't fully possess.
Posted by: James Swiderski | March 26, 2008 12:29 PM
RhusLancia
"Marcus, Jarn, any other non-rabid 'antiwar' folks: if we were not in Iraq, do you think the 'antiwar' movement would be more active against Afghanistan?"
At least I'm "non-rabid", good to know.
A bit of topic, your question, with this new development in Iraq but I'll pick it up anyway.
I don't know for sure. Probably some would focus on opposing the US invasion of Afghanistan more if they were not preoccupied with opposing the war in Iraq.
Myself, I never had a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan.
The US was attacked on 9/11 by AQ who were supported and given a santuary by the Taliban. The Taliban were, as I recall it, given an opportunity to hand over OBL et.al. and escape war that way. If this "choise" was for real I don't know, but they didn't take the chance. The Taliban themselves were not in my good-book anyway (neither was Saddam, in case someone feel an urge to point out his shortcomings as a leader), so I never mourned their fall.
The ousting of the Taliban had a solid international backing. Hell, even "pacifist" Sweden has troops there now, under Nato command. The first time in over 200 years that we send troops anywhere unless under UN flag. And it's not even controversial. Of course it's mostly a token representation in a not yet really dangerous part of the country and with only one casualty so far as far as I know.
Iraq was a different story completely. The US was never attacked by Iraq or from any group operating from within Iraq or with affiliations to Iraq. There was a solid opposision from the majority governments in the world and from the majority of citizens in many of the countries that did go along with it. There was no just cause. It should never have happened.
Marcus: "A bit of topic, your question"
Dude. Since when is Zeyad's comment section strictly on-topic? I think this is the first one in a long time in which many comments are on topic.
Anyway, thanks for your answer. I was just curious because there has not been such a massive influx of foreign jihadis into Afghanistan, nor have there been as many 'antiwar' activities specifically against it. The Speigel article reminded me that there's been some however, and there are indications that, if it weren't for Iraq being a softer target as far as justifications & international support/condemnation, Afghanistan would get more of what Iraq's getting now.
This helps me understand the rabidly 'antiwar' position* that believes that since the start of the Iraq war was unjustified, it must be lost for justice to be served (at any cost to Iraqis, and who-really-cares how it ends up, or when).
* that is, not pointing the finger at you per se, but you know who
Marcus: "The ousting of the Taliban had a solid international backing."
By the way, how many other countries who are currently engaged on our side in Afghanistan were attacked by the Taliban or AQ, prior to the invasion?
_
RhusLancia
"This helps me understand the rabidly 'antiwar' position* that believes that since the start of the Iraq war was unjustified, it must be lost for justice to be served (at any cost to Iraqis, and who-really-cares how it ends up, or when)."
Not necessarily. To me those are separate issues.
#1 Was it justified and a good move?
#2 How is this fuck-up best un-fucked?
As for #1 you know my view. That's easy.
#2 is way more difficult to answer but my feeling since a long time back has been that the US should set a schedule for complete withdrawal, say over a year or so. I'm sure it won't be all pretty and nice but I think the alternative is even worse.
As far as justice being served I think it was a criminal undertaking from the get go and there are people who should be tried and held accountable, you know - the usual suspects. I am not naive enough to think that that'll ever happen though.
I'm off for the evening.
Marcus: "I'm sure it won't be all pretty and nice but I think the alternative is even worse."
If you were rabidly 'antiwar', you might consider the alternative of a US/new Iraqi victory the worst possible outcome. A premature withdrawal which you could trumpet as a US defeat would be the best. You would be unconcerned of what happens in the wake of a premature US withdrawal (it being more 'the US's fault' anyway). I don't know if Bruno really buys the fairy tale of a relatively quick and painless Iraqi-only solution that he often tries to sell. I don't think he does, he just keeps his eye on the ball.
_
Muqtada al Sadr is an iranian stooge. there are red clericks and black clerics and sadr portrays himself as a red cleric.
Maliki has been set up by Ahmadinejad for sure.
jeffrey the rat,
fuck off back to your hole...
"I am beginning to think that there is no one in Iraq who is not underhandedly working with the Iranians. *sigh*"
Awww. Pore Lynette is puzzled.
Actually so am I. (First time we ever agreed on anything.)
Wish someone could answer a simple question - is Iran really arming the Sadrists, or is they isn't? And if so, why, since they are meant to be Maliki's buddies? Just stirring the pot?
No, Lynette and I also agreed on liking Nelson DeMille novels, once.
I bet she used to love Tom Clancy, too. So did I, Jack Ryan, what a guy, my kinda Preznit.
Specially 'Executive Orders,' 1996. Remember in that one Saddam gets killed by an Iranian agent who has infiltrated his bodyguard, the Iraqi government promptly melts down (bit unclear on how that happens) and Iran sorta moves in and forms the United Islamic Republic. Then a joint Iraqi/Iranian army invades KSA.
(Don't worry, the USA steps in and saves the oil, I mean the freedom-loving Saudis.)
Thing is, far as I can recall, there's no mention of Shiites or Sunnis in the entire book, all the Middle-Easterners are just uniformly swarthy.
I guess Shiites and Sunnis hadn't been invented yet. And that was only ten years ago!
I wonder whether Jack Ryan (or Tom Clancy) could have handled this present mix of all-purpose terrorists, Sunni insurgents and Wake-ups, Sadrists, Badrists, Sickies, Iranians, Anand's mighty IA, and all.
I don't think you could get a best-seller out of that lot. Too far-fetched.
sellout Layla: "Muqtada al Sadr is an iranian stooge.
[...]
Maliki has been set up by Ahmadinejad for sure."
Isn't Maliki an Iranian stooge? Does this mean the Iranian romance is over? With whom- Maliki or al Sadr?
Are you starting to warm to Maliki, Layla? Do you hope he kicks Muqtada's bottom back to Qom Qommunity Qollege?
_
Layla, dont misunderstand because I think you are one bitch with rabies but still I will enjoy very much watching you rip apart these fucking animals that spread their shit here limb by limb.
But when you are finished you need to shut the fuck up and crawl back to your hole.
@ Saad
FYI...
(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
Though precise measurements of sectarian violence vary, trends data supplied over time by MNF-I demonstrate a decrease in sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, since the beginning of Operation Fardh al-Qanun. Militia activity initially decreased but staged a resurgence in mid-May before falling again in June to the lowest level in a year. Similar trends have been observed throughout Iraq; however, it is too early to determine how sustainable they will prove to be.
[...]
Militia presence is still strong and reaches into the security services of a number of ministries. Despite some progress, militias are still a dominant force in parts of Baghdad, Basrah, and many provinces in Iraq ‑‑ and will likely remain so until the security situation begins to stabilize over time. (See pages 14-15, above.)
Assessment: The Government of Iraq ‑‑ with substantial Coalition assistance ‑‑ has made satisfactory progress toward reducing sectarian violence but has shown unsatisfactory progress towards eliminating militia control of local security. Furthermore, though sectarian violence has been reduced, it is not yet reduced to a level the Coalition judges acceptable. The effect of unsatisfactory progress toward eliminating militia control of local security has been negative in terms of perceptions of the authority and fairness of the Government of Iraq. ..."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...7/
20070712.html
_
johninz, It's not confusing at all. Iran has a very warm relationship with the Iraqi government (ISCI, Da'wa, PUK, and KDP), as you could tell from the way Ahmedinajad was welcomed in Baghad, and it's in Iran's best interest to have a friendly, stable, FEDERAL Shi'ite Southern superprovince. Iran's on-and-off romance with Muqtada al-Sadr and some elements of the Mahdi Army, on the other hand, is merely because certain Sadrists (so-called rogue elements, to use US terminology) are the only Shi'ite groups who are willing to strike against US and British interests in the south, unlike Iran's traditional allies in Iraq. Iran also had a vested interest in cleansing Baghdad and the south from Sunnis, and the Mahdi Army readily assumed that duty. In other words, Iran's limited relationship with Sadr is entirely tactical, whereas their relationship with ISCI, Da'wa, and KDP (in the form of Iraq's current government) is the strategic one.
The Sadrists remain a lower class, rag-tag group, which explains their popularity among poorer Shi'ites, whereas ISCI and Da'wa are usually aligned with Najaf's clerical establishment (Sistani) and the Shi'ite merchant and upper class. They are currently in control of most of the south, including Anand's beloved "ISF", and they intend to keep it that way. That is why they vehemently opposed provincial elections (which have not been held since 2004), despite US pressure, up until Dick Cheney's recent visit. Cheney seems to have given ISCI and Da'wa the green light to move against the Sadrists (under the pretext of rooting out criminals and rogue elements so as not to disturb Sadr's announced ceasefire) to ensure that they keep control over the south, form a Shi'ite federal region, and eventually sign oil contracts with US oil companies. The last point is probably the only one where Iranian and US interests come in conflict, unlike the first two. That is also why it's laughable when the US claims Iran is behind the Sadrist trouble in the south. Iran's responsibility for the trouble in the south is precisely the same US responsibility, as they both back the same groups and share a common goal with minor differences. Iraqis and Arabs (including US allies) have been saying the whole time that the US adventure in Iraq over the last 5 years has only served to cement Iran's influence in Iraq and the region while the US has gained absolutely nothing, but for the US administration to admit that is too embarrassing for them and the American public. They are now hoping to salvage whatever oil deals they can from the Shi'ites and Kurds before abandoning ship.
The only problem is that this move threatens to backfire and fuck up all the recent security gains in Baghdad and elsewhere and to stoke the fires of the Sadr-Badr conflict. The Sadrists are not going to sit back and watch their enemies (ISCI, Da'wa) detain most of their leadership, with US backing. Indeed, Sadrists have the manpower to take control of most of the south, or at least to deny it to their enemies.
If you are still confused, I suggest you look up some of the recent Crisis Group reports on southern Iraq. One of them is linked on this blog three posts down.
Rhusshit, why the laughing? I mean that I am hoping to watch her rip you apart you filthy bastard. I hate Layla but in a war between you two I will throw my hat for her. Fuck you RhusLania and fuck the mothers of all the American whores that belong to the IBC.
Resident Analyst I agree with all that you have said but you are trying to explain this to the shit brain Americans who barely know what the different sectarian groupings are? Better luck teaching an elephant to fly.
The U.S. response – to continue attacking and arresting Sadrist militants, including some who are not militia members; arm a Shiite tribal counterforce in the south to roll back Sadrist territorial gains; and throw its lot in with Muqtada’s nemesis, ISCI – is understandable but shortsighted. The Sadrist movement, its present difficulties aside, remains a deeply entrenched, popular mass movement of young, poor and disenfranchised Shiites. It still controls key areas of the capital, as well as several southern cities; even now, its principal strongholds are virtually unassailable. Despite intensified U.S. military operations
and stepped up Iraqi involvement, it is fanciful to expect the Mahdi Army’s defeat. Instead, heightened pressure is likely to trigger both fierce Sadrist resistance in Baghdad and an escalating intra-Shiite civil war in the south.
Citing heightened coalition pressure in Baghdad, Sadrists repeatedly accuse ISCI and its Badr Corps of conspiring with the U.S. to suppress the Mahdi Army. They also see U.S. hypocrisy – backing one Shiite militia against another rather than fighting them all. A Sadrist teacher argued: “The occupying forces have adopted a double standard in their dealings with armed groups. We had understood the surge to target all armed groups, but it soon became apparent that was not the case. It is focused on the Sadrists only”.
Most disturbing to the Sadrists is ISCI’s virtual monopoly in – and, in their estimation, tyrannical rule over – the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. According to them, the Badr
Corps is engaged in brutal and arbitrary conduct aimed principally at their sympathisers,68 while ISCI gives
preferential treatment to Iranian pilgrims and real estate investors.
For its part, Iran’s leadership appears reluctant to establish a genuine military and strategic relationship with the Sadrists. Notably, the U.S. does not claim that Tehran has provided the Mahdi Army with the modern weaponry it supplies to Hizbollah, a step that would radically shift the balance of power and nature of the battle. More generally, one cannot compare Iran’s relationship with Hizbollah, which relies on the Lebanese movement’s professionalism and strict discipline, to its ties with the far more disorganised and decentralised Sadrist movement. An ISCI sympathiser said, “the Iranians are well aware of the fact that the Sadrist current is unmanageable. Their cooperation
is purely tactical”. In Basra, where Iran has acquired considerable interests and influence, its support for the Sadrists has been limited, even prior to the suspension of Mahdi Army activities.
Iran’s strategy appears tailored to the reality of an undisciplined, disorganised, operationally flexible
militia. While it may not have opened regular channels of communication with the Mahdi Army per se, at a minimum
Tehran has done so with several units and individual leaders. As a result, Iran can maintain pressure on coalition forces and, in the event of a U.S .or Israeli attack, would be
able to rapidly flood Iraq with sophisticated weaponry that would significantly boost the militia’s lethal potential. In September 2007, a U.S. officer noted: There is growing evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is frustrated with Badr’s operational inefficiency. Badr is good at killing Sunnis, but that’s it. It would never fight against
the U.S. and, if it did, it wouldn’t last a single round. The Revolutionary Guard may well have reached the conclusion that the Mahdi Army, due
to its grassroots support, is the better suited force to carry out retaliatory actions [against the U.S.]
on Iraqi soil in response to any [military strike] on Iranian territory.
resident analyst, do you have a problem with the ISF moving against JAM?
_
Saad: "I hate Layla but in a war between you two I will throw my hat for her."
I know, Saad! That was just funny. Go ahead and throw your hat for Layla the psychoba'ath.
resident analyst, do you have a problem with the ISF moving against JAM?
I have a problem with the US using Badr to use the "ISF" to eliminate their opponents. The "ISF" is not a national army acting in the interests of the state--if there even is such a thing as an Iraqi "state" at the moment. The "ISF" have participated in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and heterodox Shi'ite groups in the near past. Note also that many ISF elements are refusing to fight the Mahdi Army in Basra and the local police have abandoned their arms and stations to them. The local Iraqi press is reporting that, in Abu Al-Khasib, south of Basra, the Mahdi Army has taken over ISF tanks and armored vehicles and are patrolling the streets with them.
Anonymous, citing from somewhere: "Notably, the U.S. does not claim that Tehran has provided the Mahdi Army with the modern weaponry it supplies to Hizbollah, a step that would radically shift the balance of power and nature of the battle"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20080...dr_s_stronghold
Mahdi Army commanders have told the AP that the militia has recently taken delivery of new weapons supplied by backers in Iran. The arsenal, they said, included roadside bombs, anti-aircraft guns and Soviet-designed Grad rockets.
They also said an infusion of cash, also from Iran, helped the militia set up new command centers equipped with Internet-linked computers, fax machines and satellite mobile phones. They have also received global positioning system devices, they said. "
I expect an infusion of pro-JAM propaganda from our resident chaos-mongers. Killing, kidnapping, initidating, sectarian cleansing of the Sunnis? Bygones- they're upping the chaos & bloodshed in Iraq so they must be swell. Honeymoon's over, Sunni ex-'Resistance'. Da boys got a new horse to back.
_
resident analyst: "The "ISF" is not a national army acting in the interests of the state"
Isn't getting rid of JAM in the interest of the state?
_
ra: "the Mahdi Army has taken over ISF tanks and armored vehicles and are patrolling the streets with them."
The local press reported yesterday (which Bruno happily linked) that several US soldiers and 'hammers' were captured. Not true. If JAM does take over armored vehicles, how long will they last if the IA asks for some air support from our apaches?
_
Well, after three days of mortars being launched into the 'Green Zone', I'm not sure how convincing anyone's argument might be when describing the effectiveness of the 'Surge' and its ability to quell any remaining resistance to America's military takeover of Iraq. After how many years? Five? Seriously and not even their embassy staff are feeling protected??
How safe are Americans and ther lackeys in the 'Green Zone' you might ask?
"The State Department has instructed all personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad not to leave reinforced structures due to incoming insurgent rocket fire that has killed two American government workers this week".
"Employees are required to wear helmets and other protective gear if they must venture outside....and they are strongly advised to sleep in blast-resistant locations instead of the less secure trailers that most occupy".
Ah yes, another successful military venture by the democratizers, winning the hearts and minds of an oppressed population where ever they go!
No more casual swims in the embassy pool for the time being!
Do you not read? I just said that Iran has a tactical alliance with Sadr, using it to strike against US and British presence in the south. This will continue as long as the US rattles the sabre against Iran. No one here is pro-Sadr (or pro-Badr, for that matter, except our gullible useful idiots). What is entirely suspect though is that the US uses "ISF" to strike against armed groups that attack the US. It has never used the "ISF" to attack armed groups that have threatened the interests of Iraqis (Badr Brigade, the Mahdi Army when it was cleansing entire towns and districts from Sunnis, Kurdish Peshmerga taking over Christian, Yezidi, Turkmen and Arab land in the north, PKK, etc.). A classic textbook example of American double standards at play here. What's equally amusing is that the current Iraqi "government" is doing exactly what it accused Saddam of doing when he moved against criminals and armed groups that were acting against the state under his rule.
The local press reported yesterday (which Bruno happily linked) that several US soldiers and 'hammers' were captured. Not true. If JAM does take over armored vehicles, how long will they last if the IA asks for some air support from our apaches?
Oh, trust me, they will last very long. Not even your entire arsenal of Apaches can dislodge the Mahdi Army from its urban strongholds, if the last five years of guerrilla warfare has proven anything. There is no way you are going to destroy a popular, guerrilla group such as the Mahdi Army with all the armies in the world. You tried it with the Sunni insurgents for years, and you only started to gain success with non-military methods (paying them off, offering them a piece of the cake). Not that the US will have any problem bombing the slums of Basra, as they have done in Sadr City in the past. You're just going to regret it when it gets out of hand later. You also seem to share Anand's romanticized vision of the "IA" and "ISF", so there is no use arguing with you.
"A classic textbook example of American double standards at play here. What's equally amusing is that the current Iraqi "government" is doing exactly what it accused Saddam of doing when he moved against criminals and armed groups that were acting against the state under his rule."
Well put RA. Will these people understand?
ra: "No one here is pro-Sadr "
Sadr can stay in Qom, probably will. Wouldn't you agree that JAM was/is a threat to Iraqis? Aren't they a threat to the Iraqi economy in the south?
ra: "It has never used the "ISF" to attack armed groups that have threatened the interests of Iraqis"
The ISF were never strong enough or loyal enough to do that until now. Do you think they could have moved against them? Haven't you, and others, just now linked & cited how JAM is capturing territory & equipment from them?
ra: "doing exactly what it accused Saddam of doing when he moved against criminals and armed groups "
Saddam was completely indisciminate. If the IA razes Basra then it will be a better comparison.
_
indisciminate = indiscriminate
_
Anonymous as everyone knows that the Mahdi Army has also received training from Hizballa. No one has been able to root Hizballa out of southern Lebanon and if the Americans would pull their own heads from their stinky, disgusting, rotten asses they would learn that they will be unable to make the same happen in Iraq. Nor am I a fan of Sadr but even less so for Hakim but if one stops listening to the American propaganda and see what is happening they will know that what these fools are trying to do is useless.
PM orders not to prosecute gunmen laying down arms in Basra
Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Wednesday, ordered not to prosecute gunmen who lay arms and surrender voluntarily to the security authorities in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, while the security operation Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) continued in its third day there.
Did Saddam ever do that?
_
Saad: "Nor am I a fan of Sadr but even less so for Hakim but if one stops listening to the American propaganda and see what is happening they will know that what these fools are trying to do is useless."
So JAM can have Basra? Funny how you put JAM before Hakim (and Layla before me).
_
Sadr can stay in Qom, probably will.
Sadr is irrelevant. He has actually been calling for calm the last few days. The Mahdi Army is a highly disorganized, decentralized armed group. There is no central command that oversees their armed activities. They are hotheads and are responding to what they see as an indiscriminate, unprovoked assault on them by the US-backed government. They are prepared to burn the whole country and make it a nightmare for all if this assault continues.
Wouldn't you agree that JAM at JAM was/is a threat to Iraqis? Aren't they a threat to the Iraqi economy in the south?
A threat yes, but you can't compare Sadrist petty oil smuggling using small boats and minor criminal rackets to the organized plundering that Hakim and Co. have in mind once they completely eliminate their ragtag opponents. Have you ever heard about the activities of his son and successor Ammar Al-Hakim in Najaf and elsewhere? They are more of a threat to Badrist and US influence. That's the idea behind the timing of this whole operation.
The ISF were never strong enough or loyal enough to do that until now.
What made the "ISF" so loyal, all of a sudden? Loyal to whom? Has the composition of the "ISF" changed over the last few months? Not that I know of.
johnin(n)z,
Clancy used to be one of my favorite authors several books ago. He kind of lost me after ummm...I believe it was "Rainbow Six". Yup, just checked, that was the one. A totally cartoonish book. At the time, I think he was going through a divorce, so I kind of wrote it off to emotional upheaval. But he really has never recovered. His best is still "The Hunt for Red October", which was his first novel.
resident analyist,
...and eventually sign oil contracts with US oil companies.
Must you be so cynical? Last I heard it was Irish companies that were ahead of the pack. And I've heard that those sneaky Russians are muscling in.
As for the timing being connected to Cheney's visit, I've heard this thing was planned for some time now. That is, even before Cheney's visit was a plan.
Dang, out of time.
Night all.
@ Anonymous | 03.27.08 - 6:30 pm
Agree with your first statement. "Burn the whole country and make it a nightmare" - sounds familiar.
Anon: "They are more of a threat to Badrist and US influence."
Not since '04. Lately they were worse to the Sunnis, and to Basra. They were only a nuissance to the US, especially as they obeyed the 'cease-fire'.
Anon: "That's the idea behind the timing of this whole operation."
So you have a problem only with the timing?
Anon: "What made the "ISF" so loyal, all of a sudden? Loyal to whom?"
Not all of a sudden, they've been steadily improving over several years. The IA is much less sectarian these days, and their loyalty if much more to the state than it was.
_
Rhus (the never served little bitch): ....Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Wednesday, ordered not to prosecute gunmen who lay arms and surrender voluntarily to the security authorities in the southern Iraqi city of Basra...
"Did Saddam ever do that"?
He didn't have to. But if he ever did, the outcome would most likely have been the same! No one in their right mind would lay down their arms for the Puppet, the ISF, the Americans or Saddam.
John the Ba'athist: "He didn't have to."
What do you mean? Are you disagreeing with resident analyst that Saddam acted against armed groups who moved against him?
_
Me: "If JAM does take over armored vehicles, how long will they last if the IA asks for some air support from our apaches?"
Anonymous: "Oh, trust me, they will last very long."
I meant the armored vehicles themselves, not JAM as a guerilla movement you guys are starting to fall in love with. Armored vehicles are very easy to shoot from Apaches. And, once they are identified as being JAM, there can be little question that it is appropriate to destroy them.
_
Rhus(TNSLB): "The IA is much less sectarian these days, and their loyalty if much more to the state than it was".
This is maniacal at best! It's almost as though you were starting to believe your own rhetoric?
The IA's shelf life is totally dependant upon the continued prescence of your 160,000, along with the best air support technology and money will allow!
Please believe that!
There is no autonomy or self sustainment for you puppet leader or your paid mercenaries, following, yet another, realization of a failed enterprise and retreat!
John the Ba'athist: "The IA's shelf life is totally dependant upon the continued prescence of your 160,000, along with the best air support technology and money will allow!"
Of course they need our support for now. What does that have to do with the fact that they are much less sectarian than they were, and more loyal to the state?
Hey ra and Anonymouses: are you Iraq? If so, do you support attacks against the ISF? Saad, do you?
_
Enough already!
Just kill them.
Kill them all.
Kill them now.
RhusLancia, please don't bore us to death with your Anand style ridiculous questions.
@ RhusLancia
(re: Rat Jeffrey, 03.27.08 - 1:48 pm).
[King Rat] "Italiano, The funny part for me is that Zeyad's is the only comments page you're allowed on".
Now, Rhussie dear, as you know I was NOT banned by a single Iraqi blogger.
Your Glorious Chief, Rat Schuster, is instead banned INDEED from dozens of Iraqi blogs.
And, since this comical liar is your Chief, everybody is better able to realise how trustworthy are you, Rhus, my dear simian "bitch" !
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 03.27.08 - 2:16 pm.
[Lynnette] "If it brings you joy to assume that our guys on the ground don't know anything about what is going on, fine. But they might really have some idea of where munitions are coming from and going to, as they are intimately involved in the receiving end of those weapons".
Dear Beastie in Minnesota, both you and your "guys on the ground" (that collection of idiotic animals) would be much wiser if you were to learn from our anonymous Resident Analyst, instead of believing that lame (and vain) Bushist propaganda on the Sadrists as the real allies of Iran ...
BTW, thank you for telling me about the Kid's last post.
STFU IDIOT, my questions could be answered quite easily in far fewer words than it takes you to point out how boring you think they are. Why evade them? Shouldn't they be proud of their opinions, and willing to share them with us in clear, unambiguous terms?
_
News:
225 Iraqis, 1 US Soldier, 3 US Contractors Killed; 538 Iraqis Wounded
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?
...articleid=12591
Vampire:
Bush: 'Normalcy Is Returning to Iraq'
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homep...tory/
31825.html
"U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces failed for a third consecutive day to oust Shiite militias from the southern city of Basra on Thursday, even as President Bush hailed the operation as a sign of the growing strength of Iraq's federal government."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ld/
5654832.html
"Violence also broke out in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kirkuk, Baqouba and other cities. The fighting in Basra with the Mahdi Army, the armed wing of the political movement led by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, set off violent clashes in cities throughout the country and major demonstrations in Sadr City, the huge Baghdad slum that is al-Sadr's base of power, and other Shiite neighborhoods in the capital. [...] "They made this crisis because the Sadr movement, they feel, will be an obstacle in the upcoming elections. They feel they won't succeed in the elections," said Abu Ali, a Mahdi Army member in Sadr City. Ali said violence would soar if al-Maliki did not halt the operation and meet al-Sadr's demands for negotiations. "We will be more determined. Enough humiliation," he said. "
http://www.twincities.com/nation...?
nclick_check=1
"Heavy clashes erupted in Naseriya city, one of the biggest cities in the southern Iraqi province of Thi-Qaar, Iraqi eyewitnesses said on Thursday."
http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenc...896&
Language=en
"U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad" [...] He also said Iraqi forces were calling on U.S. and British forces for help. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he was not authorized to speak with reporters. "I think the government can't win this battle without interference of Americans or British," he said. "I think the aid or assistance is on the way." In his view, the Iraqi military needed air coverage and help with logistics and intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...8032700781.html
Al-Maliki, in office since May 2006, is almost certain to pay a heavy political price if he fails against Shiite militias in battles that began in the southern city of Basra and then flared in Baghdad and other cities. [...] "Iraqi security officials said two special police units dispatched to Basra from Baghdad have been beset by dissent. An army battalion also suffered a number of desertions "We did not expect the fight to be this intense," said an officer from one of the two commando units. He recounted how he and his men were pinned down Tuesday by mortars and sniper fire outside the Basra neighborhood of Tamimiyah, one of several densely populated Mahdi Army strongholds in the city."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ld/
5655132.html
Good analysis from WSWS:
"A great deal is at stake for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has moved to Basra to take personal charge of the operation. He has been under pressure to act against the Sadrists, not only from Washington, but from the two Shiite factions on which he rests—his own Da’wa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI). The latter in particular has been engaged in a protracted power struggle with the Sadrists across southern Iraq in preparation for provincial elections due in October. ISCI regards the Sadrist movement as a barrier to its ambition to establish an autonomous Shiite region in southern Iraq similar to the Kurdish region in the north. The Sadrist movement, with its large base of support in Baghdad, supports a strong central government and is opposed to ISCI’s plans. Basra, which is Iraq’s second largest city, a major port and adjacent to the country’s southern oil fields, is at the centre of this rivalry."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../iraq-
m28.shtml
Good analysis from Raimondo:
"The Mystery of American Foreign Policy - Why are we propping up the pro-Iranian Maliki faction in Iraq?"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?
a...articleid=12596
Resident Analyst -
Your appraisal of the situation seems comprehensive and concise. It dovetails with the analysis that several other informed Iraqis have provided me. Thanks also for the very clear way that you explained the relationship of Sadr and ISCI (SCIRI) with Iran in strategic and tactical terms.
This post:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=46129#386888
... is one of the best bits of analysis I've read lately. Thanks.
I second Brunos praise for that post, very informative.
One thing that strikes me is that if JAM is the main target and preventing the Sadrists from winning elections and taking over the south in the fall is the reason - then what does that say about the elections?
Basically that the party with the strongest militia on the ground will be victorious, right?
Just like in any healthy democracy...
Marcus, do you think JAM should be confronted, or left as it is?
_
I wanna protest!
Here I was, reading the Blog like a good boy, and RhusLancia suddenly starts rabbiting on about JAM, like we all know what he's on about. Say what? Not a name to me.
Tried Google - just stuff about fruit. Tried Google News - nuffin. Finally found it with JAM IRAQ in Google News. It's just a fancy new name for the Mehdi Army. Has RhusLancia caught Anand's initialese problem?
"...JAM as a guerilla movement you guys are starting to fall in love with..."
Hell, some of us don't like jam on our quagmires. We want peanut butter on our SNAFUs. Honey on our clust**fucks.
Anyway, early days, but so far the IA and the MNF seem to be having some trouble getting the JAM back in the jar.
Best of luck, Rhus. Here, try some honey.
Sorry, johninnz. I was trying to be specific in differentiating between al-Sadr and the Sadrist political movement, and the Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) which is their head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wing.
_
As opposed to the ISF's and IP's "head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wings," I presume. They're the good guys, right?
Nummy honey?
johninnz: "As opposed to the ISF's and IP's "head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wings," I presume."
They used to have serious problems, yes. They are getting much better now. But the IA (Iraqi Army) has made the most progress and by many accounts is becoming well respected.
_
RhusLancia
"Marcus, do you think JAM should be confronted, or left as it is?"
I am not sure they needed to be confronted head on while they seemed to be sticking to their cease fire. What is the point of praising them for the cease fire and its contribution to lessening the violence and then use their stand down to attack them? Why now?
Furthermore it seems generally agreed upon that the Sadrists would win an election in the south if present terms are left as they are. If the "ISF" plan to counter that by taking out JAM there must be more to it. JAM themselves are not numerous enough to affect the outcome of a popular vote. It therefor looks like the plan is to: 1. take out JAM in order to 2. be able to prevent the Sadrists from winning. I.e, the Sadrists are not going to be allowed to win by popular vote, which they could do.
Have you asked yourself: "why now".
Instead of just going with the impulse in your spine that supports every shot fired and every bomb dropped, as long as the US of A officially backs it, without question?
Come on, Marcus. As the long American Army convoys wind their way back through the desert to Kuwait, RhusLancia will still be telling us how well it all went in Iraq, and how brilliantly the retreat is being conducted.
"We used to have serious problems, yes. We are getting much better now."
Marcus, haven't we seen many articles lately detailing the security situation in Basra? How the militias control it and run amok? How bad it is for women? The crime & smuggling? etc? Why now? Why not now? Diyala, Mosul, Basra... is it possible, is it conceivable for you, that they are going to where they are needed in an effort to stabilize the country?
_
Also, note that al-Sadr & the Sadrists are not under attack (yet) specifically. The militia is.
_
RhusLancia
I do not believe that "they [ISF] are going to where they are needed in an effort to stabilize the country", no. I believe they are trying to eliminate JAM to be able to prevent the Sadrists from an otherwise predicted win in many provincial elections.
Why else leave them alone when they are running amok in Baghdad and suddenly target them while they are observing a truce?
It's not like I am a fan of Moktada, he seems like an idiot to me. It's more that I don't see why the DAWA/SIIC/Fadhila partys/militias should get a cart blanche to squeeze the Sadrists (or anyone else) out of the political process by using force. I question wether they are any better than the Sadrists when it comes to representing Iraqis.
Marcus, see my comment @ 4:41 am.
You don't think Basra needed sorting out?
_
Layla writes truthfully, Muqtada and Chalabi have been close allies since before the fall of Saddam.
They remain allies. I am not sure who is closer to Khamenei between the two, but both are Khamenei's friends.
JAM has not been attacked by the IA outside al Basrah province, as best as I can tell based on public source information.
In Basrah, the PM has given all violent militias 72 hours to peacefully disperse. I hope they will. From today's blogger brief, many of the militants being targeted aren't associated with Muqtada.
The US colonel giving the brief said he wasn't very familiar with what the IA was doing, since MNF-I (and MNC-I) weren't involved in the operations. PM Maliki and the BaOC were running the operation on their own. {The Southern four provinces are “PIC” Provincial Iraqi Control, like Kurdistan is.}
In fact the US colonel said he was watching BBC to try to find out what was happening.
It is hard to determine anything definitive ATT. We need time to assess what is really happening in Basrah.
http://www.defenselink.mil/
dodcm..._transcript.pdf
Bruno, read and weep. Especially about the Taji National Depot. It has 37 different shops for constructing and repairing various pieces of equipment, including wheeled armored vehicles. This equipment is being used to “SMASH” your precious resistance. Oh, and lest I mention, how many shops does the Afrikaner army have?
Further note that 13 out of the 16 forming IA divisions will be able to manage all their transportation, supply, maintenance and other logistics needs on their own by the end of 2008. {Bruno is crying copious tears.}
The IA moved two army brigades to Al Basrah without any MNF-I help. Translation, they did it on their own. I wonder if your Afrikaner army can do that. No need to answer. All of us are smart enough to figure that out on our own.
The IA 1-14 (old IA 3-
in Basrah is a level C1 brigade. “C1.” Only 1/10th of the Soviet divisions in the 1980s were C1. Are any Africaaner army divisions C1 today? Ha Ha Ha. The IA 1-14 is in the process of being upgraded to tracked mechanized one company at a time.
The IA 3-9 T55 Tank bde in Basrah is a C2 near C1 brigade. And its BSB is also C2 near C1.
The IA 3-14 was created a few weeks ago. It is completely untested and very green. Let us see how they perform. (they are also probably going to be upgraded to tracked mechanized.)
It is true that the trashy IA 2-14 (former 5-10, former SIB) is a walking disaster in Basrah. It needs to be taken offline and be completely rebuilt from the ground up.
Bruno use to link to articles about IA 2-14 in 2006 and 2007 infinitum with smile from ear to ear. He still is. Well shame on you Bruno. Can’t you find any Iraqi brigade to criticize that is not a former SIB or 5th IAD?
So far the IA has not been ordered to take out the JAM in Basrah. I hope that all the Basrah militias comply with Maliki’s 72 hour ultimatum. If not, then any rogue JAM who decide that their loyalty is to Khamenei instead of the the noble Sayed Muqtada, may peace be upon him, and Muqtada’s word of honor; will be dismembered right before Bruno’s eyes by IA 1-14 and IA 3-9 (they won’t be able to go into the narrow streets with their tanks and wheeled APCs.)
I just hope that 2 Iraqi army brigades will be enough for Basrah province (Iraq’s third most populous.) Ninevah province has 9 IA brigades at present by contrast. All the Ninevah brigades are near C1 and very high quality by all accounts. In fact they are better quality than most brigades in the Syrian army {which is an important reason by Asad is trying so hard to destroy Iraq.}
Many Basrah police are a British made disaster, as is Bruno’s perpetual cause of joy—his beloved disastrously British trained IA 2-14.
PM Maliki is upset that this confrontation came too soon for his taste. He would have preferred that the IA 3-14 became a little more experienced before a showdown. But PM Maliki is tough. The IRGC Kuds force will find that they have met their match in PM Maliki, 4 star general Mohan and Mohan’s Basrah Operations Command.
Oh, a final body blow to Bruno. It looks like the 5th IAD—long a source of great joy to Bruno, John the Canadian Baathist and the rest of the Baathist brood—has improved significantly in the last 9 months. They are still no 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th IAD. But they are getting better (even though the good US colonel complained that 5th IAD was far too small for Diyala province):
http://www.defenselink.mil/
dodcm..._transcript.pdf
Anand, that's an awful lot of promises and spin to cover up the fact that RIGHT NOW, your vaunted ISF are getting mauled by a bunch of part-timers with smallarms.
Thank you so much for that interesting and informative post, anand. It is very encouraging to hear about the mighty formations of the Iraqi Army, with their storied and historic names - 1IA, 2IA, 3IA ...
A Regiment of the Dublin Fusiliers is setting sail for Iraq even as we speak - they are specialists in the art of Rapid Retreat, and keen to share their skills with the IA.
Did you know that PM Maliki (may peace be upon him) is actually part-Irish? You just need to look at him - the jowly face, the hangdog expression - why, I see it in the mirror every morning.
I wish him the luck of Old Ireland in his current travails, and will pray for him if I remember to.
Oh, sure, once the US rushes troops and aircraft down in support, things might change.
But man for man, Maliki's so-called soldiers are being beat up against the Sadrists.
That exposes your propaganda for the drivel it is.
Is that a fake PeteS or a very funny PeteS?
It's me!
Very good!
Yes, I agree that "1 ID", "2 ID" and so forth are far more inspiring than, say, "Hammorabi" or "Adnan" or "Medina" divisions. That's because of the historical allusions to the numbers 1, 2 ,3 and so forth. Gives you that feeling that you're fighting for something ...
Just making a point, Bruno.
Don't argue with the buggers, or try to reason with them. Commonsense is not in their vocabulary.
But they can't take ridicule, they just give up if you poke fun at them.
PeteS and RhusLancia are prime examples.
And anand makes them look like intellectual giants.
Damn Haloscan.
"The streets are controlled by Mehdi Army fighters, many of whom say they expect an all-out American attack, though this seems unlikely since the US says that an attack on the Shia militias is a wholly Iraqi affair.
In Basra, Iraqi forces have cordoned off seven districts but appear stalled in their effort to dislodge the Mehdi Army fighters. Masked gunmen in some cases have captured or seized abandoned Iraqi army vehicles and painted pro-Sadrist slogans on their armour. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ity-
801776.html
ANAND will explain how abandoning heavy equipment to light infantry and running like rabbits is a cunning new winner tactic to ... um, to ... well ... maybe he should explain.
That's my boy!
[johninnz] "Just making a point, Bruno.
Don't argue with the buggers, or try to reason with them."
Arguing is in my blood, so help me. But they make good foils ... 
US bases and Green Zone get hammered again:
http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/...9f-
bb1911884e23
BAGHDAD , 27 March 2008 (IRIN) - The humanitarian situation and aid operations continued to deteriorate in Basra as heavy fighting between government forces and militiamen of the Mahdi Army led by radical Shia leader Moqtada al-Sadr entered its third day, Salih Hmoud, head of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society's office in Basra, told IRIN.
"The humanitarian situation is getting worse by the minute - not the hour or the day - due to clashes taking place in the streets; as a result, the humanitarian effort has been severely hampered and paralysed,"
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/
...3950f428d71.htm
Laith Kubba former Iraqi government spokesman says Iran will be the winner......He gives a pessimistic opinion on what will be the result. This is not to say I have much faith in what Laith Kubba says. I remember when he was handing out leaflets outside the door of Kensington Town Hall in London. Iraqis attending the event were tearing them up. He was asked to move away by one of the organisers. Major General Patrick Cordingley disagrees with him.
Video available of last nights BBC2 "Newsnight" programme
Click on "Latest Programme" and scroll on to about halfway through the programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ght/
default.stm
Bruno,
You don't make arguments. You serve SPAM. Get real.
*
[marcus] "One thing that strikes me is that if JAM is the main target and preventing the Sadrists from winning elections and taking over the south in the fall is the reason - then what does that say about the elections?"
Exactly that they will be a product of violence and not the will of the people. Of course us Westerners won't hear about this via the MSM. We'll hear whatever doctored message the Americans and their puppets care to present.
[rhus] "Marcus, do you think JAM should be confronted, or left as it is?"
[marcus] I am not sure they needed to be confronted head on while they seemed to be sticking to their cease fire."
I agree. Furthermore, despite the official attitude of confronting ALL militias, it's abundantly clear that its the Sadrists under fire and that the other militias are being left alone or are part of the actual assault on the Madhi Army.
[rhus]"Marcus, haven't we seen many articles lately detailing the security situation in Basra? How the militias control it"
As if the BADR BRIGADE, the Iranian and American sponsored wolves in ISF clothing are going to be any better! Really, now, tell us about the LIBERAL ISCI (SCIRI) and their MEGA respect for women and the law.
[rhus] "I was trying to be specific in differentiating between al-Sadr and the Sadrist political movement, and the Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) which is their head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wing.
[johninnz] "As opposed to the ISF's and IP's "head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wings," I presume."
Touche'. What I would have said. The "but we're reformed" twaddle is nothing more than spin to cover the fact that the death squads have done what they were designed to do - kill influential Baathists and Sunnis, and to ignite the flames of civil war.
Why hello, Jeffrey. I did indeed notice your latest dropping - I mean, post - on this thread.
It appears that you only appreciate discourse without reference to the facts. In which case, I can appreciate why your sensibilities might be offended by me. It's just too bad, old chap.
Here, we try to keep our feet on the ground.
I guess Jeffrey also wants his ration of the news, which is why he's been popping in and out every so often.
Come get the CHEESE, Jeffrey.
[um ayad] "This is not to say I have much faith in what Laith Kubba says. I remember when he was handing out leaflets outside the door of Kensington Town Hall in London. Iraqis attending the event were tearing them up. He was asked to move away by one of the organisers."
Now THAT is interesting. Thanks for the bit of gossip.
So much for the Iraqi-only operation: here comes the bombardment by the USAF, as I predicted:
"A British military spokesman in Basra says U.S. warplanes have carried out at least two airstrikes overnight in Iraq's southern oil port."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/...article/
7418635
"The Shiite militia the Mahdi Army increased its grip on Basra Friday amid fierce fighting, with no arms handed over to the Iraqi army as demanded by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. [...] Witnesses told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa the militants had not handed over any arms, and had further spread across Iraq's second largest city. Al-Maliki meanwhile extended until April 8 a deadline for the Mahdi Army, loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, to lay down weapons"
http://
news.monstersandcritics.c...dline__Roundup_
Over a week extension to the "72" hour deadline? This Maliki is fearsome! I herby give the Americans a 21342167 hour deadline to leave Iraq. If they don't then there will be BIG trouble ...
"Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra. His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...ith_madhi_army/
An event that was predicted ... and denied by the usual misinformed bunch, like Anand.
Haven't we seen enough of this?
Like all other adherents of the death cult of Islam, the Iraqis are treacherous, murderous, worthless savages.
Just kill them!
Kill them all.
Kill them now.
U.S. forces drawn deeper into Iraq crackdown
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces were drawn deeper into Iraq's four day-old crackdown on Shi'ite militants on Friday, launching air strikes in Basra for the first time and battling militants in Baghdad.
The fighting has exposed a rift within the majority Shi'ite community and put pressure on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose forces have failed to drive fighters loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr off the streets of Iraq's second-largest city.
Defense Minister Abdel Qader Jassim acknowledged at a news conference in Basra that Iraqi security forces had been caught off-guard by the strength of the opposition.
"We supposed that this operation would be a normal operation, but we were surprised by this resistance and have been obliged to change our plans and our tactics," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/
w...423186320080328
Wapo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...8032700781.html
"Some [US] officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing "the first salvo in upcoming elections," the administration official said.
"His dog in that fight is that he is basically allied with the Badr Corps" against forces loyal to Sadr, the [US] official said. "It's not a pretty picture.""
RhusLancia will now tell us that the reporter must have got hold of a corrupt and untrustworthy US official, because this is simply a move from a noble leader of the democratic Iraqi government to combat crime for the benefit of all citizens of Iraq. There is NO political aspect of it at all. Right Rhus?
'My Beloved Country Is Torn Apart'
Can you imagine watching on helplessly as your country is torn apart day by day? One Baghdad blogger gives a stark insight into life in Iraq's capital now under curfew to try to contain the violence.
To begin with, I think first of all my country's name should be changed from Iraq to the land of sorrows or the land of blood bath!
Don't be surprised but this is the reality in which all Iraqis are living through.
After five years of the (liberation) and the promises of providing free and prosperous life, Iraqis did not witness one single day of those promises. On the contrary, our days went by from bad to worse, and maybe to the worst in the coming days.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/
arti...1310965,00.html
Oh, and from the same article:
"Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials."
Who on earth, apart from some of our resident yanks who swallow everything and anything their lying administration throws at them, is possibly going to believe this bullshit?
- Oh no, we knew nothing about it. Our cordon around Sadr city just happened to coincide with Malikis operation against the Sadrists in Basra. Pure coincidence. We decided to seal of Sadr city, not because of Malikis planned assault but because... because... anyway, it's an Iraqi operation. 100 percent.
Bruno: "I guess Jeffrey also wants his ration of the news, which is why he's been popping in and out every so often.
Come get the CHEESE, Jeffrey."
So you admit your "news" articles are cheesy ??
Marcus: "There is NO political aspect of it at all. Right Rhus?"
I don't know if there is or not. But I'm not determined to say "IS" when it could be "NOT". Two things:
a) if it is political, don't you think it might actually INCREASE sympathy for the sadrists among the people, if their sympathy is genuine. Also, you mentioned fair elections above. Don't you think there's a risk JAM could pull shenanigans at the polls?
2) remember Diyala? Was it political? Diyala was hot a few weeks ago- increase operations, CLC on strike, etc. Remember how happy Bruno was at the possibility of Iraq unraveling because of Diyala? Well, now Diyala is quiet. No more strike. Hardly any violence. JAM is not inflamed there yet.
It is almost like... those who want to see Iraq as a clust**f*ck or a defweet for the Amrekkkans will simply latch onto whatever the day's events are and hype them like crazy to see what they want to see. My prediction? In a few weeks you all will be hyping something else.
_
Regarding Bruno's article http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...ith_madhi_army/
1) Abu Iman is not IA, he is IP. The Brits blew it as only they can with the Basrah IP
2) The 2-14 IA was never trained as IA. They are former SIB that were redesignated IA. Many of them belonged to local criminal and militia gangs all along. That a few of their vehicles are know held by militias on the ground is no surprise.
Bruno, the current hostilities in Basrah were not planned by the IA. There was certainly no concerted effort to go after JAM. PM Maliki is trying to separate JAM loyal to Muqtada from rogue JAM and rogue militias--many of which are loyal to the IRGC Kuds force. Hence the extended seize fire.
There hasn’t been an all out clash between JAM and the IA. There hasn’t been much of a clash at all outside Basrah. If the IA was given orders to go after JAM, JAM would be smashed.
For now the national seize fire between JAM and the ISF is in place. Read the briefing on Diyala. No conflict with JAM in Diyala at the moment. 8th IAD (upper South) is also not attacking JAM.
Any rogue units that do not honor Muqtada’s word of honor need to be dismantled by the IA and the rest of the ISF, in my opinion.
Regarding names, many Iraqi military formations have Arabic names. I avoid using their Arabic names because it might be confusing for some readers. Would you prefer me to use the Arabic names?
Many Arab names for specific IA units are summarized here (please click on specific IA units): http://www.longwarjournal.org/oo...g/oob/
index.php
The Brits did the Dem/Obama plan in Basra. Too bad for Basra, but at least we can see what might happen if the US withdraws from Iraq before Iraqis are ready.
PeteS, am I imagining all the past comments & articles about how Basra was overrun with gangs and how bad conditions are and so on? Could you check the archives?
_
No, RhusLancia. Do your own dirty work.
I've got a headache.
I recommend Mohammed Fadhil's article "Behind the Bloodshed in Basra"
Fadhil makes essentially the same points as Anthony Cordesman, so why don't I walk away feeling like rubbing out the Sadrites is a bad thing?
I've also fisked Cordesman's article here: "Warning: Too much happiness could lead to dancing"
Anand has officially lost it.
Hey, smelly Hindu, does it make you feel big and strong when you memorize all these military abbreviations and acronyms? Do you also have toy soldiers and tanks that you play with at home? Have you served one day of your life in any military? Hindi, US, Iraqi, or otherwise?
PeteSinnz, PeteS's archives can prove if I'm completely off-base in thinking Basra had some serious criminality issues prior to the GoI/ISF* taking it on.
* GoI = Government of Iraq
* ISF = Iraqi Security Forces
_
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
IP, IA, 2-14 IA, SIB, JAM, ISF, 8th IAD
Here is another one for you to add to your vocabulary you ignorant Indian try this
TFOO, KIS-IM, EFF-U, FAG
Why is no one reporting or blogging about the mass punishment campaign that the Americans and their puppet government are waging against us Iraqis who have nothing to do with this conflict? We've had no electricity or water or fuel for days. Why does no one care?
Anonymous re the lack of electricity and water thats the sacrifice that some Iraqi bloggers and what AmeriKKKan war cheer leaders expected you to make when Bush decided to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq.
I want to apologize if my writing has been unclear. Please see
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
mu...Definitions.pdf
for the list of acronyms that I use. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask.
I look forward to a respectful exchange of ideas and information.
Anonymous, what specific city or province are you refering to?
Basrah?
As you probably know, one of two main oil pipelines in Southern Iraq was blown up. It will be some time before electricity and electricity sensitive services (water, sewage etc.) can be restored.
This was why PM Maliki went south to Basrah and ordered ISF operations to restore basic services and oil transportation. I hope the ISF succeeds in these tasks.
Italian,
...instead of believing that lame (and vain) Bushist propaganda on the Sadrists as the real allies of Iran ...
No, no, I am sure that everyone in Iraq is an ally of Iran!
Okay, let's suppose that everyone here who says that Hakim/Maliki are in cahoots with Iran are right. What exactly does that mean? Do you really believe that Iran will have an easier time of it in Iraq then we are, if we were to withdraw? They are under sanctions now. Their economy isn't that great. They are spending (how much money?) on foreign adventures in other countries now. Which will increase if they expand their reach across the ME as some people fear. Iraq's problems will become theirs if they become "intimate". They may find out, just like China in Africa, that "empire" isn't always easy. Then, of course, there would be those nasty Americans waiting in the wings to play spoiler by funding Iran's enemies in Iraq. Just like the Iranians are doing to us. Aaaargh! It is a tangled web being woven in Iraq.
Rhus,
Anyone who has read Steven Vincent's book "In the Red Zone" or perhaps talked to his friend Nour(sp?) here in the States(you know who you are) understands that Basrah has had huge problems pretty much from the get go. It seems to have only gotten worse with age.
A good source for news and commentary on the operation in Basra and southern Iraq with translations from the local Iraqi press:
http://arablinks.blogspot.com/
Hah -- I've had personal trolls before (e.g. Leprecaunus Rex) but at last I've got an impersonator! Pity it has to be johni[n]nz, but I have to admit "my" comment at 03.28.08 - 7:04 am was rather hilarious. (Actually I thought anand's post looked quite like some program code I wrote earlier today).
Yes, Rhus, I'll have a look at the archives shortly, although I only have to dredge my memory to remember how much bitchin' and whahnin' there was about the state of Basrah and how the Brits were only looking after their own personnel and letting the place go to hell in a handbasket. Now somebody is trying to do something about it, suddenly the violins are playing a sad lament for JAM. Boo hoo.
Anyway, my first port of call is to dig up that radio article about the Irish plunder of oil in Basrah, which I think should be online now.
P.S. johni[n]nz - should you really be joking about "intellectual giants" after that embarrassing admission about "JAM".
Reidar Visser is also an expert on federalism issues in southern Iraq:
http://www.historiae.org/sawlah.asp
Excerpt:
"On the surface, the story may look plausible enough. A provincial city rich in oil degenerates into mafia-style conditions affecting the security of citizens as well as the national oil revenue; the central government intervenes to clean up. This is how many in the media have been reporting the latest clashes between government forces and militiamen in Basra: the Maliki government has launched a security operation with the single aim of getting rid of unruly militias. Pundits with ties to the Bush administration have added that these are essential “preparations” for this autumn’s provincial elections, or moves to forestall Iranian influence in Basra, or both.
But on closer inspection, there are problems in these accounts. Perhaps most importantly, there is a discrepancy between the description of Basra as a city ruled by militias (in the plural) – which is doubtless correct – and the battlefield facts of the ongoing operations which seem to target only one of these militia groups, the Mahdi Army loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr. Surely, if the aim was to make Basra a safer place, it would have been logical to do something to also stem the influence of the other militias loyal to the local competitors of the Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), as well as the armed groups allied to the Fadila party (which have dominated the oil protection services for a long time). But so far, only Sadrists have complained about attacks by government forces.
Others may suggest that rather than having to do with the rule of law, this is part of a wider operation in which Maliki in alliance with ISCI are doing their best to marginalize their political enemies locally – in preparation for local elections in October 2008, or with a view to dominate the process of forming federal entities (which could start next month, in April). Maybe it has been supported by Washington, as compensation for the bitter pill which Dick Cheney brought with him in the shape of a demand for early provincial elections? But whereas that sort of interpretation certainly seemed valid during the first battle of Basra (when Maliki arrived in Basra in late May 2006 and enforced a new security regime that was applauded by ISCI and denounced by Fadila), it does not quite make sense today."
PeteS
"...the Queen said. "The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday - but never jam today." "
(Through the Looking Glass)
Sorry
A pro-Badr Iraqi website is reporting that there was a fistfight today between a Sadrist MP and two Da'wa MPs during a parliamentary session after the UIA bloc refused to discuss the ongoing military operations in Basrah.
I thought JAM was rotten, but, now that you are trying to throw it out, I think it's kewl. Hands off my JAM!
The pro-Badr website reports attacks against several Badr and Da'wa headquarters in the following cities: Baghdad, Hilla, Hindiya, Kifil, Kut, Diwaniya, Ghammas, Hamza, Samawa, Nasriya, Shatra, Sug Al-Shiyukh, Fajr, Amara, Basrah and Abu Al-Khasib.
Also interesting that the pro-Badr website describes the Sadrist militants as "neo-Baathist gangs", a reference to their nationalist, anti-occupation, anti-federalist stance. They don't seem to share the belief that our invasionsts here hold that the Sadrists are "Iranian-backed gangs".
Yes, leave the JAM alone! Love me. Loooovvvvve meeeeeee. Mmmmmmm, gooooooood JAMMMMMMM....
Bruno, I love you. I would love to drill you (and I don't mean with my Black & Decker).
XXXOOO
Don't be too tough on the invasionist crowd, Anonymous. Their pea-sized brains can't possibly process all that nuanced, confusing information. Better for you to put it to them in simple terms, as in "cops vs. robbers," "cowboys vs. indians," "cops vs. mobsters," "good guys vs. bad guys," "government vs. outlaws."
Anonymous: "They don't seem to share the belief that our invasionsts here hold that the Sadrists are "Iranian-backed gangs".
A JAM commander is quoted further up saying he receives arms and funding from Iran. But what does he know?
_
Ok, Rhus, if that makes you sleep better at night.
We'll meet again a couple of years from now on this blog and we'll see who was right.
Don't be too tough on the invasionist crowd, Anonymous. Their pea-sized brains can't possibly process all that nuanced, confusing information. Better for you to put it to them in simple terms, as in "cops vs. robbers," "cowboys vs. indians," "cops vs. mobsters," "good guys vs. bad guys," "government vs. outlaws."
Yes RA these are the only types of simple terminology that these dirty Americans and filthy Hindoo's understand.
They are under sanctions now. Their economy isn't that great. They are spending (how much money?) on foreign adventures in other countries now. Which will increase if they expand their reach across the ME as some people fear. Iraq's problems will become theirs if they become "intimate".
lyn, does your 'intimate' argument still hold if they are supporting sadr (your position on another thread), or just maliki/badr?
"...suddenly the violins are playing a sad lament for JAM. Boo hoo..."
We all seek the solace of music in troubled times, Pete. The old standards are particularly uplifting.
Tonight, on Radio Free Ireland, there will be a nostalgic rendition of "The Surge Is Working," sung by the Dublin Tabernacle Choir, with soloist Minnesota Lyn, and Bruno on drums.
Don't miss it!
Anonymous: "Ok, Rhus, if that makes you sleep better at night."
Makes no difference to me. I'd rather that the new Iraq is at peace with all its neighbors. Iran seems most interested in stirring the pot, and they don't care so much whose. Sounds familiar, actually. Bruno, are you sure you're not an Iranian mullah?
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't ignore their ties because you have a new love affair with JAM.
Or, because their arming and funding of JAM is only "tactical" that makes it OK ??
at least we can see what might happen if the US withdraws from Iraq before Iraqis are ready.
ouch! rhus, you better be quiet, that alone is enough reason for the US promote this conflict. coming on the heels of the cheney?mcCain visit what could be better for the escalation of troops (as opposed to withdrawl) than a big bloody mess.
you might want to hold back on pushing the propaganda, it may backfire,,like bush's 'violence is good' headline in the london times. people are onlt so stupid at which point...
hears what i (seriously) have an issue with. i am not a fan of sadr. nonetheless, aren't there like.. millions of his supporters? doesn't it stand to reason that
on Radio Free Ireland, there will be a nostalgic rendition of "The Surge Is Working," sung by the Dublin Tabernacle Choir, with soloist Minnesota Lyn, and Bruno on drums.
lol, can i play my harmonica?
Resident Analyst: "Don't be too tough on the invasionist crowd, Anonymous. Their pea-sized brains can't possibly process all that nuanced, confusing information."
Hey, whadaya know !! Layla Anwar is an invasionist with a pea-sized brain:
I believe that Ahmadinejad group is supporting Muqtada Al-Sadr. In fact, Al-Sadr himself admitted to the Independent daily, that his men were getting training from both Hezbollah Lebanon and the Iranian Quds force also known the Pasdaran. M.Al-Sadr also allegedly said that "he failed to establish an Islamic State." Iranian style- Wilayat al-Faqeeh style, à la Khomeini style.
http://arabwomannews.blogspot.co...at-is-
iraq.html
Anonymous, please don't confuse Layla Anwar !! You may disturb her daydreams about her dear hung leader.
whoops, i just realized my 3:48 comment was cut off..
here's what i (seriously) have an issue with. i am not a fan of sadr. nonetheless, aren't there .. millions of his supporters? doesn't it stand to reason that
this is so strange, i can't figure out why the rest of my comment won't post.
doesn't it stand to reason that most of these people are just ordinary people. that goes for basra and sadr city. how much are those people going to be suffering if this continues much longer? who is going to pay the price?
maliki can't change election result by getting rid of a few rouge badguys. a criminal here, a criminal there..airbombing (like what is going on now, as i type) kill more innocents than criminals. unless you think all the warriors hang out together in a couple houses while the regular people are hiding down the street.
basically are we talking about the masses here? once again, i am not a sadr supporter, but when does he become besides the point in this battle? when the framing all gets stripped away isn't this just iraqis killing eachother?
why aren't we promoting dialogue and reconciliation?
Concentrate, annie!
Concentrate, annie!
maybe it's a conspiracy!
sooo... what if (indicators signal now) things erupt all over iraq as a result of this, is it worth it?
how come this violence is 'good' when other violence is 'bad'?
why are we pursuing peace thru pain rather than brain?
annie: "why aren't we promoting dialogue and reconciliation?"
Maliki's given the militias three- I mean ten- days to stand down and they'll get amnesty. That's a start, isn't it?
_
That's a start, isn't it?
i believe the start has come and gone. besides no one is taking the violence off the table, it is just more 'my way or the highway', the highway being the big stick. besides, all indicators point to the extention as signs maliki is weakened, not a sign of being gracious or leaning towards reconciliation. also , considering the news the US is taking the lead in basra/sadr city (Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.), regardless of the lingo (As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," ) i really hope the perceptions of iraqis aren't that under political cover/propaganda of 'iraqi troops', maliki is setting up for a showdown between US/sadr.
historical reference?..
In Lebanon, in September 1983, the U.S. lent direct support to what it assumed was a national institution, the Lebanese Army, in the battle at Souk el-Gharb. By doing so, it became, in the eyes of the rest of the Lebanese population, just another militia. The U.S. history in Iraq is more complicated, obviously, but what's happening now is the U.S. is throwing our lot in with ISCI in the upcoming elections. And all Abu Muqawama is saying is, there better be a whole lot of quid pro quo going on as well.
more wapo..
"If there were no Americans, there would be no fighting," said Abu Mustafa al-Thahabi, 38, a senior Mahdi Army member.
10 days is a long long time when the air force of the world's superpower is raining down bombs on you, looks less and less like a 'start' for compromise, reconciliation all the time, no?
" i am not a sadr supporter"
Annie, I am not a Muqtada supporter either. But here is why I don't think Muqtada is so bad:
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot....ts-time-
to.html
Some more data on Basrah:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.ph...7895&
Itemid=128
It appears that some IA from Al Anbar have been sent to Al Basrah. Those are some very tough units.
Gen Kagen estimates that armed militias have about 8 to 10 K trained and equipped. Many are equipped with the latest Iranian munitions. The IRGC Kuds has trained many in their latest techniques.
Against this the IA has two high quality brigades. I think the IA needs at least 3 or 4 good quality brigades to take these negative elements out all at once. 1 brigade from Al Anbar--where they smashed Dahr's friends--gives them the fire power they need should PM Maliki give the order.
It remains my hope that PM Maliki won't have to give the order, and the situation will resolve nonviolently.
A pro-Badr Iraqi website is reporting that there was a fistfight today between a Sadrist MP and two Da'wa MPs during a parliamentary session... Anonymous
So now they look just like Japan.
johni(n)nz,
with soloist Minnesota Lyn
Believe me, John, if I were a soloist, you'd want to miss it!
Annie,
Mmmm...nothing happening over at 24's, huh?
lyn, does your 'intimate' argument still hold if they are supporting sadr...
They seem to have been supporting Al-Sadr to screw with us. I think they would be quite happy to support just about anyone, for that matter, that would serve that purpose. With the Mahdi Army (and others) they seem to be dipping their toe in the water. With more open (and extensive) relations with an established government they would seem to expose themselves to more Iraqi criticism (and things that go boom).
The article that CMARII linked to by Mohammed Fadhil was very good. You should take a peek.
So, that radio interview I was talking about is still in RealPlayer format, and it is in the interval 49:10 to 58:40 of the following clip, available for the next few days:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_...-
Wednesday.smil
For those who can't listen to it, I've taken the liberty of transcribing it for you. PK is the presenter, Pat Kenny.
----
PK: You've heard the overnight reports of trouble in Basrah. Obviously doing busines in Iraq is risky, both physically and financially, but for some it's an opportunity. Irish oil exploration company Petrel Resources has been in Iraq since 1999 and is now considered one of the most established players in the Iraqi oil industry. With me now is David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources -- David, good morning!
DH: Good morning!
PK: Em, you have, eh, significant interests in Iraq, isn't that so?
DH: We're the largest single contractor in the south of Iraq this past two years, and we'd stayed there for the last ten years before, during, and after the war, and we're the only western company that can say that.
PK: How many governments have you had to deal with?
DH: Five so far.
PK: Five so far. Em, the size of your projects -- just put it in perspective for us.
DH: Well we're developing two oil fields in the south of Iraq whose cumulative production would be about the total consumption of Ireland, about two hundred thousand barrels a day.
PK: Two hundred thousand barrels a day, and that's what you're developing at the moment. Em, you've been there before the fall of Saddam, and subsequent to the fall of Saddam. How is it possible to have a continuity of business, with changing administrations?
DH: Well because the "Sir Humphreys" who run any administration have pretty well been there throughout. Some people have left, some people have been purged, but the bulk of the professional government -- the permanent government -- has remained in place. So as long as you're useful, as long as you don't take sides, you can continue to do business with the permanent government.
PK: So, the technocrats -- in the oil ministry, I presume they are mostly technocrats -- who know what they're doing, they have remained the same?
DH: Pretty well. Em, some of the good people have been purged, some have been killed, some have left the country, but the organisation has a life that goes beyond the individuals.
PK: What about the American involvement, we know that the oil ministry was the building they chose to "protect" [laughs] while the museum was being looted, for instance, at the time of the fall of Saddam Hussein. What involvement do they have in all of the deals that you might do.
DH: Well, basically the Americans have stood aside from the industry, they took the decision fairly early on that they weren't able to push around the professional technocrats, and that seizing the assets would be without any legitimacy and anyway wasn't going to be collaborated in by the international industry. So they had no real choice but to let the Iraqi authorities come up with their own policies. And that has certain disadvantages in that it has taken a long time to get agreement and a long time to change the law and move forward but, right now, all the US wants is the country to develop its own assets and they've given up the idea that they will have exclusive control over Iraqi oil.
PK: Now, how much oil is there?
DH: Proven -- it's number three in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Iran -- but that's on the basis of almost no exploration. If it was explored to the same extent as, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, it would probably be number two in the world, maybe about fifteen to twenty percent of total world reserves.
PK: And, eh, relatively few oil wells -- it seems that the oil they are exploiting is still the easy oil?
DH: Yes, they've only drilled about two thousand three hundred wells, which is only twelve or thirteen times the total drilled off shore Ireland, which is practically none by world standards, and they've found these huge reserves with very few wells, and relatively shallow wells. So that's why we have confidence that it's one of the few areas left in the world that, using modern techniques, you actually could have a big return on your investment.
PK: And that's why you're there I presume. But the risks, I mean, how critical an element is your own security, for your people? How do you work that?
DH: Oddly enough we haven't had any significant security problem at all, ourselves. We work mainly in the south. We work with local militia. We don't use mercenaries and, as long as you have good relations with the local people, we haven't experienced any problem. You know, you deliver equipment to the wharf, it's taken off by the local companies that are entwined with the local militia and the local police -- they're all the same really -- and they deliver the equipment to site, they deliver your people to site, if you need any security when you're there they provide it, and they deliver you back to your apartments in the evening.
PK: And how are they convinced of your good offices, for instance?
DH: You build up good will through time, through getting to know people. It helps that you're working with their own government, but basically people want a job and they want to get on with life, and as long as you're not an enemy you're assumed to be a friend.
PK: What's the deal, em, typically, if you're going to go into partnership with the Iraqis and they give you a license to drill? I mean what do you get out of it, what do they get out of it, and you know, here, the debate over the whole Corrib gas field and how little we get out of it in terms of a royalty, em, what's it like over there?
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
DH: Well, every country's different and it depends on how attractive the, the, geology is. Ireland has poor geology, so we had to give good terms to get people to explore at all. Iraq has excellent geology, so they, eh, haven't had to give particularly good terms, and everywhere in the world you'll find a rise in resource nationalism. The trouble at present is that the security and legal uncertainty risks are high, so people need a risk-adjusted return for them to put their lives on the line and their money on the line. And that's caused nationalist disquietude, so currently we're working as contractors to the ministry, but we expect to soon negotiate what's called "risk sharing agreements" whereby we can drill, add reserves, and we keep a part of those reserves for ourselves. The bulk of course would go to the state, and the reason why we think that's in the state's interest is that we can roughly double the recovery that they can out of the existing reservoirs, so even if we make an obscene return, they still make an even more obscene return, so it's a win-win situation.
PK: So, the future for Iraq if they can sort out the politics -- the factional politics -- is very good because they will have massive national resources?
DH: They have excellent national resources in oil and gas which are now very valuable, compared to twenty years ago. They've also got a highly trained people, and many of the people that have migrated in recent years want to return to their country when circumstances permit and, as with the Irish disapora, that offers a major asset with which to build the sort of businesses that the Emirates has built in recent years. In ten years time you won't recognise Iraq: it will be like Dubai today.
PK: Now, talk to me about Iran, because where you're working is close to Iran, and what their interest is in what's going on in the oil exploration. Is it malign, or benign?
DH: It's malign... er, sorry it's benign. And we were surprised at that, because we were afraid on the fall of Saddam that there would be a religious regime, and that the Iranians would be a negative influence, that they would make economic terms less attractive to western companies. Now it's not turned out to be the case; the Iranians want a Shia-dominated government in Iraq, which they now have -- the Shias are sixty percent of the population -- and Iran takes a long view, eh, it wants to spread its influence but not through conquest, through influence as much as it can. And they've encouraged the Iraqis to open up their industry and to put in place laws that are more attractive for international investors than the ones in Iran, ironically enough. So, we work closely with the Iranian authorities in Iran itself, where we also have a business on the mineral side, and anytime we've come across them in the south of Iraq through their influence in the militias they've always been a benefit and a help to us -- we haven't had any problems with them.
PK: One of the things that you were telling us was that there are more women in middle management in Iran -- we think of the veil, and we think of the putting down of women -- than there are in Ireland. Is that true?
DH: Yes, eh, you'll never find a country anywhere in the world where the image is so at variance with the reality. Of course there are conservative places in Iran, over on the Pakistan or Afghanistan border, but if you go to the major cities women are sophisticated, they're well-educated, they have the same education as men, they're very assertive, they tend to be more multi-lingual, and in the oil industry which we work in about a third of the engineers -- both in Saddam era Iraq and in Iran today -- are women, which is a much higher proportion of engineers than you'll find in any western country. So one of the ironies of these countries is that they actually have fomented, eh, female careers, and they don't get credit for it.
PK: Now, the future of oil -- we're talking about peak oil all the time and how much is left and how we shouldn't squander it. What is your response to the idea that the age of oil is over -- as a fuel -- it will always be there as a raw-, a very valuable raw material.
DH: Well, conventional oil is about half used, so we're half way through the age of oil. But the oil price is very high, so the economic value of the business is much higher that it ever was before. People think that we'll hit a peak and then the production will go into rapid decline because that's what often happens in individual reservoirs, but what has actually happened in the last years is that the conventional production of cheap oil peaked about seven years ago, and now there's an undulating plateau, so with high prices and technology we will be able to increase production for decades to come. But in the end it is a finite resource.
PK: Right David, it's a very, em, interesting life you lead I must say, and doing well, and hopefully you will stay safe in Iraq given the current troubles, but thank you very much for joining us in studio this morning.
(end)
This was the bit I loved:
Iraq has excellent geology, so they, eh, haven't had to give particularly good terms, and everywhere in the world you'll find a rise in resource nationalism. The trouble at present is that the security and legal uncertainty risks are high, so people need a risk-adjusted return for them to put their lives on the line and their money on the line. And that's caused nationalist disquietude, so currently we're working as contractors to the ministry, but we expect to soon negotiate what's called "risk sharing agreements" whereby we can drill, add reserves, and we keep a part of those reserves for ourselves. The bulk of course would go to the state, and the reason why we think that's in the state's interest is that we can roughly double the recovery that they can out of the existing reservoirs, so even if we make an obscene return, they still make an even more obscene return, so it's a win-win situation.
In other words, those awkward resource nationalists have been stalling so that we've had to do contract work 'til now, but we expect to soon be able to get the PSAs that everyone has been waiting for. I had to laugh -- the stuff that Bruno et al. have been bitching about for over a year is going to be done under their noses by the Irish and God knows who else... and the Americans aren't even a part of the game!
Dang, PeteS, that's an interesting interview! I liked this:
"In ten years time you won't recognise Iraq: it will be like Dubai today."
That's how I picture it.
_
Yet another Marine (now counting 5) who slaughtered civilians in cold blood in Haditha has been exonerated and excused from any future criminal proceedings!
Why, you might ask? Is it not a crime to shoot children? Apparently not if they're Iraqi and you're an American and part of an occupying military force!
Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum's real life training and experience as a killing machine apparently took over and "his body instinctively began firing while his head tried to grasp at what and why he was firing?"
In other words shooting a five year old at point blank range, in cold blood as she was screaming in terror is an excusable episode within America's war of democratization.
There are no Iraqi victims according to America's judicial system, simply unfortunate examples of an error in judgement.
As Rhus might say, if it were Saddam, this would never have gone to trial! Yet the outcome is always the same. In every way, rationalizing the murder of children is every bit as sickening as the act of murder itself!
anand, from your first link
to understand why Shiite-on-Shiite violence is not the big problem you fear that it might be (and why Muqtada's cease fire is also not the big deal you think it is), it helps to briefly review the basics about how Iraq exploded out of control in the first place:
here's how much sense this statement means to me...
to understand why your house burning down is not going to be a big problem for you it helps to briefly review the basics about how your neighbors house exploded out of control.
1. a different person lit the match to burn down the other house
2. when the other house was burnt down democrats in the US congress did not aggressively support the firefighters, the fire raged on even tho the game was over.
bla bla bla etc etc, all of it irrelevant. i don't know why you read sites like that, none of it makes any sense or follows any logic. you also completely fail to address my concerns wrt " i am not a sadr supporter". that was a pretext, meaning i am not saying this because i choose a 'side' because i like him. the pretext and the point i make is that most of the people who have an interest in the outcome are ordinary people, they have the most to loose. so telling me about highly equipped brigades is not about to ease my concerns. not unless you are insuring me those brigades are professional at NOT killing people.
one again, your link is nuts. some guy trying to tell us a shia on shia civil war will NOT be so bad because violence, which is not rooted in sectarian hatred, is not the kind of violence that is likely to reach the ungodly levels
really? according to????? as if..our civil war wasn't really so violent?
also, this guy is not logical. he makes stupid statements easily refutable like this the "cease fire" that Muqtada declared in late August of 2007 and then renewed again last month was not a major factor in reducing violence in Iraq.. lol, and we are supposed to believe him ..why?
I am amazed that more people do not realize that he isn't the threat they think he is.
then why is he bothering at all? if . as he says not really worried about the Shiite-on-Shiite violence ? turn the other way folks, nothin happening here!
all in all it was a revealing link, he wraps up at the end where is interests lie, and it isn't w/the iraqi people.
I ... worry that grateful Democrats will again use a savage suicide bombing attack against innocent civilians as a gift to use against Petraeus and Bush
jesus, these rightwingers think of everything don't they. democrats being grateful for suicide bombers.. to use as amo against.. lol, and the funny thing is he calls himself a liberal democrat! lol, yeah right. anand i swear you crack me up. your links are as absurd as you are.
these rightwingers think of everything don't they. democrats being grateful for suicide bombers.. to use as amo against.. lol,
Yeah, that's ludicrous. Everyone knows what ingrates Democrats are.
lyn, *sigh*...nothing happening over at 24's, huh?
by all means, elaborate.
lyn, does your 'intimate' argument still hold if they are supporting sadr...
yada yada, you said some stuff but didn't answer the question. does it?
now as i recall you like to remind people to not use bandwidth when they post long articles that you don't agree with. does that apply to ones you support? maybe you could give pete some advice. *sigh* , just kidding.
Invasionist #1: "So now they look just like Japan."
Yeah, Iraq looks just like Japan.
Invasionist #2: "In ten years time you won't recognise Iraq: it will be like Dubai today."
Yes, I can almost see the skyscrapers in Basra.
Yes, I can almost see the skyscrapers in Basra.
let's get some popcorn and watch the show.
lyn, re your link advice... there is a reason i usually scroll right past cmar and his links....
One of the most notable things about the fierce and bloody confrontation taking place the government and Sadr’s militia is the spin on the operation by the commanders and the government; that it is a crackdown on outlaws with emphasis that the operation targets no particular movement or political line.
This generic label, includes the so-called rogue Sadrists.
brilliant! iraq the model strikes another one out of the ballpark!
more popcorn. here's another funny ITM propandda spin
Word on the street is that Sadrists want to hijack the provincial elections. hahahaha. why would he have to highjack them? don't his followers make up the majority?
ok, i want interrupt your party anymore.
Annie,
by all means, elaborate.
You're here.
Nope, PeteS's interview was very interesting. Kind of puts to rest the greedy US oil companies out to grab all of Iraq's oil conspiracy theory. I can see why you skimmed it.
PeteS,
Thank you for that interview. Somehow I don't think "resident analyst" will be a happy camper if he/she reads it.
It would be nice to see the people who have left their jobs at the oil ministry be able to return if they wish too.
Anonymous,
Yeah, Iraq looks just like Japan.
No, you misunderstood. Iraq's elected officials at work look just like Japan. Every once in awhile they will have a news clip of Japan's legislature when they have a "disagreement". It can get pretty wild.
Annie again,
there is a reason i usually scroll right past cmar and his links....
Yes, I know.
Anonymous: "Invasionist #2: "In ten years time you won't recognise Iraq: it will be like Dubai today."
Actually, David Horgan said that. He works for an Irish oil company- a big one- that has done business in Iraq during Dear Mustache's time as well as today. That was his opinion, but I agree with it. Sorry!
_
err, you know me, endless typos. sorry, ok, before i exit .. just sayin'.. sometimes i feel sorry for you rightwingers. the links are so bad, the writers so weak on your end of the field. the best you can say about your thinkers is they are boring. most of your commenters are complete bores, your links lead to weird easy to refute anti logic. original? no. it is as if you all march in lockstep to the same drooling boring chain of command. no wonder iraq is a nightmare, this is the best you have to offer, the worst being that you shine when it comes to devious lying scumsucking racist perversion. that is where you shine.
see ya
Toodles, annie. Have fun at Layla Anwar's enlighted site!
It would be nice to see the people who have left their jobs at the oil ministry be able to return if they wish too.
It would be nice if it were not bullshit. Both this writer's father and uncle were senior oil ministry officials who quit their jobs after they received death threats by your freedom-loving Shi'ite groups controlling the Oil Ministry (the same ones leading the operation against the Sadrists with US backing). They have both fled the country and are now living as refugees. Reason? First they were Sunnis, and second, they both opposed the proposed Oil Law that opens up Iraqi oil fields to foreign investment.
No, you misunderstood. Iraq's elected officials at work look just like Japan.
The Sadrists are elected officials too. They have 30 seats in parliament (double the seats that Maliki's party controls and equal to ISCI's share) and controlled several Iraqi ministries. Why are you intent on antagonizing such a large slice of the Iraqi Shi'ite population then?
@ ZEYAD.
Dear Zeyad,
this comments page is getting truly comical.
Our warmongers don't want to understand, truly: because the reason for the SIIC-Da'wa attack against the Sadrists are the October provincial election, that are decided, like in 2005, by which militia is in control of the polling stations.
In 2005 it did not matter whether it was the Badr or the Fadhila or the Madhi, since the blocked list was the same for them all: now instead it does !
Democwacy, me ass, !
We have the idiotic Apette from Minnesota, swearing that SIIC/Badr and Da'wa are NOT pro-Iranian, NO NO NO !
And then we have our Desert Ape, 'Negligent Homicide' Rhus, who just likes when them Eye-wackians get whacked (no matter who of them get whacked !).
And, dulcis in fundo, we have the utterly clownish snake 'anand'. Somebody should tell this nauseating slithering thing, this 'naturalized' Ahmehwican, how one does spell 'ceasefire', !
More precision bombing by the occupier:
Early on Friday a hellfire missle was randomly fired into the Sadr City district of Baghdad! Apparently a few resistance fighters had decided to open up on an American patrol.
As is often the case in densely populated civilian areas the missle missed the preferred target!
Early reports indicate that nine civilians were killed along with several others wounded!
While the US military prefers the Hellfire because its relatively small warhead minimizes civilian casualties, as is often the case in urban sprawl, the targets are generally more mobile than the victims of the strike!
If you have any luck working on your side at all, a stationary target and a skilled operator, you might, on the odd occasion, be able to actually hit the targeted building that the 'resistance' had long since abandoned.
But, inevitably, all you end up with are ten dead civilians. Clearly the hope would be that they are at least Sadrists and that most would be of voting age! Quite often, as in this case, the majority were children and simply undeserving of America's willingness to set them free!
PeteS, please DO tell me when an Irish, or Russian, or whatever company apart from "big oil" ever get a real shot at any of Iraqs proven "Super Giant" fields.
A small Irish firm pumping up a few barrels a day is hardly news. Barely enough to chill your Guinness...
MMMmmmmm... oooohhhh YESSSSS!! I just LOVE IT when the Italian and Canadian naughty boys talk dirty! Yeah. work it, darlingsssss!
XXXOOO
[annie]: now as i recall you like to remind people to not use bandwidth when they post long articles that you don't agree with. does that apply to ones you support? maybe you could give pete some advice.
Except this isn't a long "article" -- it's a radio interview, accessible for a short time and only to those with RealPlayer installed. The transcription is mine, and I'll leave you to guess -- given that it's 2,000 words -- how long it took.
You're welcome.
@ All
(re: Ismail al-Zerjawi Hafidh | Homepage | 03.28.08 - 7:02 pm).
This is our warmongers (CMARII or some other lame Rat) trying humour ... mhm .... ehm ....
not vewy vewy successful, don't you think ?
LOL !
Marcus: PeteS, please DO tell me when an Irish, or Russian, or whatever company apart from "big oil" ever get a real shot at any of Iraqs proven "Super Giant" fields.
A small Irish firm pumping up a few barrels a day is hardly news. Barely enough to chill your Guinness...
Marcus, thanks for making my point for me, by pointing out that 200Kb/d is chicken feed. Do you believe that Petrel is one of the "bigger" contractors there, or do you dispute that? What that says to me is that the Iraqi national and regional oil companies retain control, and intend to retain control, of the giant fields... Just like I, Lee C, and others were suggesting since the new oil law was mooted, and just as you, Bruno, and others were bitchin' and whahnin' about plunder and pillage.
I don't know about "Petrel" Pete. But you have pretty much acknowledged yourself that they are not a big player. So why the fuss about them? (Propaganda?)
As for:
"What that says to me is that the that the Iraqi national and regional oil companies retain control, and intend to retain control, of the giant fields"
I agree completely. They intend to TRY to retain control over those fields. Like the union of Iraqi oil workers (whatever their name is) have been trying to do. You know, those eeeeevil resourse-nationalists who thinks Iraqs oil is for Iraq and who foolishly believe that Iraqis are able to get it out of the ground like they used to do, but clearly are not able to any more.
Please, please help them with PSA:s so that they can have the big international coorperations pump it for them. They'll even be given a hansome fraction of the worth of their own natural resource. Aint that great?
PeteS will next tell us why EVERY country with a substansial oil reserve has either declined completely, or revoked afterwards, Product Sharing Agreements; and why it is Iraqs very best interest to ratify an oil law permitting such agreements. Go ahead Pete...
If anyone feels the need to put a finger down your throat and evacuate a troublesome meal from a night or two before, hold off! Read this instead! (Or Sameous and Marcus if you prefer):
President Bush said something along the semi-illiterate lines that the battle against Shiite extremists presents "a defining moment in the history of Iraq" and a "necessary part of the development of a free society."
Of course freedom doesn't come without a price. It includes 170,000 killing machines who are blameless in whatever act of atrocity they decide to commit! It has something to do with the reality of being an agent of murder that is not expected to distinguish between the imagined 'enemy' and a child terrorized and murdered as a result of their saviour like benevolence.
Basra has not been as lucky as Sadr City though. No Hellfires for these unfortunates. The aerial bombardment hasn't required any semblance of political discretion, so blocks are being reduced to rubble to reinforce the integrity of the ragtag, 100 desertions a week, IA!
After all, this is the American pre-election centrepiece of defining moments!
On a more positive note, Americans aren't entirely unscathed within the mainstream of atrocities they commit on a daily basis. Yet another American soldier was fatally injured Friday in a roadside bombing south of Baghdad. Many others likely have a few life altering injuries as well, as do close to 30,000 others.
@ Marcus:
http://www.haloscan.com/
comments...06765129#386995
An Italian, John, Anonymouses, etc.: The Sadrists are claiming the crackdown on JAM is due to political reasons. This is a position you all appear to be enthusiastically adopting.
So. Isn't it possible it might actually INCREASE sympathy for the sadrists among the people, if their sympathy is genuine (ie not coerced). Also, don't you think there's a risk JAM could pull shenanigans at the polls?
_
Rhus (the never served little bitch), why don't you and Jeff and the lessor of two Cmars go off to Central Park tonight, stalk a few crack heads, hurt them if you're in the mood, then hunker down to a few cold Buds and a few minutes of intense spooning.
The world would be a better place, don't ya think?
John the Ba'athist: "Rhus (the never served little bitch), why don't you and Jeff and the lessor of two Cmars go off to Central Park tonight, stalk a few crack heads, hurt them if you're in the mood, then hunker down to a few cold Buds and a few minutes of intense spooning."
Translation:
"Yes of course if this were really politically motivated it would be a truly stupid move on the part of Maliki since al-Sadr's popularity would naturally increase on its own politically. And, with the Sadrists' skilled and shameless use of it as propaganda their gains would more or less be guaranteed at the polls from this.
However, I have a job to do, and that is to take any and all developments in Iraq and spin them into yet another setback against the United States and Iraqi efforts to hopefully hasten the day when the US gives up & leaves and the slaughter may begin in earnest, to my slobbering and endless delight.
Thank you for the thoughtful question. If I had one-seventh your intelligence I would not find it necessary to be such a drunken d*ck all the time."
/translation
_
@Rhus: 
PeteS, Bruno knows that most Iraqi hydrocarbons development isn't done by American firms. He isn't stupid. He opposes the development of Iraqi oil fears because he fears what a free democratic Iraq might become.
He wants to destroy America, and kill as many people around the world and inside as necessary to do it.
That is why he favors a global depression, because he thinks it will hurt America. Something is seriously wrong with him.
Aww Rhussy: "I would not find it necessary to be such a drunken d*ck all the time."
Sorry, biatch...belch! Do you honestly believe that anyone should take your commentary or your speculation or your scripting of the nuances of Iraq's populace under the cloak of America's military oppression, seriously?
I'm still in withdrawal from the millions you killed in South East Asia! And you'd expect this next excursion to murder children in Iraq to be somehow morally uplifting? Sorry, it doesn't fit my comprehension of good intention.
It might work for a fradulent Catholic who can absolve their hypocrisy with the odd confession, or someone, such as you, who feels it might somehow absolve them from the inadequacy of never making any real difference militarily.
But the reality is you're both morally bankrupt, both philosophically and spiritually.
The death is all around your position and all you can do is rationalise it!
KILL THEM!
[Marcus]: PeteS will next tell us why EVERY country with a substansial oil reserve has either declined completely, or revoked afterwards, Product Sharing Agreements; and why it is Iraqs very best interest to ratify an oil law permitting such agreements. Go ahead Pete...
And Marcus will now proceed to harangue me to justify the eeevils of PSAs -- PSAs that are NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Fortunately I have long since given up beating my head of the wall on that one. Iraq is NOT offering PSAs on existing giant fields. Company's like Petrel are looking for PSAs on new developments -- in Petrel's case on 10,000 sq. km and 6 billion barrels in the western desert (which, in case you didn't know, is NOT chicken feed). Meanwhile super-giant fields such as Majnoon, Nahr Umr, and West Qurna which, by the way, Saddam had previously offered in PSAs to companies like Russia's Lukoil, are being taken back and offered on a contract, NOT PSA, basis. (More here).
So, Marcus, why don't you tell us why Iraq should sit on its undeveloped resources, which at current extraction rates will last long after the end of the oil age, while its people wait for electricity and other services, so that a few smug lefties can give two fingers to eevil capitalists. Go ahead, Marcus...
Oh, and Marcus, just in case you didn't notice from the first sentence of that link -- the revocation of Lukoil's contract was on the basis of advice from "US legal experts". No doubt you will think it is so the PSAs can be given to an American company instead. However, you will first have to explain away this:
Oil Ministry experts on Nov. 24 told APS West Qurna will be offered on the basis of a service contract (SC), as in the case of all fields already discovered but require development. The SCs are like the buy-back deals on offer in Iran under which the foreign contractor gets a fixed fee for the development and production services and is not allowed to book reserves or have ownership of any related assets. On this basis, the experts said, the ministry will offer the Majnoon, Nahr Umr and other oil giants.
I'm all ears!
Meanwhile, Marcus, your Scandinavian brethren already have PSAs in Kurdistan (DNO) or are bidding for them (Statoil).
@Canadian John, the Ba'athist Baptist, 03.28.08 - 9:07 pm:
I absolve thee!
♪ ♪ ♫ Super!!! ♪ ♫
XXXOOO
Five Things You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar, AlterNet. Posted March 27, 2008.
The traditional media is incapable of reporting what's going on in Southern Iraq.
Heavy fighting has spread across Shia-dominated enclaves in Iraq over the past two days. The U.S.-backed regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered 50,000 Iraqi troops to "crack down" -- with coalition air support -- on Shiite militias in the oil-rich and strategically important city of Basra, U.S. forces have surrounded Baghdad's Sadr City and fighting has been reported in the southern cities of Kut, Diwaniya, Karbala and Hilla. Basra's main bridge and an oil pipeline connecting it to Amara were destroyed Wednesday. Six cities are under curfew, and acts of civil disobedience have shut down dozens of neighborhoods across the country. Civilian casualties have reportedly overwhelmed poorly equipped medical centers in Baghdad and Basra.
There are indications that the unilateral ceasefire declared last year by the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is collapsing. "The cease-fire is over; we have been told to fight the Americans," one militiaman loyal to al-Sadr told the Christian Science Monitor's Sam Dagher by telephone from Sadr City. Dagher added that the "same man, when interviewed in January, had stated that he was abiding by the cease-fire and that he was keeping busy running his cellular phone store."
A political track is also in play: Sadr has called on his followers to take to the streets to demand Maliki's resignation, and nationalist lawmakers in the Iraqi Parliament, led by al-Sadr's block, are trying to push a no-confidence vote challenging the prime minister's regime.
The conflict is one that the U.S. media appears incapable of describing in a coherent way. The prevailing narrative is that Basra has been ruled by mafialike militias -- which is true -- and that Iraqi government forces are now cracking down on the lawlessness in preparation for regional elections, which is not. As independent analyst Reider Visser noted:
On closer inspection, there are problems in these accounts. Perhaps most importantly, there is a discrepancy between the description of Basra as a city ruled by militias (in the plural) ... [and the] facts of the ongoing operations, which seem to target only one of these militia groups, the Mahdi Army loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr. Surely, if the aim was to make Basra a safer place, it would have been logical to do something to also stem the influence of the other militias loyal to the local competitors of the Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq [SIIC], as well as the armed groups allied to the Fadila party (sic) (which have dominated the oil protection services for a long time). But so far, only Sadrists have complained about attacks by government forces.
The conflict doesn't conform to the analysis of the roots of Iraqi instability as briefed by U.S. officials in the heavily-fortified Green Zone. It also doesn't fit into the simplistic but popular narrative of a country wrought by sectarian violence, and its nature is obscured by the labels that the commercial media uncritically apply to the disparate centers of Iraqi resistance to the occupation.
The "crackdown" comes on the heels of the approval of a new "provincial law," which will ultimately determine whether Iraq remains a unified state with a strong central government or is divided into sectarian-based regional governates. The measure calls for provincial elections in October, and the winners of those elections will determine the future of the Iraqi state. Control of the country's oil wealth, and how its treasure will be developed, will also be significantly influenced by the outcome of the elections.
It's a relatively straightforward story: Iraq is ablaze today as a result of an attempt to impose Colombian-style democracy on the unstable country: Maliki's goal, shared by the like-minded allies among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that dominate his administration, and with at least tacit U.S. approval, is to kill off the opposition and then hold a vote.
To better understand the nature of this latest round of conflict, here are five things one needs to know about what's taking place across Iraq.
1. A visible manifestation of Iraq's central-but-under-teported political conflict (not "sectarian violence")
Iraq, which had experienced little or no sectarian-based violence prior to the U.S. invasion, has been plagued with sectarian militias fighting for the streets of Iraq's formerly heterogeneous neighborhoods, and "sectarian violence" has become Americans' primary explanation for the instability that has plagued the country.
But the sectarian-based street-fighting is a symptom of a larger political conflict, one that has been poorly analyzed in the mainstream press. The real source of conflict in Iraq -- and the reason political reconciliation has been so difficult -- is a fundamental disagreement over what the future of Iraq will look like. Loosely defined, it is a clash of Iraqi nationalists -- with Muqtada al-Sadr as their most influential voice -- who desire a unified Iraqi state and public-sector management of the country's vast oil reserves and who forcefully reject foreign influence on Iraq's political process, be it from the United States, Iran or other outside forces.
The nationalists now represent a majority in Iraq's parliament but are opposed by what might be called Iraqi separatists, who envision a "soft partition" of Iraq into at least four semiautonomous and sectarian-based regional entities, welcome the privatization of the Iraqi energy sector (and the rest of the Iraqi economy) and rely on foreign support to maintain their power.
We've written about this long-standing conflict extensively in the past, and now we're seeing it come to a head, as we believed it would at some point.
con't
2. U.S. is propping up unpopular regime; Sadr has support because of his platform
One of the ironies of the reporting out of Iraq is the ubiquitous characterization of Muqtada al-Sadr as a "renegade," "radical" or "militant" cleric, despite the fact that he is the only leader of significance in the country who has ordered his followers to stand down. His ostensible militancy appears to arise primarily from his opposition to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.
He has certainly been willing to use violence in the past, but the "firebrand" label belies the fact that Sadr is arguably the most popular leader among a large section of the Iraqi population and that he has forcefully rejected sectarian conflict and sought to bring together representatives of Iraq's various ethnic and sectarian groups in an effort to create real national reconciliation -- a process that the highly sectarian Maliki regime has failed to accomplish.
It's vitally important to understand that Sadr's popularity and legitimacy is a result of his having a platform that's favored by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis.
Most Iraqis:
* Favor a strong central government free of the influence of militias.
* Oppose, by a 2-1 margin, the privatization of Iraq's energy sector -- a "benchmark towards progress according to the Bush administration.
* Favor a U.S. withdrawal on a short timeline (PDF) (most believe the United States plans to build permanent bases -- both are issues about which the Sadrists have been vocal.
* Oppose al Qaeda and the ideology of Osama Bin Laden and, to a lesser degree, Iranian influence on Iraq's internal affairs.
With the exception of their opposition to Al Qaeda, the five major separatist parties -- Sunni, Shia and Kurdish -- that make up Maliki's governing coalition are on the deeply unpopular side of these issues. A poll conducted last year found that 65 percent of Iraqis think the Iraqi government is doing a poor job, and Maliki himself has a Bush-like 66 percent disapproval rate.
As in Vietnam, the United States is backing an unpopular and decidedly undemocratic government in Iraq, and that simple fact explains much of the violent resistance that's going on in Iraq today.
3. "Iraqi forces" are, in fact, "Iranian- (and U.S.-) backed Shiite militias"
Every headline this week has featured some variation of the storyline of "Iraqi security forces" battling "Shiite militias." But the reality is that it is a battle between Shite militias -- separatists and nationalists -- with one militia garbed in Iraqi army uniforms and supported by U.S. airpower, and the other in civilian clothes.
It has always been the great irony of the occupation of Iraq that "our" man in Baghdad is also Tehran's. Maliki heads the Dawa Party, which has long enjoyed close ties to Iran, and relies on support from SIIC, a staunchly pro-Iranian party, and its powerful Badr militia. The "government crackdown" is an escalation of a long-simmering conflict in the south between the Badr Brigade, the Sadrists and members of the Fadhila Party, which favors greater autonomy for Basra but rejects SIIC's vision of a larger Shiite-dominated regional entity in Southern Iraq.
4. Colombia-style democracy
Basra has been engulfed in a simmering conflict since before the British pulled their troops back to a remote base near the airport and turned over the city to Iraqi authorities. But the timing of this crackdown is not coincidental; Iraqi separatists -- Dawa, SIIC and others -- are expected to do poorly in the regional elections, while the Sadrists are widely anticipated to make significant gains. It is widely perceived by those loyal to Sadr that this is an attempt to wipe out the movement he leads prior to the elections and minimize the influence that Iraqi nationalists are poised to gain.
The United States, for its part, continues to take sides in this conflict -- in addition to providing airpower, U.S. forces are enforcing the curfew in Sadr City -- rather than playing the role of neutral mediator. That's because the interests of the Bush administration and its allies are aligned with Maliki and his coalition. That they are not aligned with the interests of most Iraqis is never mentioned in the Western press, but is a key reason why Bush's definition of "victory" -- the emergence of a legitimate and Democratic state that supports U.S. policy in the region -- has always been an impossible pipedream.
5. Chip off the old block: Maliki's attempt to criminalize dissent
It's unclear whether Sadr has lifted the cease-fire entirely, or simply freed his fighters to defend themselves. He continues to call for peaceful resistance.
Whatever the case may be, it's not entirely accurate to say that he "chose" this conflict. The reality is that while his army was holding the cease-fire, attacks on and detentions of Sadrists have continued unabated. Sadr renewed the cease-fire last month, but he did so over the urging of his top aides, who argued that their movement was threatened with annihilation. He later authorized his followers to carry weapons "for self-defense" to head off a mutiny within his ranks.
Ahmed al-Massoudi, a Sadrist member of Parliament, last week "accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) of planning a military campaign to liquidate the Sadrists."
The lawmaker told Voices of Iraq that Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's "SIIC and the Dawa Party have held meetings with officers of the militias merged recently into security agencies to launch a military campaign outwardly to impose order and law, but the real objective is to liquidate the Sadrist bloc." "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is directly supervising this scheme with officers from the Dawa Party and the SIIC," he added. Despite his close ties with Tehran and deep involvement in Shiite militia activity, Hakim has been invited to the White House, where he was feted by Bush himself.
Sadr called for nationwide civil disobedience that would have allowed his followers to flex some political muscle in a nonviolent way. His orders, according to Iraqi reports were to distribute olive branches and copies of the Koran to soldiers at checkpoints.
The Maliki regime responded by saying that individuals joining the nationwide strike would be punished and that those organizing it are in violation of the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Act issued in 2005. A spokesman for the prime minister promised to punish any government employees who failed to show up for work.
This is consistent with a long-term trend: the U.S.-backed government's obstruction of Iraqi efforts to foster political reconciliation among diverse groups of Iraq nationalists. (Read more about this here.)
Propaganda and the surge
The Maliki regime has set an ultimatum demanding that the militias -- the nationalist militias -- lay down their arms within the next two days or face "more serious consequences." Al-Sadr has also issued an ultimatum: The government must cease its attacks on his followers, or his followers will escalate. It is an extremely dangerous situation, especially given the fact that the main U.S. resupply routes stretch from Baghdad through the Shia-dominated southern provinces.
But the precariousness of the situation appears to be of little concern to the military command, which issued a statement saying that the violence was a result of the success of the U.S. troop "surge" (Bush called the "crackdown" a "bold decision'' that shows the country's security forces are capable of combating terrorists). It's yet another example of the administration putting U.S. geostrategic (and economic) interests ahead of Iraqi reconciliation and democratic governance.
The much-touted troop "surge" had little to do with the drop in violence in recent months -- it didn't even correlate with the lull chronologically and was certainly a minor causal factor at best. A number of factors led to the reduced violence, but Sadr's cease-fire had the greatest impact. Nonetheless, the Maliki regime, backed by the United States, continued a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Sadr's followers, denied them space to peacefully resist the occupation and forced his hand.
Given the degree to which the coalition has continued to stir a hornets' nest, we may be seeing a perfect illustration of the dangers of believing one's own propaganda play out as Iraq is once again set aflame.
i'm looking forward to lyn *sighing* and asking me to just link next time.
Annie, Raed Jarrar's thesis will be tested in the provincial elections on October 1, 2008. Who do you think will win these elections? Who do you think Iraqis should vote for?
However, so far at least there has been no national attack on JAM. The seize fire is holding nationally. I hope it continues.
The IA insists that many of its attacks are not against JAM.
Annie, if Maliki asked you for your advice on what he should do in Basrah, what would you tell him?
Who do you think blew up one of Iraq's two oil pipelines, and attacked Iraq's infrastructure in Basrah?
What is your plan for how the GoI (and ISF) can resume pumping oil and restore disrupted utility services?
Annie, as you know the GoI's only source of revenue is oil exports. If the GoI wants to increase public spending they need to increase oil exports (because no one in the world is willing to lend the GoI large amounts of money except at very high interest rates.)
Do you think the GoI should spend more money? How would you increase oil exports to pay for it?
Almost all large global energy companies are refusing to bid on Iraqi energy contracts until the Iraqi parliament passes a law governing how these contracts will work.
How would you write Iraq's hydrocarbons development legislation? {My sense is that Chinese headquartered companies will win a plurality of the hydrocarban contracts once they are let out.}
Of course Bruno wants to blow up Iraq's oil infrastructure and supports attacks on the elected GoI and ISF in the hope of plunging Iraq into chaos and civil war. He hopes this will cause a major regional war, thereby causing great harm to the middle east and the world.
He prays that America will be hurt in the process as collateral damage.
His statements here a few weeks ago revealed quite a bit about him.
I still haven't figured out what makes John the Canadian Baathist tick.
RhusLancia - wow.
after reading this thread, it seems to me that you are determined to stay AMAZINGLY STUPID no matter what happens, forever.
You mentioned that Diyala province was "pacified" and now we don't hear about it - well, this is from March 28, 2008:
Diyala Prv:
Khan Bani Saad:
#1: Five U.S. soldiers were wounded in an attack that targeted a military convoy of the Multi-National Force, a media advisor for the MNF said on Friday."A U.S. convoy was the target of an attack with light arms and bombs in the area of Bani Saad, (30 km) north of Baghdad, on Thursday morning. Five U.S. soldiers were wounded," Abdul-Latif Rayan told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI). A source from the Bani Saad police, who spoke on condition of anonymity, had told VOI that an improvised explosive device (IED) went off near a U.S. army vehicle, prompting the U.S. soldiers to cordon off the scene and impose a curfew.
Susan: "You mentioned that Diyala province was "pacified" and now we don't hear about it - well, this is from March 28, 2008:"
Susan, I did not say Diyala was "pacified", nor did I say we don't hear about it anymore. I said this:
Diyala was hot a few weeks ago- increase operations, CLC on strike, etc.
[...]
Well, now Diyala is quiet. No more strike. Hardly any violence.
Please quote me honestly if you'd like to debate my comment. Also notice that this attack was announced after my comment. FWIW, I got that info from an MNF bloggers brief that was given on March 26th. Here is the relevant excerpt:
Q Yes.
If I could ask a quick follow-up: Has -- with that concern over there, have you seen any changes in the last week or two in number or lethality of attacks?
COL. LEHR: I can answer that a couple ways. I'll ask you a question: Are you talking about directed at coalition forces or directed elsewhere?
Q Well, directed at coalition, if that includes ISF.
COL. LEHR: Okay. Against, Americans -- no, I'll say against Americans and Iraqis the general trend is downward. I just talked to my boss last night. I send him sitreps about every two, three days -- written sitrep -- and I've noticed for the last seven to 10 days the level of significant activities is how I kind of measure security situation, both short term and long term -- the analysis of that. It has been well below -- well below a historical norm for the last seven or 10 days.
I just came in out of the field and I was asked for a sitrep as I'm returning into the forward-operation base. And today, so far, across the entire Diyala province, the size of Maryland, we've had two significant activities -- two events that qualified as significant activities. One was a found IED and the other was a cache turned over to us.
So to answer your question: No, I have not seen an increase in the amount of attacks. Maybe I'm just being a little overly nervous. Again, trying to avoid being a victim of our own success, so I'm really kind of keyed up on trying to stop anything else from arising.
http://www.defenselink.mil/
dodcm..._transcript.pdf
_
@ RhusLancia, 03.28.08 - 7:52 pm.
"An Italian, John, Anonymouses, etc.: The Sadrists are claiming the crackdown on JAM is due to political reasons. This is a position you all appear to be enthusiastically adopting. So. Isn't it possible it might actually INCREASE sympathy for the sadrists among the people, if their sympathy is genuine (ie not coerced). Also, don't you think there's a risk JAM could pull shenanigans at the polls?".
Now, dear stupid Arizonian Pongid, the 'fwee'n'democwatic' vote in 'libewated Eye-wak' was, in 2005, a vote MANNED BY MILITIAS.
Then the Badr Brigades, the Fadhila militia, the Mahdi Army and the lesser Shiite fundie ones were rigging the ballots for the same list: while at the forthcoming provincial elections they would be rivals.
As for the Sadrists, of course they'd pull shenanigans like the others,
WHEN NEEDED: but given the greater popularity of their movement in this case it is the SIIC/Badr Brigades which NEED to especially rig the vote !
@ ZEYAD
(re: Snake 'anand', 03.29.08 - 2:15 am & preceding).
Dear Zeyad,
have mercy on your blog !
You see, our Multifarious Troll (nowadays signing himself mainly 'Realist' and 'Willie Pete'), that atheistic Jew, is, precisely, a troll, so his presence does not disturb too much.
But we have this poisonous reptile 'anand', the American pal of al-Hakim and the Badr Brigades, hissing forth a ton of falsities and dog manure with each post.
Now, a part of your readers are NOT vewy vewy intelligent, and could be easily taken in by the comical and grotesque alphabet soups vomited by this Snake.
Yes, of course any vaguely informed reader, knowing that the ( ) "ISF" are getting their asses pounded by the Mahdi Army, so that in order to avoid the most humiliating defeat they are now calling in Dad (i.e., the US military) to bail them out ...
... but the most stupid (and there are many) could be misled by the grotesque LIES of the slithering thing.
So, please, dear Zeyad, whack this coiling American abomination of Indian origin !
A piece missing after "bail them out": ', knows that what the reptile writes is just absurd crap ...'
Sorry for the typo.
@ All.
If you want to read an informed, intelligent American warmonger (not the sort of fanatical and lame propaganda agents that Rats' Sewers Central, Lynnette and the unspeakable creepy Liar 'anand' love so much), go and have a look at:
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/
BTW, from one of the latest posts (RhusLancia, you silly Ape that associates with Rats and Snakes, take notice !):
"The U.S. history in Iraq is more complicated, obviously, but what's happening now is the U.S. is throwing our lot in with ISCI in the upcoming elections. And all Abu Muqawama is saying is, there better be a whole lot of quid pro quo going on as well".
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/...-take-
lead.html
PeteS:
Belated congratulations on your transcript of the 'Oily Oirishman' interview - must have taken a while, and was quite interesting.
Not quite sure about that 'Basra just like Abu Dahbi in ten years' bit though. I hear they've recently opened the world's largest shopping mall there, or some such. This doesn't give me warm cuddly feelings, I hate shopping malls, more a 'corner store' kinda guy.
Speaking of which, I was struck by this thought from your colleague and spiritual compatriot, RhusLancia, neighbourhood gunshop owner, in support of Maliki's actions: " don't you think there's a risk JAM could pull shenanigans at the polls?" I.e., they might win at the upcoming provincial elections, therefore we had better shoot as many as possible beforehand. Can't vote if they're dead, you see.
Makes sense, I suppose. By logical extension, the correct course for the Bush 'hand puppet' regime in the US will be to open fire at the Democratic National Convention, taking out TweedleDumb and TweedleBarack before they can do any damage.
(I'm assuming, of course, that you instinctively support any action taken by the Maliki government, him being part-Irish and all.)
JAM tomorrow and JAM yesterday, but no JAM today, what?
I thought your benevolent US was meant to be hanging around in Iraq precisely to prevent this sort of thing? Why are they dragging their feet? Surely they should have unleashed a whole lot more bombs and rockets by now?
That's how you fix things, you know.
@An Italian
So Realist is an "atheistic Jew"? He sure had me fooled. Those sneaky Jews are everywhere, aren't they? It's a good thing that we have you and Um Ayad here to ferret them out.
Oytalian is leaping to conclusions about the Talmudic allusion to "boiling excrement"... which makes Realist/Willy P. a Jew about as much as quoting Dante makes Oytalian a Christian.
@ An Italian | 03.29.08 - 7:09 am
So, errr, you agree that doing this operation for political reasons would be a vewy vewy bad idea on Maliki's part?
_
@johni[n]nz: I hate shopping malls, more a 'corner store' kinda guy.
Stands to reason, you hardly need the Mall of America when the only thing on sale is a leg of mutton.
(I'm assuming, of course, that you instinctively support any action taken by the Maliki government, him being part-Irish and all.)
Actually he sounds like a bit of an aul' weasel, that Rory O'Malachy. Wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him.
An Italian: "Then the Badr Brigades, the Fadhila militia, the Mahdi Army and the lesser Shiite fundie ones were rigging the ballots for the same list: while at the forthcoming provincial elections they would be rivals."
Are you saying the Dec '05 election was invalid?
_
@ RhusLancia, 03.29.08 - 10:36 am & 12:24 pm.
Rhussie, dear four-handed genius, the Maliki military initiative against the Sadrists IS, precisely, due to pollitical reasons, i.e., who will control the polling booths in the Shiite regions at the October provincial elections.
[Rhus] "Are you saying the Dec '05 election was invalid?".
It is quite obvious, Rhus, that a fraudolent 'election' manned and managed by armed militias (and by the two Kurdish gangs in the North & by 'insurgents' in al-Anbar) CANNOT be regarded as a 'valid' election, despite the American propaganda hype.
This I told at the time ... ah, 'free & fair', indeed !
What about Jeffrey Schuster, that Liar & Rat you are associated with, Rhus ?
@ PeteS, 03.29.08 - 10:33 am.
[Pietrino] "which makes Realist/Willy P. a Jew about as much as quoting Dante makes Oytalian a Christian".
This, oh my silly Rat Peadarín (the creep who just luves to defame Catholicism and the Church by posing as one Kathrick), would actually be proven evidence that our Multifarious Troll is indeed a Jew !
But while it is 100 % demonstrated that our Troll is an atheist, his evident hatred for BOTH Christianity AND Islam (plus the Talmudic reference) makes one wonder ... not that his being a Jew is 100 % sure, of course ...
Italian, I wanted to tell you . . . belated Happy Easter.
You are made in Divine's image. And as one child of God to another I wish you all happiness, success, peace and love imaginable. I believe in you.
Maybe we got off on the wrong foot.
And Inshallah, may Italy succeed in all her endevours.
[Canadian John, 03.28.08 - 9:07 pm]: It might work for a fradulent (sic) Catholic who can absolve their hypocrisy with the odd confession...
[Oytalian, 03.29.08 - 1:03 pm]: It is quite obvious, Rhus, that a fraudolent (sic) 'election' manned and managed by armed militias (and by the two Kurdish gangs in the North & by 'insurgents' in al-Anbar) CANNOT be regarded as a 'valid' election...
Thus it is 100% demonstrated that Oytalian is a Ba'athist... not that his being Oytalian is 100% sure, of course.
Italian, do you have any evidence for this wild assertion that Pete is only posing as a Catholic?
It would shake the foundations of my disbelief if this were true.
Next you'll be saying that he's not really Irish at all, he's Lynette in drag.
Anonymous | 03.28.08 - 6:24 pm | #,
I understand that(and it sucks). That type of situation has affected many people in Iraq. If what I wished came to pass, it would mean that that situation no longer exists.
The Sadrists do make up part of the government, yes. But they are not innocent victims. Or at least not all of them. In fact, as far as I can tell, there are few people in Iraq with completely clean hands. We have to work with what we got. And that means trying to weed out the worst offenders and getting the others to loosen up a little. Sure it may end up with the larger sharks eating the smaller, but it's not in the cards politically or militarilly to wipe out all the fish and restock the pond. I think you know that.
Annie,
Okay, I will hold my nose and read the Raed Jarrar piece. But you have to understand that, as far as I am concerned, Raed Jarrar is not an unbiased source of information.
fyi, Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
lyn, nobody is unbiased. there are no neutral thoughts.
that means trying to weed out the worst offenders and getting the others to loosen up a little.
no, it doesn't. that is a fallacy. that is why i think you should read the jarrar piece. we haven't been using diplomacy. nor have we 'loosened up a bit' on our neoliberal plans for iraq. instead of them loosing, we should. after all we are the ones putting the squeeze on iraq, or haven't you noticed?
Sure it may end up with the larger sharks eating the smaller,
how appropo. what's a few dead iraqis
but it's not in the cards politically or militarilly to wipe out all the fish and restock the pond. I think you know that.
wipe out the fish and restock the pond? you mean we should go w/the fish we have the ones we gamble will deliver the goals we want?
do you ever listen to yourself?
does it occur to you that no matter how many times anyone repeats the lie this is 'maliki's decision' it is appearing more and more like he is just an iraqi face in front of the invaders airbombs that have any chance of winning this battle?
instead of them loosing, we should.
fruedian slip? that was supposed to read
instead of them loosening, we should. after all we are the ones putting the squeeze on iraq, or haven't you noticed?
@ PeteS as Spelling Bee, 03.29.08 - 1:27 pm.
Well, me fake Kathrick, ye got me, ye did !
Actually it is 'fraudUlent' in English, OK ...
(sorry fer de Oytalian calque; in Oytalian it is 'fraudolento, -a').
@johni[n]nz: Next you'll be saying that he's not really Irish at all, he's Lynette in drag.
Hey, come chop a tree, big boy!
Lyn[n]ette.
As for the Sadrists, of course they'd pull shenanigans like the others,
WHEN NEEDED: but given the greater popularity of their movement in this case it is the SIIC/Badr Brigades which NEED to especially rig the vote ! Italian
Don't you think military action would be counterproductive in this scenario? And if the election was so expertly rigged before, why not simply do that now? Less muss and fuss. Oh, and how popular are the Sadrists, really? I seriously question that.
@ johninnz, 03.29.08 - 2:21 pm.
[johninnz] "Italian, do you have any evidence for this wild assertion that Pete is only posing as a Catholic?
It would shake the foundations of my disbelief if this were true".
And since I'm indeed a church-going Catholic it seems extremely strange to me that a Catholic would support immoral positions in favour of wars of aggression, which most Catholic and about 90 % of the inhabitants of Ireland would consider criminal and deranged, to the detriment and disrepute of Catholicism !!!
Because it was this creep Pietrino who kept highlighting that he is (ehm...) a Catholic, while nothing would warrant it in discussions over international politics ...
[johninnz] "Next you'll be saying that he's not really Irish at all, he's Lynnette in drag".
Dear John, these last few months poor Pete unfortunately took the down-winding road to imbecility. Either I had not noticed his condition before, or his peculiar alimentary practices brought him to develop the Simian Spongiform Encephalopathy ...
the result being that, nowadays, he doesn't sound more intelligent than our four-handed Lynnette !
Annie,
Okay, I read the Jarrar piece. And it was pretty much as I suspected. His focus being that this is a clash of power between nationalists who prefer a strong central government and "separatists" who do not, with a side of occupation hysteria thrown in.
*sigh* (Yes, had to get that obligatory sigh in there.)
lyn, nobody is unbiased. there are no neutral thoughts.
Yes, exactly. Raed Jarrar has his perceptions and I have mine. And we both may be a little bit right and a little bit wrong. But in any case, this will play out as it will whatever we have to say about it.
Ah, the delicate and humane sensibilities of a true lady.
"Sure it may end up with the larger sharks eating the smaller, but it's not in the cards politically or militarily to wipe out all the fish and restock the pond."
Translation: There are not many people in Iraq who are not anti-US.
Although desirable, it is not really feasible to kill them all and 'restock the pond.' (What with, prawns?) Therefore, umm ....
Aw heck, guys, let's give it the old college try, anyway. Bomb, shoot, kill, kill, kill!
Ain't fishin' fun!
P.S.
I do want to add, that I think Iraqi nationalists fear of privatization and semi-autonomous regions is way overblown. Those things are basic building blocks of the United States and have worked quite well for us. It ain't perfect, but it does allow for more flexibility. Which is something that is needed when you have a society that wants to be inclusive of all groups.
Yup, then their pond can be jus' like ours. We've only had a massive civil war, oppressed one section of our nation for centuries just because of their skin colour, built enough bombs to blow up the planet several times over, and now we're going broke.
Oh yeah, and elects Preznits who make Maliki look like a genius.
What do you mean, it ain't perfect?
"Sure it may end up with the larger sharks eating the smaller, but it's not in the cards politically or militarily to wipe out all the fish and restock the pond."
Just for you John:
Translation:
At some point in time you have to assert government control over basic functions in Iraq, like security(the big shark). Private militias are not very conducive to law and order(the little shark). If, as some people here are asserting, there are people within the government who are also responsible for criminal activity, there are only two choices, remove them or try to change their behavior. We cannot remove them (wipe out the fish and restock the pond) because there is no political or military will to do so. That I know of, anyway. We can only try to change their behavior.
We've only had a massive civil war, oppressed one section of our nation for centuries just because of their skin colour, built enough bombs to blow up the planet several times over, and now we're going broke.
Why, I'm sorry to hear that New Zealand has had such difficulties.
I do want to add, that I think Iraqi nationalists fear of privatization and semi-autonomous regions is way overblown. Those things are basic building blocks of the United States and have worked quite well for us. It ain't perfect, but it does allow for more flexibility.
And what makes you think we want to copy your system? Why are you trying to force your system on the Iraqis when every poll has shown that they overwhelmingly object to it. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works in every country.
"We can only try to change their behavior."
And which sterling examples of probity and integrity will you encourage them to follow? Enron? Halliburton? Blackwater?
I know, you could give them a lot of dodgy electronic voting machines that nobody trusts.
Oops. Silly me. For 'give,' read "sell.'
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 03.29.08 - 3:12 pm.
[Lynnette] "Don't you think military action would be counterproductive in this scenario? And if the election was so expertly rigged before, why not simply do that now? Less muss and fuss".
Dear Lynnette, the elections were rigged by having (in the case of Southern Iraq and parts of Baghdad; in other areas the same happened, but with other actors) the members of the UIA and its armed militias taking control of polling booths, and 'interpreting' (LOL !) the actual ballots like they wanted, i.e., with a result passed on to the central electoral commission of a 95 % or more of the votes for the UIA.
At the provincial elections, the Sadrists and the other UIA parties would have been in DIFFERENT lists; if the Sadrists had still their militia, they would be able to control against their rivals more polling stations, and so to prevent fraud at their expenses (& to indulge in some at the expenses of the others, in case).
No militia = No rigging, as simple as that.
That is, in order to be sure that you can rig at your pleasure, you need to have some armed muscle to control the electoral process.
[Lynnette] "Oh, and how popular are the Sadrists, really? I seriously question that".
And you are quite wrong in questioning that; keep in mind that the Sadrists manage to populistically represent the downthrodden and people of no property, while the SIIC represents the bazaar owners.
Raed Jarrar has his perceptions and I have mine. And we both may be a little bit right and a little bit wrong.
your capacity to say nothing continues to astound me. sure lyn, the only difference is jarrar is an iraqi and likely thinks of iraqis in terms other than sharks and fish. you on the other hand are a political operative working for the invader, so naturally you are going to be thinking and talking differently (w/gushy little words like 'hysteria' thrown in to beef up your bluster)
Although desirable, it is not really feasible to kill them all and 'restock the pond.' (What with, prawns?) Therefore, umm ....
Aw heck, guys, let's give it the old college try, anyway. Bomb, shoot, kill, kill, kill!
johninz, lyn is so polite in her approach, don't you think? shooting fish in a barrel is much more palatable than massacring women and children, don't you think?
I do want to add, that I think Iraqi nationalists fear of privatization and semi-autonomous regions is way overblown.
I do want to add, that I think your fear of socialist programs and unity is way overblown.
flexibility.... something that is needed when you have a society that wants to be inclusive of all groups.
great, then why don't you eleborate about how flexible the US is willing to be regarding the iraqs maybe not wanting the neoliberal way shoved down their throats.
We cannot remove them (wipe out the fish and restock the pond) because there is no political or military will to do so.
lol, amusing. clearly there is no political or military will of the INVADERS, but in iraq? lol. face it lyn, the choice iraqis have is 'which politician that will go along w/US policy do we choose'. just like naomi klien said, you can't democratically vote to be socialized. it is against the rules. no amnount of claims of hysteria will change whts going on. truth is neither negotiated, or a matter of perception. it just is. while you MAY be just a little right , you aren't. you are just fishing for anything hoping to hook some sucker. throw a bunch of crap on the wall and see what sticks.
"Why, I'm sorry to hear that New Zealand has had such difficulties."
If you can't answer the point, change the subject.
Your tactics are showing, Lynette.
Adjust your girdle.
Where is the filthy, smelly Hindu? I'm sure he is so proud of the performance of the "ISF" and "IA" who have failed to gain any ground against a bunch of ragtags with AK-47s for the fifth day in row. Instead we see defections, mutiny, refusals to fight the Mahdi Army, and now the militiamen are using the "IA"'s Humvees.
LOL. On Yahoo News there are images of the "ISF" handing over their weapons to the local Sadr office in Sadr City and taking flowers and Qurans in return. LOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
Adjust your girdle.
li'l lynnie doesn't like to talk about the failures of america. why the neoliberal financial practices of the current thieves in power are turning this country into another banana republic? hosting off the american public is not very fullfilling lately, we need another host nation. lucky iraq fills the bill.
Ahh, the plot thickens. Looks like they're saying we didn't know in advance about the GOI plans in Basrah.
Will "the truth" please stand up.
"We can't fight our brothers in the Mahdi Army, so we came here to submit our weapons," one policeman said on condition of anonymity ...
Anonymous,
And what makes you think we want to copy your system?
"We want what you have." That is what so many Iraqis have said. Well, how do they think we got it?
Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works in every country.
What has worked in Iraq?
Nooooo, you are wrong. Those images were of the 956f IA 3rd ISF Brigade, which admittedly has problems. But once you see the 34534th IA-D, I SM-ELL-L IKE CUR-RY, in action, you will change your mind. Those rogue militants who are backed by the IRG Kus forces stand no chance against the wrath of the 344th IA M-A FAG Armored Brigade.
Sayyid Muqtada is a good man. He is made in God's image. We are all made in God's image. Maliki is a good man too. Please don't say anything bad about them. But if my Massa say they are bad and rogue then it must be true and they should all be bombed into submission by the MNF-I. I don't want Massa to revoke my Green Card, you know.
GO ISF
GO IA
Sit, boy, sit!
*
Looks like they're saying we didn't know in advance about the GOI plans in Basrah.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
The U.S. military is sending advisers down to Basra to help the Iraqi army coordinate an operation which American officers say was "put together on the fly" and has degenerated into a stalemate.
These officers complain Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki acted "impulsively" in ordering an offensive his army was not prepared to conduct, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.
The Iraqis didn't ask permission, they just went, which seems to have caught President Bush by surprise.
JESUS, WHAT WILL THEY THINK OF NEXT?
they better spread the news fast. can't have the talking heads making statements like this over at gov troll central
This is part of the plan. It's part of the plan that the US experts set for the government of Iraq and it is delivering on it.
HAHAHAHAHAH
No, annie, you are wrong, we have to continue the job by training the patriotic ISF even if it takes a hundred more years. Meanwhile we will continue to bomb Iraqi civilians. Just today the MNF-I killed eight civilians including two women and a child in an air strike in Basrah. But it must all be good because Massa says so.
Annie, you are a good person. I'm sure you don't support the Takfiri who kill Iraqi civilians (only MNF-I are allowed to bomb Iraqi civilians). You are made in God's image. I love you
Annie! I'll make naan and curry for you.
ha! the caption below the video on li'l lyn's link says
The U.S. military is sending advisors to help the Iraqi army coordinate an attack against Shiite insurgents attempting to overthrow the government.
since when is defending yourself from being killed off before the elections 'attempting to overthrow the government' ??!!!!!
oh my god, rhus is finally going to have his msm article stating someone is trying to overthrow the government!
Annie! I'll make naan and curry for you.
this is a tempting invitation indeed. smelly hindu, this might indeed be true love.
i like food..alot
Italian,
...you need to have some armed muscle to control the electoral process.
Yes, I understand. But what percentage is Mahdi Army and what is SIIC in the south? Or was.
...keep in mind that the Sadrists manage to populistically represent the downthrodden and people of no property,
Indeed, some do, but others are common thugs. I think it would depend on which kind you ended up involved with, as to whether or not they were well liked.
Annie,
your capacity to say nothing continues to astound me.
Oh, my God, you're starting to rub off on me.
the only difference is jarrar is an iraqi and likely thinks of iraqis in terms other than sharks and fish.
You mean more along the lines of those you can take advantage of and those you can't?
you on the other hand are a political operative working for the invader,
Now you;ve been hanging out with Rachel too much.
that I think your fear of socialist programs and unity is way overblown.
Now, Annie, we touched a little on that over at the Kid's. I said there that I think there should be social safety nets in a society. And as for unity, I'm all for it. It's just that I would like to see it based on more common goals than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In short you can't base unity only on a common goal to get rid of an "occupation". That's only an illusory unity.
neoliberal?
You keep using that word. What is that? What happened to neocon? Neoliberal sounds, ummm, well, like you!
clearly there is no political or military will of the INVADERS, but in iraq?
I have no problem with Iraqis voting for different people in the next election, Annie.
johni(n)nz,
If you can't answer the point, change the subject.
Just can't take a joke, can you?
Sure the US has had all sorts of problems. We have fought about just about everything under the sun. But we have survived and come out stronger for it. And we have managed to stay together partly because we have tried to build some flexibility into the system.
Adjust your girdle.
Can't, sorry, don't wear one.
Now I've really got to go. I've stayed too long already.
Night all.
lyn, neocon is not a fiscal policy. if you want to know what neoliberal is, look it up. don't play stupid w/me. you may want to check out the chicago boys Pinochet, Milton Friedman.
An often-cited early implementation of neoliberal policies followed in the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet's coup d'état. Pinochet's coup took place in the context of economic crisis under the government of Socialist Salvador Allende, and his regime is argued to have adopted neoliberal policies as a pragmatic response to the Chilean economy's breakdown (Pinochet was not necessarily predisposed to neoliberalism before taking power).[13][14] Proposals for free market reforms are often argued to have been championed by the so-called Chicago Boys, members of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile who had strong ties to Chicago School economists[15]. Detractors of Pinochet's regime have argued that the human costs in the form of torture and disappearances were instrumental in the implementation of neoliberal policies[16].
read naomi klien's shock therapy to hear all about how we have imposed it on iraq. there is nothing flexible about the choice for iraqis.
we touched a little on that over at the Kid's.
so in other words you are allowed to frame someone's CHOICE to prefer nationalized/socialized programs and a strong central unified government as ( irrational) " fear of privatization and semi-autonomous regions ", but when it comes to your preferences it is well thought out , rational and comes from a place of comfort w/ones choice. not fear?
nice framing lyn, maybe they just want to do things THEIR WAY. as opposed to your way...
i have been reading the comments over at your laughable link about how surprised and fast the sadr attack all came about for the US military. there is a little debate going on about how LONG it should take to TRAIN iraqis. oddly enough nogoby is mentioning anything about how long it would take to get soldiers to attack their own population.
how long do you think it would take to train an army of americans to attack other americans?
Score for this quarter:
Sanity 10
Minnesota NIL
Hubba hubba!
Are you being targeted by the Jews/Freemasons? Here's how to tell.
Gosh, Lynette in Minnesota is suddenly remarkably verbose and exceptionally didactic - who's pulling your strings, Lynette - this last stand by Al Maliki must be connected to the US presidential election.
Al Maliki has extended the "deadline" to 8 April - is that 8 April this year or 2099? And he hasn't said what will happen if the deadline is not adhered to.
Oytalian: And since I'm indeed a church-going Catholic it seems extremely strange to me that a Catholic would support immoral positions in favour of wars of aggression, which most Catholic and about 90 % of the inhabitants of Ireland would consider criminal and deranged, to the detriment and disrepute of Catholicism !!!
LOL! Is that some other "catholicism" where cheering the forces of chaos is supposed to be good? No thanks!
An angry Iraqi woman refugee in Syria tells Sky Reporter Tim Marshall what she thinks about the war.
I would love some of that Iraqi bread(khubz)... I miss it!!
Syria's 'Little Iraq' Keeps Growing
"Iraqi refugees have swollen Syria's population by 7% as they pour across the border from towns and cities such as Baghdad, Mosul and Ramadi. Some have languished in refugee camps for four years. Sky's Foreign Affairs editor Tim Marshall reports."
Video available:-
http://video.news.sky.com/
skynew...ourceID=1311006
another one of ms minnie's gems falls flat
you can't base unity only on a common goal to get rid of an "occupation".
wanna bet?
Screw you Zeyad. Why don't you fuck off to that screwed up country of yours instead siphoning off of mine. It doesn't matter what the war was for, what matters now is what it's worth. Some of our dead lay buried in your sand.. beheaded.. due to your religion. They didn't go there on some religious edict.. they went there on behalf on the US, to liberate and destroy Saddam.
You're now here in my country.. decrying what has been done... bitching, moaning, complaining.. hell.. you don't even mention you're own country's soldiers. They've accomplished a hell of alot too, fuckheaded spoilt brat.
Fuck you.
beheaded.. due to your religion
What? When did the atheist jihad set up shop??
hey scrat. cool timing. let's start a flame war to NOT talk about what's going on. meanwhile some fairly interesting propaganda is comin' down the pike.
i wonder how many idiots will swallow it.
even tho the US circles sadr city and was airbombing the f out of hilla and other locals we are to believe bush was 'surprised' (reads: i'm shocked!) maliki got a feather up his butt and decided to attack a few rogue militias members in basra that just happened to happen to not turn out too swimmingly?
meanwhile, if the US wants to take out sadr, they hardly need the iraqi army to do it for them. in fact, all they need the iraqi gov troops for is political cover to give them a reason to go in and PROTECT them (to the rescue!)
yada yada, you following me.
the british have now joined in 'protecting the airspace', or 'providing cover' for the 'good guys' along the border w/kuwait.
they not only need a really good reason to escalate the war, not bring home the troops which you know damn well cheney doesn't want to do, they want to come out of this looking like the protectors, not the aggressors, which any one w/a brain knows they are.
maybe they don't think the iraqi people are stupid enough to fall for the election results they will be coughing up (unlike americans who seems to believe it every time the neocons get elected by the skin of their teeth even tho polls show THEY AREN'T POPULAR!
what if this is all just a huge pr fiasco for the prelude to the US pulverizing iraq, again.
oh, never mind yada yada, what was it you were saying scrat? something about zayed being in YOUR country. lol, while his country is hosting a few hundred thousand unwelcome americans!
booga booga booga
white infidel muthafukkas
BOOGA
allah akbar
It's the Jews, I tell you!
They're everywhere!
Hey scrotum, it sure warms our hearts that 4 thousand of your worthless white trash have been culled in Iraq. If you want to bitch and moan about those worthless pieces of shit, go ask your elected officials why they were sent to Iraq. It's funny that the aggressor comes here and tries to blame the victim. They didn't ask you to invade their country or "liberate" them.
Tfou.
And to Zeyad: you now defending the murderous Mahdi army or what? It is a moment for us to celebrate to see Badr and Sadr at each others throats. The Sunni community, the resistance and the Sahwa councils should be on full alert and use this golden opportunity to regain lost Sunni ground in Baghdad and other places. Iran is backing every one of those criminal groups. so do not forget what happened in the near past. Please do not be fooled by those shroogi gangs and slaves of Khomaini, Sistani and Khamenei. Do not forget who burned our mosques and blew up our houses? Who desecrated the holy Quran and Who killed our imams and worshippers? Who displaced our people and left them as beggars in Jordan and Syria and refugees in camps? Who used electric drills, sledge hammers and acid to torture our sons and brothers? Who celebrated over their bodies? We will never forget the crimes of Satan's army. Not even in a thousand years. How can we forget the thousands on thousand of Sunnis who have perished? May they both be damned and with them Iran and the occupiers and the filthy turbans of Najaf and Qum. It is like cold water on a thirsty man in the desert to see them fighting each other like this. MAy they all burn in hell.
From Visser:
"In early August 2007, Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a Shi‘i preacher affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, made headlines with striking comments to a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor. The cleric revealed in an interview with Sam Dagher that “a massive operation” was underway to secure the establishment of a Shi‘i super-province in Iraq, to be named the “South of Baghdad Region,” and projected to encompass all nine majority-Shi‘i governorates south of the Iraqi capital. Saghir claimed that his party had already drafted detailed plans for how such a super-province would be governed -- plans of such importance to Iraq and the region that there was “no room for misadventures.”[1] While Saghir did not mention a timeline for this remarkable undertaking, other Supreme Council supporters of the idea were less reticent: “The Shiite federal region will be announced in April 2008,” wrote one enthusiastic proponent.[2]
The date was not chosen at random. April 2008 is the month when the law for implementing federalism -- adopted by the Iraqi parliament in October 2006 -- comes into effect. For the first time in Iraqi history, areas of the country that desire a special federal status similar to that already enjoyed by Kurdistan may initiate a procedure for transforming themselves from ordinary governorates into “federal regions,” potentially acquiring such privileges as the right to establish local paramilitary forces and the right to negotiate local deals with foreign oil companies. In order to obtain the rank of federal region, a governorate must hold a referendum in which no less than 50 percent of the electorate votes and a simple majority votes yes. If multiple governorates wish to band together in one federal region, the proposition must pass such a referendum in each province tagged for inclusion. (Only the Baghdad province is prohibited from forming part of a greater federal region.) If one targeted governorate says no, the federal project founders."
That information from the mouth of a ISCI official, no less, puts much of the current operation against Sadr into context.
I will celebrate when the shitheads manage to wipe each other out.
Too bad they can’t both lose.
Too bad they can’t both lose.
++++
Me: "Are you saying the Dec '05 election was invalid?".
An Italian: "It is quite obvious, Rhus, that a fraudolent 'election' manned and managed by armed militias (and by the two Kurdish gangs in the North & by 'insurgents' in al-Anbar) CANNOT be regarded as a 'valid' election, despite the American propaganda hype."
I guess you would know.
Wait, no you wouldn't! Joker! Jokey McJokenheimer! Of course there were just enough problems with the '05 election for someone to make a case that they were rigged, as long as someone and their audience is predisposed to such a position. As you know, the IECI received hundreds of complaints and looked into every one. They found that some were valid and some were not. In the end, the election stood. It will certainly not sway you if I link to their report, but alas I link it anyway.
The Oct '08 elections will be held with these lessons learned and, if I'm not mistaken, more UN training and oversight. That won't stop some people from trying shenanigans, but it will make it less likely they'll succeed.
_
@ our brigade of Simian imbeciles, RhusLancia, Lynnette, & Co.
Dear Beasties,
this article by an American could, maybe, bring some light into your foggy apish brains:
'In Iraq, U.S. caught in middle of Shiite rivalry', by Ned Parker
http://www.latimes.com/news/
prin...7069,full.story
In the last few days, the gates of Hell have swung open for something on the order of 500 damned Iraqi Muslim souls. This is a truely pathetic performance by the Iraqi vermin, but is only to be expected based on their cowardice, stupidity, and general incompetence.
The civilized world must hope that the extermination rate increases soon, but in the meantime, every little bit helps.
The black souls of the savage Muslim vermin have by now been greeted and welcomed to Hell by their evil false prophet Muhammed the Damned. They have been cast into the pits of boiling excrement where they will spend eternity.
Let us hope that they suffer enhanced torment for at least the first few thousand years.
Praise Jesus!
@ RhusLancia, 03.30.08 - 10:16 am.
By linking to the report by the (totally discredited, and comical - like quoting the Electoral Commission of the People's Republic of China) IECI you are doing a disservice to your arguments, oh my silly Arizonian Pongid !
And, as you may see, all the world knows WHY the SIIC/Badr decided to attack the Sadrists now (i.e., because of the October provincial elections). Have mercy on yourself !
That's true that you Apes'n'Monkeys have no dignity, no decency and no shame, but do not exaggerate, please !
@ Johninnz
(re: PeteS, 03.29.08 - 8:19 pm).
[Oyrish Judas] "Is that some other 'catholicism' where cheering the forces of chaos is supposed to be good? No thanks!".
It is the Catholicism of the Pope at the time of the criminal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, seen as an UNJUST and demented enterprise (as it amply proved to be).
But this little devout follower of the Father of the Lie, the disgusting Rat Pietrino, is a 'more competent' Catholic than Pope John Paul II, of course ...
... "No thanks!" to John Paul II, lol !
Now you can see, dear John, why it would be dangerous to take the 'Catholicism' of our immoral abomination Wee Pete at face value ...
An Italian: "By linking to the report by the (totally discredited, and comical ...) IECI"
Where has it been discredited, except through the water-tight standby unimpeachable reason that "you don't like what it says" ??
_
@ RhusLancia, 03.30.08 - 11:01 am.
Dear Four-Handed Genius,
the IECI is the same body that convalidated the (obviously) fake results of the patently rigged constitutional referendum of October 2005.
And remember that there was NOT A SINGLE independent observer to supervise the electoral processes ...
An Italian: "And, as you may see, all the world knows WHY the SIIC/Badr decided to attack the Sadrists now (i.e., because of the October provincial elections)."
The world knows the Sadrist side of it, and many are finding it tasty and good. From your article:
Sadr loyalists allege that as the elections approach, their group has been deliberately targeted by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council through the army and police's top commanders, where the party wields influence.
You are buying this rationale without question because it appeals to you.
I appeal to your reason: don't you think if Maliki did this to influence the election, it would be almost certain to backfire and increase Sadr's support & electoral gains? SIIC/Fadhila couldn't possibly think they could control the election enough to override that effect. That would be vewy vewy stupid, don't you think?
_
Here is the real source of the troubles in Iraq.
@ RhusLancia, 03.30.08 - 11:08 am.
[Rhus] "I appeal to your reason: don't you think if Maliki did this to influence the election, it would be almost certain to backfire and increase Sadr's support & electoral gains? SIIC/Fadhila couldn't possibly think they could control the election enough to override that effect. That would be vewy vewy stupid, don't you think?".
C'm'on, dear Rhussie, you cannot be THIS stupid !
It is NOT going "to backfire", IF successful !
Let's imagine that Maliki/SIIC/Fadhila manage to squash the Mahdi Army.
Then THEIR militias would be the only ones to control the polling stations all throughout the 'Shiite' parts of Iraq.
Whatever the Iraqi citizens in those areas would actually vote would be totally irrelevant: the OFFICIAL results (convalidated by the IECI, LOL !) would instead point to a 90 % plus overwhelming victory by the anti-Sadr Shia fundie alliance.
An Italian: "And remember that there was NOT A SINGLE independent observer to supervise the electoral processes ..."
You have forgotten that there were, in fact, thousands of UN-trained observers and monitors there.
_
@ RhusLancia, 03.30.08 - 11:08 am.
When writing "Let's imagine that Maliki/SIIC/Fadhila manage to squash the Mahdi Army" I was not forgetting (but it's better to state it) that they could do that (despite the comical and ignorant lies by the nauseating Snake 'anand') ONLY thanks to the decisive military support by the Anglo-American useful idiots.
@ RhusLancia, 03.30.08 - 11:16 am.
[Rhus] "You have forgotten that there were, in fact, thousands of UN-trained observers and monitors there".
Rhussie, again, c'm'on !
ALL of them were Iraqis, and linked to the parties.
Well, looks like there's going to be another ceasefire. So much for Maliki's threats. The Sadrists again withdraw to fight another day.
I would love some of that Iraqi bread(khubz)... I miss it!!
Um Ayad | 03.29.08 - 8:39 pm | #
Let her eat excrement!
An Italian: "ALL of them were Iraqis,"
true
An Italian: " and linked to the parties."
false. About half were not.
_
An Italian, this Sadrist idea of the militias controlling the election may be precisely what they had in mind, and hence their experience in its viability. However, must I remind you (an independent external observer ), that the UN through UNAMI will be more involved in helping these elections, not less.
_
Italian,
And, as you may see, all the world knows WHY the SIIC/Badr decided to attack the Sadrists now (i.e., because of the October provincial elections).
It does seem that Rachel didn't get that memo.
...this last stand by Al Maliki must be connected to the US presidential election. Rachel
Rachel,
Gosh, Lynette in Minnesota is suddenly remarkably verbose and exceptionally didactic - who's pulling your strings, Lynette -
*sigh* It's Annie. She just kind of sucks one into her debates. Well, okay, there are the other odd assorted characters who inhabit this comments section as well.
[Me, 03.29.08 - 8:19 pm] "Is that some other 'catholicism' where cheering the forces of chaos is supposed to be good? No thanks!".
@Oytalian, 03.30.08 - 10:57 am: It is the Catholicism of the Pope at the time of the criminal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, seen as an UNJUST and demented enterprise (as it amply proved to be).
Ah yes, as usual you are choosing to confuse 2003 with 2008 when it suits you. I have already agreed that the Pope was against this invasion, as indeed was I when it happened. He was also at pains to point out Saddam's responsibility to follow UN resolutions, as he did in Baghdad via his special envoy, and to Tariq Aziz in Rome in February 2003, and also to the UN Security Council via Monsignor Migliore. My own opinion is that it would have been much better had the invasion a) waited for further weapons inspection results, and b) been done under UN auspices if it had turned out to be necessary. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the Pope was not offering a workable formula that would bring sanctions (of which he was a vocal critic) to an end should Saddam's intransigence continue. And at Easter of that same year he said that "There will be no peace on earth while the oppression of peoples, injustices and economic imbalances, which still exist, endure" ... which presumably means that he did not consider Iraq under Saddam to be "at peace".
All that said, my reference to "cheering the forces of chaos" applies in TODAY'S situation. Before you start claiming the Pope for YOUR side, you better explain how having Sadr's militia running around is somehow in the interests of peace and justice. Of course I have no doubt that you will be claiming that the Pope is a secret necrophage, which is the only way I can imagine you will be able to justify your bestial morals. Personally, I didn't notice any necrophagia is MY copy of "de catechism".
is MY copy = *in* MY copy 
So yesterday Maliki said the Mahdi Army is worse than Al-Qaeda, and today he is praising the Mahdi Army and calling for peaceful dialogue. He seems to have abandoned his belligerent stance against "outlaws" of a few days ago. Any of you informed pundits care to explain to us what is going on?
Ah, that's much better, Pete.
I never felt really comfortable in my role as a terrist-luvin' market-bombing Al Qaeda supporter. Wasn't really me, and as for the uniform...!
Much happier as a Sadr-luvin' chaos-cheerin' opponent of Peace On Earth. Gives much more scope for brandishing my bestial morals, and the pink trousers really match my eyes...!
Just one little query, to assist me in my Chaos-mongering. You mention 'Sadr's militia running around...' as the justification for the recent attack on them. Now while I have no illusions about their qualifications for sainthood, or their capacity for naughtiness, I was under the distinct impression that they had been mostly observing a voluntary ceasefire for some time. And I gather it wasn't all started by a Sadrist army marching on the Green Zone, it was Anand's redoubtable IA marching, or stumbling might be a better word, on the Sadrist strongholds in Basra and Sadr City. Or have I been mis-reading the papers again?
Ah, well, whatever the outcome among the squabbling Eye Rakis, one thing's for sure. Your dearly-beloved Americans, in the interests of peace and justice, should get to blow up a lot more Eye Raki houses. And as usual, their incredibly intelligent weaponry will infallibly detect the presence of women and childen within them before it decides to explode.
Yea, verrily 'There will be no peace on earth while the oppression of peoples, injustices and economic imbalances, which still exist, endure...'
Was His Holiness talking about Iraq or America?
When a Great Power Goes Mad
With the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. dead, the nation has been awash with news retrospectives on the war and speeches by politicians, mostly offering sanitized versions of what's transpired.
With a few exceptions, these media/political reflections have had the feel of self-rationalizations, more than self-criticisms. They’ve conveyed a sense that the U.S. system is doing just fine, thank you, although a few mistakes were made.
So, you have President George W. Bush, the chief author of this catastrophic war, declaring that “normalcy is returning back to Iraq” even as fighting rages across much of the country and rockets rain down on the highly fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.
An obvious reason why the mainstream U.S. press can’t handle this truth is that to do so would mean that President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, a host of other U.S. officials and even some prominent journalists could be regarded as war criminals.
To accept that reality would, in turn, create a moral imperative to take action. And that would require a great disruption in the existing U.S. power structure, which hasn’t changed much since Bush won authorization from Congress in October 2002 to use force and then invaded Iraq in March 2003.
Not only are Bush and Cheney still in office – and two of the three remaining presidential candidates, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, voted for the war – but the roster of top Washington journalists remains remarkably intact from five years ago.
It was as if the bloody madness that President Bush inflicted on the people of Iraq – aided and abetted by many witting and unwitting American accomplices – was being drained of its crimson hue and stripped of its human horrors.
Forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and maimed. Forget the innumerable lives destroyed and the millions displaced. Forget the bizarre forms of torture at Abu Ghraib and the widespread mistreatment of detainees at other Iraqi prisons.
No need for national guilt. No need for accountability. No reason to purge the editorial offices of leading newspapers and TV networks. No reason to talk about impeachment or war-crimes tribunals for committing the "supreme" crime against world peace. No need for any of that.
As President Bush said on March 27, “normalcy is returning back to Iraq,” if you don't take note of the mayhem all around. One might add that a similar form of “normalcy is returning back to Washington,” if you don't take note of all the lies and the self-deceptions.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Pr...008/
032808.html
And another question while we're about it, Pete.
Your Preznit has proclaimed this ludicrous squabble a 'defining moment in Iraq's history.'
I thought 'mission accomplished' was the defining moment?
No, hang about, wasn't Bremer's 100 Laws to remake Iraq a defining moment?
No, no, the purple finger 'election' must surely have been the most defining moment?
But then the amazing success of the Surge, which has 'worked,' has been pretty defining.
Maybe it was back in 1999, when a certain Irish oil company ...
Look, seriously, how many defining moments is one country allowed?
And is it wise to have a Preznit who keeps escaping from his speech-writers?
"normalcy is returning back to Iraq"
Did he really say that? Isn't that a tautology, 'unnecessary repetition of meaning?'
Does he actually have any speechwriters, or is there no-one dumb and stupid enough for the job?
johni[n]nz: Are you confused about your identity? I mentioned our Italian's bestial morals, not yours. Please feel free to continue to be a veggie-shopper-bombing AQ supporter if you wish. I guess your heroes are in slightly shorter supply, though, so you might feel the urge to back a different bunch of extra-legal combatants as, it seems, have several of your partners in chaos-mongering here. (I'll assume the pink trousers are a joke and that it's not a gender identity issue that is confusing you).
I notice that not one person has yet responded to RhusLancia's question about whether it is a good thing to have a non-state armed militia in Basra, whether on ceasefire or not. Why not be the first person to have a stab at it?
In answer to your question: Was His Holiness talking about Iraq or America?
... if you look at his statement I think you will see that he referred to "earth". I presume not even New Zealanders would claim to have a 100% just society, or did your youth suicide statistics suddenly stop being the worst among OECD countries when I wasn't looking?
And finally: Your Preznit has proclaimed this ludicrous squabble a 'defining moment in Iraq's history.'
I don't remember Mary McAleese making any such statement.
Is it a good thing to have a State-armed militia in Basra, or anywhere else for that matter?
Wouldn't it be better to have a State-armed neutral, non-political, non-sectarian Army, wherever it is?
You have a woman Dear Leader too? What's the world coming to, HH is going to have to give up on peace and justice if Hillary gets in as well.
Or has she brought a defining moment to Ireland's history as well?
@johni[n]nz: Wouldn't it be better to have a State-armed neutral, non-political, non-sectarian Army, wherever it is?
And isn't McAleese a Scottish name?
My youngest is betrothed to a Scotsman, nice chap, but I can't understand a word he says.
Have you got any incredibly rich and personable young Irishmen going free?
You know, like yourself, but sensible with it?
Please don't make suggestive Italian gestures at me, Pete.
@ All
(re: PeteS, 03.30.08 - 2:28 pm).
It is quite clear, by now, what this lil' pervert Pete is.
He's just a comical, demented abomination, a silly sort of Oyrish satanist.
Dear Johninnz, please, leave this ludicrous anti-human excrement alone: his revolting stench is reaching the High Heavens !!!
You choose your own preferred form of self-abuse, Italian.
I like the Irish variety.
You have a woman Dear Leader too?
Second in a row ... and she's on her second term. You have to go back nearly to the eighties since we had a bloke.
And isn't McAleese a Scottish name?
I can't tell, to be honest -- what's YOUR basis for claiming so? Its Irish Gaelic equivalent is Mhic Ghiolla Íosa, which means "son of the servant of Jesus", you'll be tickled to hear. Doesn't mean there isn't a Scots Gaelic equivalent though. In any case, McAleese is her married name -- she was born Leneghan. She's from Belfast, which makes a Scottish connection a lot more likely, but I believe both she and her hubby are Fenians rather than Steel Rods, which makes it slightly less so. (She lived in the Ardoyne and went to school on the Falls Road, which -- believe you me -- is about as Fenian as you can get. He was burned out of his childhood home by loyalists in East Belfast).
My youngest is betrothed to a Scotsman, nice chap, but I can't understand a word he says.
Not a Glaswegian by any chance? Those buggers have the skankiest accent ever recorded. I knew a Glaswegian who was also a former ME sufferer with a speech impediment ... took me years to "tune in" to it. Being from Glasgow would also make him more likely to be descended from us bogtrotters -- do you know if he's a Taigue or a Steel Rod?
Have you got any incredibly rich and personable young Irishmen going free? You know, like yourself, but sensible with it?
Depends -- is she incredibly good-looking and prepared to move 12,000 miles away from the "in-laws from hell"?
Please don't make suggestive Italian gestures at me, Pete.
Why not? You love it when An Italian does it!
"Not a Glaswegian by any chance?"
No, he's an Edinburgh lad. Pretty fake, actually, his Dad was English, married a Scots girl, moved oop there abd started wearing a kilt, and the rest was apparently history and itchy privates.
Bit like an Irishman joining the Republican Party, I suppose. Isn't it uncomfortable?
johni[n]nz: This implies that McAleese is Irish although, given that it's one of those ten-a-penny sites probably aimed at American tourists, I would treat it with deep skepticism. "Hereditary physicians to the O'Flahertys" indeed. That sounds straight out of Derby O'Gill and The Little People (on which Rhus is the new resident expert).
No, he's an Edinburgh lad.
Edinburgh accents tend to be a lot more intelligible, I would have thought. Maybe your Kiwi ear just isn't attuned. (Maybe your southern neighbours in Dunedin would fair better ... or might have done a century ago).
Bit like an Irishman joining the Republican Party, I suppose. Isn't it uncomfortable?
I can't see them taking someone not eligible to vote. I hear your Al Qaida pals are not fussy about nationality, though. I'm sure they'd happily take a kiwi, especially one with an expansive waist to take an XXL bomb belt.
Bit like an Irishman joining the Republican Party, I suppose. Isn't it uncomfortable?
johninz | 03.30.08 - 7:26 pm | #
Joseph McCarthy
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
LOL, GOP Forever. Where I'm from "Irishman" means someone born in Ireland ... not born in Appleton WI with a German paternal granny, like Senator McC, even if he was a papist with a Tipperary mammy. Only Americans are still "Oirish" six generations later. (Or perhaps it is the Oirish abroad who are so clannish).
Mind you, the Oytalians are the same... I met a woman north of Boston who swore she was Italian even though she had a glorious Bostonian accent and her family had hailed from "Naawth Shaaw" for generations. So I suspect it is an American thing.
Shameous: "I have already agreed that the Pope was against this invasion, as indeed was I when it happened".
Ah the twists and turns of our fraudulent (whew) Catholic. Now he says he was against(sic)the invasion but then it follows that he presumably must have become enamored by it when he realized how many Iraqis were being killed as a result of (by his own admission)'some American mistakes'.
Now this sounds almost as convincing as his last words with God's servant: "please forgive me father for I have sinned! It has been several years since my last confession and since then I have been a vocal proponent of America's inhumanity to Iraq and, even worse, lusted after and had impure sexual thoughts about two morally bankrupt, bloodthirsty American girls by the names of Bride and Lyingette"!
But, as you can see, his incoherence is not exclusive to changing political positions every other day or defending a moral position from the perspective that America's indiscriminate murder is not their fault (it's those damn Iraqis) nor should it ever be considered wrong!
Personally, I didn't notice any necrophagia is (:lol MY copy of "de catechism". Say again?
PeteS | 03.30.08 - 2:28 pm | #
Canadian Johnnee, I have to admit nobody is more qualified to lecture me about "incoherence".
If the little twelve year old girl living next door to you were raped by a gang of thugs, Shameous, how many twists and turns do you suppose your reaction fester its way through.
Well Shameous would definitely have been against this grotesque violation of an innocent child! Yes, no doubt:
'Moral outrage' at first, to, 'perhaps she may have benefited from the life experience', to, 'if she's pregnant she must have the child, abortion is a sin', to, 'I'm sure she brought it on herself because of her skankiness'!
It never seems to be an easy time for you, Shameous, interpreting how good catholic boys ought to behave, is it. Your Catholicism is often mysterious when it condones precision bombing and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents?
I'm sure you thought that turning a blind eye to that priest groping you and your fellow choir boys was simply the best way to help him deal with his vows of celibacy! Similar to America's rape of Iraq no doubt?
Oops: "your reaction WOULD fester its way through". Clearly??
Speaking of "turning a blind eye" Canadian John, I guess you don't have a bad word to say about the glorious Iraqi factions who are actually responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq, or about the morality of staging an insurgency in the midst of a civilian population? But I guess that's why you're the Ba'athist Baptist.
No doubt, Shameous. But even if you expected anyone to accept the argument that America's precision bombings were in some way a manifestation of the best way to eradicate evil from a persecuted population, you'd have to agree that the heavy hand of the liberator consistently reveals itself to be just as murderous, no?
Somewhat arbitrary the way the world's moral crusader decides which of the world's populations are worthy of their divine intervention, wouldn't you say? Perhaps we should set up a neutral panel of world authorities, maybe include the Pope, and then let them vote on which country the Americans should invade next?
Maybe a panel to legitimize their next cleansing exercise.
I suppose we could all come up with examples of disfunction in the world that some might regard just as deserving of American bombs. After all Iraqi factions aren't exclusive in their demonstrated need for democratization, are they?
By the way, most 'insurgencies' are staged within the midst of a civilian population? Didn't most of the insurgencies in Europe, fighting German occupation wage their resistance from within the cities?
The options of fighting an occupation in open fields with F16's ready to incinerate them would seem foolhardy at best!
@ PeteS, 03.30.08 - 9:13 pm.
[Satanist Rat] "about the morality of staging an insurgency in the midst of a civilian population".
Now, sick and idiotic pro-Ahmehwican imbecile, WHERE else are the 'insurgencies' to be 'staged' ?
Can you give us ANY example of a guerrilla war 'staged' somewhere else, ye ejit an' cretin an' scumbag an' vomitous tout ?
PeteS = an inane imbecile.
booga booga booga
honky infidel muthafukkas
booga booga
BOOGA!
Allah Akbar
@ johninz, 03.30.08 - 6:56 pm.
[Kiwi John] "You choose your own preferred form of self-abuse, Italian. I like the Irish variety".
Now, Johnniee, this rodent Pete is as Oirish as I am a Chinese.
You like Wee Pete, this abominable and mendacious rat ?
Well, okie, have fun with him, then ...
booga booga booga
garlic nosed italian WOP muthafukka
booga booga
Allah Akbar
@ PeteS, the most abominable & sick bastard.
Now, pretty please, dear Imbecile Ape-Eater Pietrino, do explain to us WHO UNLEASHED "the forces of chaos" in Oyrak, please !
Are ye able to tell, ye revoltin' baaastard, or not ?
C'm'on, clown, any daycent fella in yer place would make himself VERY scarce ...
Get lost, Pietrino the satanist !!!
Rachel, Gosh, Lynette in Minnesota is suddenly remarkably verbose and exceptionally didactic - who's pulling your strings, Lynette -
*sigh* It's Annie. She just kind of sucks one into her debates.
rachel, ms minnie mouse and i have a 'special' relationship. sometimes it's fun to corner her, she shows her little fangs and reveals her true rodent nature. *sigh* lol
rusty Of course there were just enough problems with the '05 election for someone to make a case that they were rigged, as long as someone and their audience is predisposed to such a position.
how rovian
An Italian: "ALL of them were Iraqis,"
true
An Italian: " and linked to the parties."
false. About half were not.
you guys, this is all irrelevant. everyone knows you only have to control votes in a few key areas to throw an election. i am sure there were many observers, and many places w/squewed operatives.
Now, Johnniee, this rodent Pete
damn! i swear i was reading the post when you said this. my rodent comment re mz minnie was original!!!!
"You choose your own preferred form of self-abuse, Italian. I like the Irish variety".
i like them both!
err, i meant i swear i was reading the thread when you said this. meaning i was otherwise occupied and certainly visualized her as a rodent, once again, all on my own.
but the synchnicity pleases me. maybe they are cousin rodents.
annie: "everyone knows you only have to control votes in a few key areas to throw an election."
Are you saying the Dec '05 Iraqi election was thrown?
_
News:
Political front:
"In a possible turning point in the recent upsurge in violence, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Shiite militiamen off the streets Sunday but called on the government to stop its raids against his followers. [...] A U.S. airstrike killed 25 suspected militants [yeah, right] after American ground forces came under heavy fire during a combat patrol in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad, where the fiercest clashes in the capital have occurred. [...] The cleric’s decision offered a way out of a widening Shiite conflict at a time when government forces appeared to be making little headway against the well-armed militias in Basra."
http://www.chieftain.com/nationa...al/1206943200/
1
But the "government" appears to be rejecting the truce:
"Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the government, described Sadr's statement as a positive step, but said Iraqi security forces would continue to try to bring order to Basra, a southern oil center. A government offensive there against militias triggered clashes across southern Iraq and in Baghdad last week. Iraqi forces "will finish the job," Dabbagh said."
http://www.boston.com/news/world...c_offers_truce/
On the other hand, Ladybird reports otherwise:
After the killing of Maliki’s security adviser “Hassan Al-Kadhmi” by Mahdi Army in Basra today and according to Wasat Online, the Iraqi government and the Sadrists reached an agreement of nine points"
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/...fight-in-basra/
Golly, Canadian John, you appear to have lured our Pete into making a statement of rather uncharacteristic inanity!
Without going into dictionary definitions of insurgency, resistance, rebellion and so on, it certainly appears unavoidable that indigents fighting occupation by a foreign power will necessarily come from and live among the civilian population of a country.
But as Italian says, Pete's view is that they should 'stage' their insurgency somewhere else. Otherwise, it is presumably unsporting, or something. Apparently people in occupied countries should submissively accept their conquered status.
Would have saved a lot of Tibetans a lot of grief, I guess. Not to mention those foolish Kuwaitis who resisted Iraqi occupation.
Would have saved the Irish a bit of trouble in 1916, come to that. And they could still be British, which might not be a bad thing, judging by the standards of Irish education.
'All changed, changed utterly. A terrible beauty is born.' (W B Yeats)
'Hold that man in the bad trousers.'
'Hold him now.' (James Joyce)
Military front:
All-Iraqi operation my arse:
"As operations by some 30,000 Iraqi security personnel stalled, US and British air strikes repeatedly hit densely populated areas of Basra, as well as other strongholds of supporters of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Baghdad and southern towns and cities.
[...]
The US military acknowledged for the first time that American ground troops joined the fighting in Basra on Saturday, alongside US advisers embedded with Iraqi forces.
[...]
the real toll from the US and British bombardment of closely-packed housing could be far higher. Residents told the Christian Science Monitor that two of Sadr City’s two largest markets—Jamila and Mraidi—have been mostly destroyed."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../iraq-
m31.shtml
Fighting Shia isn't fun:
""We are proud that he died," said Abu Moussa al-Sadr, 31, another militiaman. "Whenever one of us dies, it raises our morale. It intensifies our fighting." "If we defeat them, we win," Kabi said. "And if we die, we win." "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...ST2008032804069
"Bays told Al Jazeera that there is no evidence that a major Iraqi military operation is under way in Basra. "[Iraqi forces] are having to rely, to an extent, on air power provided by... British and American aircraft and Predator unmanned aircraft with Hellfire missiles," he said.[so much for the great offensive] [...] [sadr said] "I appeal to these parties to add legitimacy to the resistance and to stand by, not against, the Iraqi people because the Iraqi people need Arabs as much as they need any other person," he said. "The occupation is trying to divide Sunnis and Shias. It is trying to drive a wedge between Sadris and the Sunnis. I love the Sunnis. I am a Shia, but we are all Iraqis. "Iraq is still under occupation and the United States' popularity is reducing every day and every minute in Iraq. "
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/
...AE0A86E4290.htm
"The Bush administration claims the Iraqi Army is a unified force of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who fight together for the centralized government of Iraq. That's complete nonsense."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
ce...my_b_93837.html
"Year by year, the goal of deploying a capable, free-standing Iraqi army has seemed always to slip further into the future. In the latest shift, with Petraeus now U.S. commander in Iraq, the Pentagon's new quarterly status report quietly drops any prediction of when homegrown units will take over security responsibility nationwide, after last year's reports had forecast a transition in 2008."
http://www.twincities.com/nation...?
nclick_check=1
Uh-oh:
"While public attention has been focused on Shiite-vs.-Shiite fighting in Basra and Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are taking a cold second look at the future intentions of the roughly 90,000 "Sons of Iraq" -- the locally recruited and primarily Sunni security forces that are armed and supported by the United States at $300 per person each month."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp..._print/
asection
Two US soldiers killed in eastern Baghdad
http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=n136893
[iraq4ever] "The Sunni community, the resistance and the Sahwa councils should be on full alert and use this golden opportunity to regain lost Sunni ground in Baghdad and other places."
That, sir, is precisely what you must NOT do.
Let's forget the logic of whether or not "sunni" Iraqis can win the fight against overwhelming numbers of "shia" Iraqis.
Let's forget whether or not the murdered dead people from your communities can ever be avenged by randomly killing and expelling members of other communities.
Let's rather focus on what the outcome of such a renewed sectarian onslaught would be.
1: You would divert strength from the Sadrists precisely when they need it to fight the Americans and Badrists. Essentially, you would spend your blood in favour of the US and Badr. These two entities being precisely the ones that colluded in the initial death squads and the initial mass murder of Sunni Iraqis.
2: Instead of siezing the opportunity to heal the wounds of the sectarian violence, and uniting against a foreign invader, you will perpetuate them.
3: Assuming for a moment that the "Sunni" Iraqis were successful in driving out large numbers of Shia from parts of Baghdad, have you ever wondered what the reaction of your ENEMIES would be? I can tell you in short order what it would be. Renewed sectarian Shia solidarity. Renewed sectarian Shia violence against your community.
The Americans would likely sieze the chance to destroy or seriously weaken the 'Sunni' and tribal Resistance groups using Shia as cannon fodder and airpower to back them.
Please realise that for as long as America is in Iraq, not only is there NO CHANCE of sectarian reconciliation, because divide and rule tactics are its bread and butter in Iraq, but there is ALSO no chance of sectarian victory, whatever that may consist of. America will keep both Sunni and Shia divided and at each other's throats for as long as it can. And it will never allow one side to dominate the other, keeping up the bloody stalemate for ever. Your tactic is doomed before you even start. Take for example the way that the "Shia" managed to get the upper hand in the battles in Baghdad. Immediately the Americans shifted support to the Sahwa in a bid to halt this growing influence and form a counterweight to this encroachment. Believe me when I say that if somehow you manage to beat down your enemies and achieve a temporary success, the Americans will shift their weight back to the other side.
The only way to "win" is to set aside sectarian differences and to realise that the real enemy is the foreign invader and to beat him back - together. Shia and Sunni lived side by side before the war, and once the foreign divide-and-conquer bastards are chased out of Iraq, you can do so again.
That's my view.
DOZENS OF INNOCENT IRAQIS MASSACRED, AND ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES, ONLY ONE MARINE *MIGHT* BE RESPONSIBLE:
"The Marine Corps on Friday dismissed all charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum in connection with the massacre of civilians in Haditha, Iraq. This is the third exoneration of an enlisted Marine linked to the November 2005 killings. Charges against two other enlisted Marines were previously dropped. The only charges remaining are against Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, who faces court martial on nine counts of voluntary manslaughter later this year."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../hadi-
m31.shtml
Rhuslancia will now explain how tragic this all was, and how, if the Iraqis had defended themselves, they would have been terrorists and rogue militias.
booga booga booga
south african aparteid muthafukka
booga booga
necklace
booga booga
allah akbar
Have I EVER mentioned how PATHETIC the warmongers are at discourse?
Heck, even their flames suck piles.
WHY are we stuck with these 4th rate losers?
PeteS
That was actually a good article you linked to. If the Iraqis are revoking existing PSA:s signed under Saddam with Russian firms I'm all for it; as long as it's their own decision and in their interest.
If indeed Iraq, as that article claims, intend to offer the super giant fields up for development with fixed rate Service Contracts I can only applaud them. Either that or the Iraqis should develop them themselves or mix these solutions. But can the claim that article makes be trusted? I'm not so sure.
I have to question what all the damn fuss was about with making the "oil law" a benchmark if the Oil Ministry can go ahead and make these decisions without any such law in place (Even if this article claims them to be decisions I happen to agree with, provided that there is a transparent process when it comes down to the actual bidding and the evaluation of the bids). And there IS no such law in place, right? So how can we be sure the Oil Ministry's decision will be leagal?
Pete:
"So, Marcus, why don't you tell us why Iraq should sit on its undeveloped resources, which at current extraction rates will last long after the end of the oil age, while its people wait for electricity and other services, so that a few smug lefties can give two fingers to eevil capitalists."
You think I'm a leftie? Can only lefties be against war in your book? Or what other "leftie" proof do you have against me? FYI I last voted for the most "market friendly", capitalistic if you will, party in our elections. Just like i voted in all elections I have voted in before that one. This assisted in us kicking the Social Democrats allied with the "former" Communists and the backwards Greens (I like Greens, but not backwards ones) out of office and now having a center-right government. I am on record, I think in this comment section but it could be another one, saying that I equal the crimes of Communism with the crimes of Nazism. And you call me a leftie? I am no fan, like you, of acronyms but I think a LOL would be in place.
I have never said that Iraq should just sit on any resources. I have said however, that it would be far better to sit on them than to sign them away under unfavourable terms.
Furthermore the "electricity and other services" won't come by them selves just because Iraq starts pumping more oil. It's not money that's lacking but security. Iraq actually has money but is unable to use it for "electricity and other services" so what difference would an immediate influx of more oil money make, unless security can also be achieved?
[marcus] "You think I'm a leftie? Can only lefties be against war in your book?"
Seems so.
And as for the oil debate, I'll weigh in later.
@Marcus, part 1: Well, at LAST!
@Marcus, part 2: I didn't necessarily call YOU a leftie ... but the general anti-oil law sentiment definitely smacks of left-wing looniness. I guess you could have gotten sucked into that rationale without being a leftie.
"I have to question what all the damn fuss was about with making the "oil law" a benchmark if the Oil Ministry can go ahead and make these decisions without any such law in place"
Well, it seems they can't award PSAs to companies like Petrel, even though up north the Kurds are doing just that, allegedly under the "old" rules.
@Bruno: "And as for the oil debate, I'll weigh in later."
Translation: Oops. It seems like the eevil plan to squander Iraq's oil resources isn't coming about. Maybe there was no such plan in the first place. But what about the vast rightwing conspiracy??? Does not compute ... I better rest for a while.
/translation.
@johni[n]nz, 03.31.08 - 3:21 am: Golly, Canadian John, you appear to have lured our Pete into making a statement of rather uncharacteristic inanity! Without going into dictionary definitions of insurgency, resistance, rebellion and so on, it certainly appears unavoidable that indigents fighting occupation by a foreign power will necessarily come from and live among the civilian population of a country. But as Italian says, Pete's view is that they should 'stage' their insurgency somewhere else... Would have saved the Irish a bit of trouble in 1916, come to that. And they could still be British, which might not be a bad thing, judging by the standards of Irish education.
Not so fast, John i[n] New Sneerland, before you start using Easter 1916 as an example ... it may have escaped your attention but those particular insurgents actually pitted their efforts against politically and militarily strategic targets -- the GPO, the Four Courts, Stephen's Green etc. They were, in fact, EXACTLY fighting along the lines of a conventional army. Even at that, the local populace did NOT support them, especially since the Brits, with characteristic overreaction, bombed the bejesus out of Dublin's city centre from a gunboat on the Liffey. But I think you will find that it is a far cry from the tactics of the veggie-market-bombers and others in Iraq, by comparison to whom even the illegitimate IRA of 1969-1998 look like a properly-constituted army outfit.
And by the way, Yeats wrote Easter 1916 only after his characteristic pomposity and disdain for the insurgent leaders ( - you're not related to him by any chance? - ) was overcome, four years later. And that was not due to any glorious vision on his part, but just through following the popular sentiment, which was horrified by the Brits' PR disaster in executing insurgent "leaders" especially young Willie Pearse and James Connolly who was strapped to a chair and executed by firing squad while dying of his wounds anyway. (Which reminds me once again just how self-defeating Abu Ghraib was for the Americans). Anyway, I just wanted to note that Yeats was a pompous asshole.
@ All.
And so, as Zeyad's brother in law notices
http://last-of-iraqis.blogspot.c...e-has-
been.html
, now the demented enterprise by Maliki (supported by American and English mad criminals) against al-Sadr is over, since the ridiculous "ISF" ( ) were falling apart; only, some hundreds of Iraqis have lost their life as a consequence.
Our warmongering scumbags (Rhus, and Pete, and Lynnette, etc. etc.) have reason to be proud !
(only, differently from our Multifarious Troll, they are too cowardly to admit it ...).
"Anyway, I just wanted to note that Yeats was a pompous asshole."
If you say so, but was he prone to elaborating irrelevancies rather than addressing the substance of a post?
Or are you saying that only veggie-bombing insurgents are naughty, Hummer-bombing ones are OK?
Seems a pretty tenuous reason to cling so fanatically to a position of defending a 'war' that you initially opposed, and that has become increasingly indefensible ever since.
I think someone above is right, it's really because you secretly fancy the fair Lynette.
Hold that man in the bad trousers.
'
Johninnz
If you think you will ever get an acknowledgment from Pete, or anyone else in that crowd, that there may exist an insurgent who is a Hummer-bombing one but not a veggie-bombing one you are in for a grave dissapointment.
I tried that myself a few posts back with the reasoning that since the VAST majority of attacks on record were against coalition troops there ought to possibly exist one or other insurgent who limited his fighting to these targets. I thought it was a reasonable argument, but none in our resident pro-war crowd was convinced.
The conclusion seems to be: If you are an Iraqi and you do not wholeheartedly support the invasion/occupation - you bomb veggie shoppers. (or posssibly drill people in the skull)
Re: Rat PeteS, 03.31.08 - 11:28 am.
[Clownish Ape-Luver] "... it may have escaped your attention but those particular insurgents actually pitted their efforts against politically and militarily strategic targets -- the GPO, the Four Courts, Stephen's Green etc. They were, in fact, EXACTLY fighting along the lines of a conventional army".
And that's why, precisely, they got smashed in less than a week.
While the 'insurgents' of 1919-21, waging a merciless guerrilla war against not just the Brits, but their collaborators, fared much better.
[Oyrish satanist] "even the illegitimate IRA of 1969-1998".
Why, cretin Pietrino, was ever there a 'legitimate' IRA before 1969 ?
(and to think that I had not understood from the beginning that our Pete was just an intellectual midget makes me still angry against myself !).
I say, Marcus, I do believe that between Italian's affectations, my sneering and your merciless logic, our Pete is beginning to feel quite BADGERED.
'When I was a boy, 'twas always me joy
To go to the pub each night
There were BADGERS and dogs
And men from the bogs
and young fellers acting the tool'
(The Dubliners, The Pool Song)
ah, but now
'The craic it is bad, the atmosphere sad
Every man has a face like a mule ...'
Poor Pete. Up against the Coalition of the Thrilling!
Marcus, the ISF suffers three times the casualties of the MNF-I.
There are far more attacks against joint ISF/MNF-I patrols than there are against MNF-I. These are officially listed as attacks against MNF-I.
If Iraqi civilians say that there are munitions in a location, and MNF-I acting on local civilia tips, find and disarm the munitions, it counts as a violent attack against MNF-I
Any IED disarmed by MNF-I engineers or EODs are labeled as attacks on MNF-I even if locals call MNF-I or ISF to the scene.
Most attacks are IEDs (including the majority that are harmlessly disarmed.)
As IA combat engineers and EODs assume more responsibily in more dangerous areas for disarming more IEDs, and destroying more weapons caches; immediately the "attacks" on ISF will jump even though nothing has fundamentally changed.
Most violent attacks against MNF-I and ISF involve no weapons fire.
The IA is broadly popular and respected by most Iraqis. The vast majority of Iraqis strongly oppose attacks on the IA. I am not aware of a single major armed militia in Iraq that attacks MNF-I that does not also attack the IA as a matter of policy.
Bruno's positions (that Sawa councils, sunni arab militias and JAM should simultaneously attack the IA) are deeply unpopular among the large majority of Iraqis.
Marcus, you aren't one of the bad guys like John the Canadian Ba'ath and Bruno. Beware of them.
Johninz, I don't think you are like John and Bruno either. I sense good in you. The dark side hasn't claimed you fully.
Bruno, knock your heart out. Try to find anything bad to say about any IA in the south other than IA 2-14 (former 5-10, former SIB before that.) Notice I said IA, not British trained IP.
JAM backed down from fighting the IA. They did so because the IA has popular support, and because they knew they would lose.
Marcus: "there may exist an insurgent who is a Hummer-bombing one but not a veggie-bombing one"
a) where is the triggerman hiding?
ii) Bruno enthusiastically links to the antiwar.com daily violence roundup with reliable frequency. This count is very, very friendly to the Hummer-bombing insurgents in how they describe attacks. However, day after day there is incident after incident of IEDs "targeting an IP convoy and killing x civilians instead" or "wounding x US soldiers and killing 3x Iraqi civilians" and on and on and on. Go look. What do you think of those civilian deaths?
_
Anand: "Johninz, I ...sense good in you..."
How the fuck would you know? You wouldn't recognise "good" if it came up and bit you on the dhoti.
RhusLancia: "What do you think of those civilian deaths?"
Yes, it certainly seems the insurgents accept that a certain amount of "collateral damage" is unavoidable and acceptable in fighting a war.
Thank God no-one on our side thinks like that, eh?
Rhus (the never served little bitch): I've run into brick walls that have demonstrated more flexibility in their position.
The occupier has a well documented record for killing innocent civilians in their precision bombing campaigns, their inability to distinguish between infant children and insurgents when raiding homes and murdering all occupants, their rounding up of thousands of Iraqis and summarily imprisoning them, torturing them for crucial information and/or sexually abusing them.
How is it that, even taking into consideration the frustrations associated with your never realized dream of participating in similar carnage, that you find it so easy to be forgiving of the atrocities committed by your own liberators!
Are we to believe that the standards which you adhere to when condemning Iraqi on Iraqi atrocities should not be applicable to your own population?
If there is to be any measure of credibility off gassing from your argument, you'd have to at least be willing to condemn the occurrence of civilian death and torture regardless of which side commits the act?
Thanks, Johns. I have followup questions for both of you, but I'd like to wait for Marcus to respond before I ask them.
Any other are welcome to chime in while we wait.
_
I can't see you being remotely capable of saying anything intelligent about collateral damage, RhusLancia.
On another topic,I must say I'm developing a certain amount of perverse respect for this chubby Sadr bloke.
He earns brownie points both internally and internationally for calling a ceasefire last year.
When Maliki tries to bend a bit of muscle at him, he has his boys resist just enough to give the mighty IA a bloody nose.
Then when the Yanks join in by doing what they do best, indiscriminate bombing, he calls ANOTHER ceasefire, without giving up any arms though.
If he doesn't become Preznit of Iraq, could you use him in the US? Might be a better prospect than any of your current candidates.
Nah, better just go and bomb Qum in Iran, I guess. Interrupt his studies, before he gets any cleverer.
@ All
(re: Snake 'anand', 03.31.08 - 4:36 pm).
[Reptilian Liar] "JAM backed down from fighting the IA. They did so because the IA has popular support, and because they knew they would lose".
Our coiling & slithering abomination has truly no shame !
Of course, as Johninnz noticed, Moqtada proclaimed his ceasefire ONLY after the JAM had given the comical 'Iraqi' Army a bloody nose. The poor puppets had to call in the Americans and the English to avoid being wiped out in Basra.
The episode shows the total stupidity of 'anand''s comical lies about the 'Iraqi' ( ) security forces.
If the repulsive reptile had a grain of integrity, or honesty, or decency (but he has not !), he would admit that much, instead of hissing forth some more inane lies.
@Oytalian, 03.31.08 - 1:53 pm: And that's why, precisely, they got smashed in less than a week.
Precisely.
While the 'insurgents' of 1919-21, waging a merciless guerrilla war against not just the Brits, but their collaborators, fared much better.
Also true. That doesn't instantly render all their tactics morally acceptable, before you leap to some perverse conclusion about yer beluved Shi'ite partners-in-death-mongering. (Oops, sorry, I genuinely believe you are non-sectarian in yer death-mongering).
Why, cretin Pietrino, was ever there a 'legitimate' IRA before 1969 ?
Yes, cretin Oytalian ... the post-1921, pro-treaty IRA who became the national army of the new state. (Yes, I know the obvious response to this, so let's be pragmatic if you like: people continued to die until the factions came to an agreement and/or got tired of all the killing. That is, broadly speaking, how it is going to play out in Iraq too -- there's never any other way. So tell me again why you're cheering for more killing?).
(and to think that I had not understood from the beginning that our Pete was just an intellectual midget makes me still angry against myself !).
Talk to johni[n]nz, then, yer partner in misplaced smugness.
Misplaced? I wasn't aware I'd lost my smugness. Got it right here in my back pock ... damn!
@johni[n]NS, 03.31.08 - 5:50 pm:
Ok, so you "respect" a power-monger who cynically turns violence on and off like a tap to further his political aims. I didn't reckon you and our Italian for SUCH easy bedfellows, but I stand corrected. I'm sure it'll be a beautiful partnership: Smugtalian and John i[n] New Sneerland.
Marcus: "Furthermore the "electricity and other services" won't come by them selves just because Iraq starts pumping more oil. It's not money that's lacking but security."
What ?!?! I wonder if the insurgents have picked up on the connection between services & security?
_
You took the words out of my mouth RhusLancia.
And apparently Sneerlander and Smugtalian think that leaving JAM running around is the answer to the security problems. (Assuming they're interested in an answer).
PeteS, I think the establishment of security is the last thing An Italian Sadr Loyalist wants. For him a happy ending can only be the last US personnel leaving Iraq hanging from the skids of a helicopter. He's been quite clear on this. Johninnz may not be that focused, but his respect for Sadr (newfound?) is a bad sign.
_
Ok, so you "respect" a power-monger who cynically turns violence on and off like a tap to further his political aims.
The U.S.?
Since no one bothered to answer my question above, I'll repeat it here. I hope someone would enlighten me:
"So yesterday Maliki said the Mahdi Army is worse than Al-Qaeda, and today he is praising the Mahdi Army and calling for peaceful dialogue. He seems to have abandoned his belligerent stance against "outlaws" of a few days ago. Any of you informed pundits care to explain to us what is going on?"
I agree, RhusLancia. And since the average Iraqi didn't mention the helicopter skids scenario in the recent BBC/ABC poll, it's clear that Smugtalian the Sadrist Sycophant shares his black-turbaned leader's disdain for Iraqi public opinion.
(On the other hand he seems at least resigned about the 80% of Iraqis who think the US should keep targeting AQ, since he has apparently switched sides from AQ to al-Sadr).
for confused:
The peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces — said to have been brokered in Iran — calmed the violence but left the cleric's Mahdi Army intact and Iraq's U.S.-backed prime minister politically battered and humbled within his own Shiite power base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had promised to crush the militias that have effectively ruled Basra for nearly three years. The U.S. military launched air strikes in the city to back the Iraqi effort.
But the ferocious response by the Mahdi Army, including rocket fire on the U.S.-controlled Green Zone and attacks throughout the Shiite south, caught the government by surprise and sent officials scrambling for a way out of the crisis.
The confrontation enabled al-Sadr to show that he remains a powerful force capable of challenging the Iraqi government, the Americans and mainstream Shiite parties that have sought for years to marginalize him. And the outcome cast doubt on President Bush's assessment that the Basra battle was "a defining moment" in the history "of a free Iraq."
If Maliki is serious about peaceful dialogue, and al-Sadr is prepared to commit to exclusively peaceful means to further his agenda, then that would be an unqualified good thing. Who knows, maybe even the likes of iraq4ever of 03.30.08 - 12:46 am would stop seeing Shi'ite internecine conflicts as the answer to Sunni prayers, and that all factions must come into the political fold eventually.
"Any of you informed pundits care to explain to us what is going on?"
It's only rock and roll.
Pete and RhusLancia, I've been off looking for my smugness, but I see y'all is upset by my feigned respect for Mucktada. Let's be clear, I have as much love for him as I have for George Bush, neither more nor less. I'm just saying that at the moment he seems to be the smarter of the two, which I'll grant you is no great feat.
It is a time-honoured tradition that when the US use their overwhelming firepower to devastate a country where they're not welcome and don't know what they're doing, they prefer to leave by hanging onto the skids of helicopters. Who am I to break with tradition?
Even though I did say in an earlier post that they'd be leaving in long convoys winding their way through the desert to Kuwait. Only polite to go out the way you came in.
Unless I have misunderstood something, we agree on this. Neither of you, I presume, want to see large numbers of American soldiers blundering around in the sand indefinitely, like until the sun cools down, or the oil runs out.
Our only disagreement is about when.
You say "when the mighty IA can stand up on its two feet." I say the oil will probably run out before that, judging by their recent performance, so why not now? Get it over with.
Iraqis like Sadr and Maliki, with a little help from Iran, seem to be able to sort out some of their problems, in a comical sort of way, without any US help, don't they?
"If you think you will ever get an acknowledgment from Pete, or anyone else in that crowd, that there may exist an insurgent who is a Hummer-bombing one but not a veggie-bombing one you are in for a grave dissapointment. "
Well Marcus, even An Italian appears to have thrown in the towel on the noble insurgency. This thread is hilarious. All hail Moqtada al Sadr, The Final Hope.
Hint hint. When a "leader" declares a ceasefire from an undisclosed location outside of the country, it's not a good sign.
@Sneerlander: I see y'all is upset by my feigned respect for Mucktada.
And I see y'all is upset by my feigned upset.
You say "when the mighty IA can stand up on its two feet." I say the oil will probably run out before that, judging by their recent performance, so why not now? Get it over with.
And is that callousness "feigned" or real?
Bridget: "All hail Moqtada al Sadr, The Final Hope."
Hey Bridget, remember how An Italian Sadr Loyalist's heart was all a-twitter over the new commie 'resistance' group Zeyad posted about? "Any storm in a port", I guess !!
Bruno: "Please realise that for as long as America is in Iraq, ... there is ALSO no chance of sectarian victory, whatever that may consist of. ... And it [America] will never allow one side to dominate the other, ... Your tactic is doomed before you even start. Take for example the way that the "Shia" managed to get the upper hand in the battles in Baghdad. Immediately the Americans shifted support to the Sahwa in a bid to halt this growing influence and form a counterweight to this encroachment. Believe me when I say that if somehow you manage to beat down your enemies and achieve a temporary success, the Americans will shift their weight back to the other side."
So, IN OTHER WORDS, what YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING is that America is looking for a BALANCED solution in Iraq where no ONE SIDE can DOMINATE (= slaughter) any other. The outcome that America desires is one in which all groups of Iraqis RESPECT EACH OTHER and work together for their COMMON INTERESTS (which are NOT perpetual violence & rule by tyrants or thugs!).
Iraq for Iraqis.
ALL Iraqis.
_
@ PeteS, 03.31.08 - 6:38 pm.
[Pete de Creep] "Also true. That doesn't instantly render all their [=of the Irish insurgents of 1919-21] tactics morally acceptable, before you leap to some perverse conclusion about yer beluved Shi'ite partners-in-death-mongering".
1) the immoral pervert Pietrino, this idiot who dares to call the beastly Anglo-American invasion of Iraq 'Worthy Act', has no right to judge the morality of ANYBODY, be it the Irish of 1919 or the Iraqis of today.
2) first time I hear of my partnership with the Shia militias. This scumbag Pietrino is good at inventing new lies, !
@ PeteS, 03.31.08 - 6:38 pm.
[Oytalian] "Why, cretin Pietrino, was ever there a 'legitimate' IRA before 1969 ?".
[Pietrino] "Yes, cretin Oytalian ... the post-1921, pro-treaty IRA who became the national army of the new state".
Which shows that you are a cretin indeed (and a stinky Blueshirt as well), and that you should possibly study a bit of humanities, and especially Irish history, !!!
There was NO SUCH THING as a "post-1921, pro-treaty IRA" (IRA meaning 'Irish Republican Army', which was incompatible by definition with a 'Free State' having an oath of allegiance to the English king); so, indeed, there was never a "'legitimate' IRA", to use your nauseating language, you idiotic bedbug !
[Mendacious Pervert] "So tell me again why you're cheering for more killing?".
And who is cheering for more killing, oh Oyrish Pinocchio ? It was you, clapping your hands at this criminal initiative of the Badr Brigades/SIIC and Maliki against their Sadrist pals, a gang action that has caused the death of some 600 Iraqis, and that has utterly failed.
@ PeteS, 03.31.08 - 8:06 pm.
[Imbecile Judas] "And apparently Sneerlander and Smugtalian think that leaving JAM running around is the answer to the security problems".
Being even more of an ejit that ye usually are, Pietrino ?
It was NOT, as Zeyad rightly noticed, the 'Rule of Law' against the JAM: it was just rival militias vying for power.
The demented enterprise (cheered on by the demented Simians here, and helped by their soldiers there) has been an utter failure (the Iranians compelled the two sides to cease the hostilities): its only result being the death of some 600 Iraqis, and material destructions in Basra and Sadr City.
So, what are you blathering about, little pervert and mendacious Rat Pete ?
@ RhusLancia, 03.31.08 - 8:46 pm.
[Rhus] "An Italian Sadr Loyalist".
What happened, my dear 'Negligent Homicide' Pongid ?
At long last you contracted that sad disease, Compulsive Liesitis, from that comical liar, the King Rat Schuster ?
Show me, please, ANY good word I ever wrote about al-Sadr, my simian Pinocchio !
@RhusLancia
[Me]: "there may exist an insurgent who is a Hummer-bombing one but not a veggie-bombing one"
[Rhus]: "a) where is the triggerman hiding?"
Not sure what you're getting at here. Presumably that he's a villain for hiding among civilians.
Yeah, he's a real coward! Hiding like a bitch! If I was an insurgent I wouldn't be a chickenshit insurgent who wore civilian clothes and hid behind things. Screw that! I would march straight up to that Stryker and take it on like a man, with my fists and teeth if I had to.
The point? Take away your technological advantage and I'm certain there would be more than enough Iraqis willing to fight your troops man to man on equal terms. But since you, obviously and understandably, would never consider that they are pretty much forced to figh you assymetrically or not fight you at all, aren't they?
[Rhus]: "However, day after day there is incident after incident of IEDs "targeting an IP convoy and killing x civilians instead" or "wounding x US soldiers and killing 3x Iraqi civilians" and on and on and on. Go look. What do you think of those civilian deaths?"
Like all civilian deaths I think they are regrettable. Just as regrettable wether the deaths are caused by militia, insurgents, ISF or Coalition forces.
But I don't think it can be equaled to the intentional carbombing of a veggie-market, killing 100 or so ordinary Iraqis. And I really don't think you want to go down that road either Rhus.
Because if "collateral damage" from insurgents IED:s equals terrorism, what does that make the "collateral damage" of US air raids? Why is there a difference?
@ PeteS, 03.31.08 - 9:16 pm.
[Morally Hunchbacked Abomination] "Smugtalian the Sadrist Sycophant shares his black-turbaned leader's disdain for Iraqi public opinion".
Pietrino, ye Liar an' Creep, ye are showin' yerself fer a proper Oyrish satanist, indeed.
Ye are just writing utter rubbish, oh devout follower of the Father of the Lie.
[Lying Bedbug] "he has apparently switched sides from AQ to al-Sadr".
Please, oh so truthful Pietrino, some evidence, please:
1) of my previous support for AQ ( ).
2) of my present support for al-Sadr ( !).
So, provide the evidence please, oh imbecile Wee Pete.
Marcus, thank you for your comments on my questions.
A few more:
* based on your experience here at Zeyad's, who does commenters like Um Ayad and Indigo consider responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths?
* when you mention "asymmetric" warfare, I have an idea what you mean. But I don't want to misunderstand you. Could you please state what you understand that to mean?
The Johns are welcome to answer this too, of course. Aw shucks, An Italian Sadr Loyalist, you can jump in any time, too.
_
An Italian Sadr Loyalist: "Show me, please, ANY good word I ever wrote about al-Sadr, my simian Pinocchio !"
An Italian Sadr Loyalist, it may very well be that you are literally as much of a Sadr Loyalist as I am literally a simian pongid Pinocchio.
However, I do believe you are quite sympathetic to them at the moment. I refer as evidence to
- your buying their version of motivation for the challenge in Basra (that it is related to the election) without question or considering other, more plausible reasons
- your perceived enjoyment & magnification of difficulties by the GoI & ISF as well as willingness to frame JAM's experiences as overwhelmingly successful.
_
News:
"But at the end of the day, many Iraqis seemed to blame al-Maliki for the violence and give credit to al-Sadr for blessing the settlement. And it was telling that several Iraqi politicians reportedly went to Iran to negotiate the truce -- showing, said some observers, that Iran is the key political player in Iraq."
http://www.kansas.com/611/story/...ory/
358317.html
"The Iraqi capital Baghdad and the southern city of Basra have been relatively calm overnight as fighters loyal to a Shia leader remained off the streets after clashes with government forces."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/
...EA619F69AC2.htm
"With gunmen again off the streets, a round-the-clock curfew imposed in Baghdad last week was lifted at 6 a.m. Monday, except in Sadr City and two other Shiite neighborhoods. Streets of the capital buzzed with traffic and commerce. An American soldier was killed Monday by a roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, [...] The military also said a U.S. soldier wounded south of Baghdad on March 23 died Sunday in Germany."
http://www.chieftain.com/nationa...al/1207029600/
1
Final bitch-slap:
"The fortified Green Zone came under fresh attack Monday, less than 24 hours after anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his fighters to stand down following a week of clashes with government forces."
http://media.www.dailyvidette.co...s-
3294469.shtml
Ladybird has the inside track, as usual:
"With this morning attack on the Green Zone claimed by the “Muslimeen Army” = part of Jihad and Reform Front [Sunni resistance group, contrary to the American claims saying “Mahdi Army”, the group also claims all the attacks at the last three days], al-Arab reported that the American ambassador gave his instruction to the embassy staff since Saturday to move the embassy into a “secret place” at the west of Baghdad."
Analysis of the outcome of the fighting:
"Despite strong backing from U.S. forces, the week-long offensive failed, leaving militias holding the port city of Basra, which controls 80% of Iraqi oil. That failure appears to have weakened Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government, which are central to U.S. hopes for Iraq. Just as discouraging, the setback strengthened the hand of Muqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric whose forces were the primary target of the attack and who the United States has long seen as a primary threat to stability. Not only did al-Sadr beat back government troops, he managed to portray himself as a peacemaker and al-Maliki and America as not-very-competent aggressors."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/
2...nsive.html#more
"However, from the perspectives of the COIN, Maliki is also facing a serious gamble. If this battle were to raise the misery index in southern Iraq, then his government is doomed by its very chief constituency. If he is conscious of that reality, then Maliki will have to look for peace signals from Muqtada and opt to negotiate. At the same time, he will continue to face the uncertainty about how serious Muqtada really is in making peace offerings. The Americans in Iraq also know this conundrum, but they are just as uncertain about solving it as Maliki. "
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...t/
JD01Ak03.html
More Bush Admin lies and spin:
"As it became clear last week that the "Operation Knights Assault" in Basra was in serious trouble, the George W. Bush administration began to claim in off-the-record statements to journalists that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had launched the operation without consulting Washington. [...] These suggestions that it was al-Maliki who miscalculated in Basra are clearly false. No significant Iraqi military action can be planned without a range of military support functions being undertaken by the U.S. command. On Mar. 25, just as the operation was getting under way in Basra, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said "coalition forces" were providing intelligence, surveillance and support aircraft for the operation. Furthermore, the embedded role of the U.S. Military Transition Teams (MTTs) makes it impossible that any Iraqi military operation could be planned without their full involvement. "
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?...sp?
idnews=41804
"The results of the offensive—hailed last week as a “defining moment” by US President George W. Bush—and the way in which it has been brought to a close represent a humiliating defeat for both Washington and its Iraqi puppet, Maliki. The episode has served only to confirm the failure of US forces, five years after the invasion of Iraq, to establish genuine control over any area of the country. It has also exposed the virtual irrelevance of the Maliki government, which is widely reviled by a population that sees it as nothing more than an instrument of foreign occupation."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../iraq-
a01.shtml
"How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra - "Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes. [...] It is Maliki, and not Sadr, who now appears militarily weak and unable to control elements of his own political coalition. [...] And so now, just when it appeared that he might be marginalized again, the Iraqi government has burnished Sadr's image as a leader who defies the United States and an Iraqi government that refuses to eject U.S. troops."
http://www.time.com/time/world/a...l?xid=rss-
world
John: "The options of fighting an occupation in open fields with F16's ready to incinerate them would seem foolhardy at best!"
johninnz: "Without going into dictionary definitions of insurgency, resistance, rebellion and so on, it certainly appears unavoidable that indigents fighting occupation by a foreign power will necessarily come from and live among the civilian population of a country.
But as Italian says, Pete's view is that they should 'stage' their insurgency somewhere else. Otherwise, it is presumably unsporting, or something."
Marcus: "The point? Take away your technological advantage and I'm certain there would be more than enough Iraqis willing to fight your troops man to man on equal terms. But since you, obviously and understandably, would never consider that they are pretty much forced to figh you assymetrically or not fight you at all, aren't they?"
I think Marcus and the two Johns are in relative agreement that the US's overwhelming military advantage must be countered with alternative strategies. Is that accurate, gentlemen? I really don't want to get you wrong here.
Bruno, An Italian Sadr Loyalist- would you like to agree as well?
_
Bruno: "And as for the oil debate, I'll weigh in later."
[petes] "Translation: Oops. It seems like the eevil plan to squander Iraq's oil resources isn't coming about. Maybe there was no such plan in the first place."
No, the actual translation is:
"it's time to close up here and I want to get home to my supper. The actual beatings on the subject are reserved for tomorrow, where their intensity will be determined by the level of bravado and foolishness displayed by a certain Irishman that really should know better, given the extreme lengths I went to in beating down Lee on the infamous Oil Law Thread."
Therefore, with reference to the above, let's take up the subject.
Firstly, PeteS, I refer you to a transcript made by an (admittedly unreliable) Oyrish source that said, amongst other things:
"all the US wants is the country to develop its own assets and they've given up the idea that they will have exclusive control over Iraqi oil."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0221201/
#387047
let's focus:
"they've given up the idea that they will have exclusive control over Iraqi oil."
If you want an in depth breakdown a la Lee.C. , well, we can start with the examination of the words:
"given up the idea"
... which necessarily implies that there had to BE an idea in the first place, which has since been abandoned. That begs the question of WHAT the idea was, which was given up.
this:
"that they will have exclusive control"
... gives us the clue to the nature of the idea. Exclusive control meaning, of course, that one has the sole mandate to dispose of an asset. The asset in question, is, in this case, is "over":
"Iraqi oil"
Therefore, we can conclude that the US HAD, according to this link:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0221201/
#387047
... a plan to achieve exclusive control Iraqi oil that has since been abandoned. Abandoned, in the opinion of the writer, due to the pressure of Iraqi oil people, which, as we all well know, are completely opposed to foreign oil companies taking over Iraqi oilfields, and also opposed to the Occupation ... which would make them representative not only of Iraqi opinion in general, but also aligned with the aims and objectives of the dreaded R E S I S T A N C E.
Now, while I don't agree that the US has shelved plans to exploit and control iraqi oil, given its fierce backing of the infamous Iraqi Oil Law, that is another matter that I'll be glad to discuss to any depth that you like. The matter at hand is more or less wrapped up (unless you want to backtrack and contend that my source is a liar and a fraud) and next time, PeteS, you may want to check that the safety of your shotgun is on before blowing your foot off with it.
[petes] "Ok, so you "respect" a power-monger who cynically turns violence on and off like a tap to further his political aims."
Unlike the USA, of course, which would NEVER do any such thing. That's why PeteS supports them to the hilt. Even if they were to bomb Oyreland itself, that would be an excusable reaction to Oyrish aggression against the Leprechauns, aye?
[rhus] "For him a happy ending can only be the last US personnel leaving Iraq hanging from the skids of a helicopter."
Now, that WOULD be a happy ending. Thanks for evoking the image, Rhus.
[rhus] "I think Marcus and the two Johns are in relative agreement that the US's overwhelming military advantage must be countered with alternative strategies. Is that accurate, gentlemen?"
Alternative military strategies that don't include lining up in columns with muskets like the Prussian Army, waiting for the other guy to so the same, only to discover that he disposes of cluster bombs and aircraft. It's called guerrilla warfare, Rhus.
Interesting blog post by Raed, here:
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot....n-and-
iraq.html
Bruno: "It's called guerrilla warfare, Rhus."
Thanks. Not much of a debate on this, so far.
_
RhusLancia
"I think Marcus and the two Johns are in relative agreement that the US's overwhelming military advantage must be countered with alternative strategies."
I speak for neighter John but as for myself my answer would be yes.
One alternative strategy, of course, is not to fight at all. Just bend over and hope for the best.
Another might be to try to stage some sort of non-violence Ghandi-style opposition.
But if there is a will to fight back then of course they can't do it on equal terms. They will have to fight as best they can. Call it asymmetric warfare or call it guerilla tactics.
What I have a hard time understanding is that an insurgent hiding, possibly among civilians, and detonating a hidden bomb against his foe is a terrorist-coward. Whereas a guy in an armchair in a control room somewhere unleashing a Hellfire missile from a remote controlled Predator drone thousands of miles away from himself is... is... is.. a hero?
Now, I fully understand that if you have a technological advantage you use it. But I find it equally obvious that if you are at a tachnological disadvantage you try to offset this by using different tactics.
Example Rhus: If you had an enemy you wished to fight and you were equally matched with the only difference of him having night vision and not you. Would you fight him in the dark?
Marcus: "But I find it equally obvious that if you are at a tachnological disadvantage you try to offset this by using different tactics."
Yes, it is obvious.
Now, from your observations of this board, who do some commenters like Um Ayad & Rachel blame for civilian casualties?
_
Not much point, talking to a brick wall, but OK, RhusLancia:
""I think Marcus and the two Johns are in relative agreement that the US's overwhelming military advantage must be countered with alternative strategies. Is that accurate, gentlemen?"
No, quite inaccurate. The correct strategy of the Iraqis should have been to lay down their arms, and submit meekly to the will of the invaders. When the brutal tactics, massive incompetence and exploitive intentions of the invaders became apparent, the Iraqis should have, collectively, prostrated themselves in the dust at their masters' feet, and offered up hostages for the Americans to kill if they were dissatisfied with the general level of grovelling. Certainly any Iraqi who dared to put the least dent in the skin of a shiny Humvee should have been given the full Abu Ghraib treatment - the Humvees were after all the Property of The US Government.
It has really been most unfortunate that the people of Iraq have not understood this.
But give them another hundred years, and they will come round. Probably.
And if not, hey, stuff happens.
Or to put it another way, no communication between us is really possible, because our minds work in different ways.
We see a news item about a veggie bomber, or a Humvee bomber, and we are agreed on what we read.
But some of us are also capable of reading news items about Iraqi civilians killed in error by US bombing, or at a checkpoint.
Your brain, RhusLancia, works differently; it simply switches off, and refuses to see such items.
Hence your honest conviction that every single civilian death in Iraq has been caused by terrists or 'surgents, and none at all by any action of US forces.
This is, in your reality, quite true.
But sadly, not in the rest of the world.
That's Ok, johninnz, you're hangin' in there just fine. Can you answer the other questions?
Like this one: who do some commenters like Um Ayad & Rachel blame for civilian casualties?
_
[marcus] "Another might be to try to stage some sort of non-violence Ghandi-style opposition."
The people of Fallujah tried that. The American answer? Machine-gunning crowds of civilians.
The only answer to invasion that the nice Americans understand is force.
[rhus] "Can you answer the other questions? Like this one: who do some commenters like Um Ayad & Rachel blame for civilian casualties?"
Or: Are Iraqis allowed to defend themselves, in your opinion, from American attack?
Yeah, well, THAT question went great, as I recall. But I'll be a sport and answer your question anyway.
The answer as to who is responsible for civilian casualties is clear: it is the aggressor that has brought the fight to Iraq. It is the aggressor that insists on fighting in Iraqi cities. It is the aggressor that insists on imposing his will on the Iraqi people by force.
That aggressor is the United States of America.
Therefore, the United States is responsible for the civilian casualties of the war.
"who do some commenters like Um Ayad & Rachel blame for civilian casualties?"
Well certainly not the benevolent USA. I've already explained on this thread that your intelligent bombs are indeed very intelligent, and refuse to explode if there's a civilian anywhere in the neighborhood.
everybody knows that - where have you been all your life?
Your sterling troops are also very humane and intelligent, and managed to shoot a bunch of kids at Haditha without, y'know, REALLY shooting them.
Did you ever hear about how Calley and his boys walked around My Lai handing out sweets?
Thanks, Bruno. That was an awesome answer. Pretty much how I would have answered it if i wanted to do an accurate impersonation of you.
johninnz, your answer is good, too, inasmuch as I successfully identify your intended sarcasm.
Marcus?
_
"who do some commenters like Um Ayad & Rachel blame for civilian casualties?"
You.
As in you the United States of America, not you RhusLancia.
I find it a bit strange though that you keep asking me about what OTHER people think. Why not ask me what I think and them what they think? Unless you know the answer and just want to push that, in which case: why not just say what they think?
"I successfully identify your intended sarcasm"
You wouldn't know sarcasm if it came up and bit you on Anand's dhoti.
You were being serious, johninnz?
_
As serious as you are being.
Whatever you're fishing for, I think you've lost your bait, mate.
Fishing for some sort of divide and conquer opening I suppose. Rhus would probably regard someone like me not completely agreeing with say Indigo on some issue he brought up as a small victory. I would guess that's what he's trying to set up here.
I think he's just trying to bore us to death.
It's working, too. I'm off to read Juan Cole's latest.
I'm half dead myself, gonna get some lunch...
Hej, Marcus. I know what they think, yes. I know what you think (I think). I wanted to find out if you knew what they think, and could express it as clearly as they do. Yes, you do & can. Well done.
OK. More questions. I'll number these for real so we can see which ones get honest answers from you and others. For the most part, i think you're honest. Bruno and An Italian maybe not so much, John too drunk & angry to tell, and johninnz is a toss up apparently.
6. Under a heading "Fighting Shia isn't fun:", Bruno enthusiastically posted this:
"We are proud that he died," said Abu Moussa al-Sadr, 31, another militiaman. "Whenever one of us dies, it raises our morale. It intensifies our fighting." "If we defeat them, we win," Kabi said. "And if we die, we win."
This was describing the death of a militia fighter. A legal target, yes?
7. How might Iraqis feel about the death of an innocent civilian?
8. How about if they, like Rachel and Um Ayad, are taught to consider every single violent death to be the US's responsibilty? (regardless of who handled the purely technical aspect of actually taking their life)
9. AQ had at least a tacit alliance with many of the "Hummer-bomber-only" 'resistance' since the beginning of the insurgency. I believe it was more than that, but that is not my question. Many of the 'resistance' began turning on AQ in the summer/fall of '06. AQ had been killing innocent civilians hand over fist for a long time before that. What caused the 'resistance' to turn on AQ at that time?
10. On Monday, October 16, 2006, our venerable host said this:
"I now officially regret supporting this war back in 2003. The guilt is too much for me to handle." (scroll for it)
What specific event caused him to announce his change of heart at that time?
Thank you for sticking with this.
_
Boring.
I agree, Johninnz. And I agree with Marcus as well. Time for lunch!
There is only one question left after that set. johninnz is jumping into a spider hole, Bruno is off to sup on the blood of the living... back yet, Marcus?
_
Yeah. come back, Pete, all is forgiven. We're sorry we ruffled your feathers.
Anyone would be better than this bore. Even Lynette or Bridget.
Aw, what the heck:
[rhus] "This was describing the death of a militia fighter. A legal target, yes?"
How about I answer that when you decide whether Iraqis under attack from American troops are allowed to defend themselves or not?
[rhus] "8. How about if they, like Rachel and Um Ayad, are taught to consider every single violent death to be the US's responsibilty?"
The consequences of the invasion ARE the US' responsibility. Some deaths to a lesser extent, I'll grant that, but ultimately the invasion was the cause of all this misery.
[rhus] "What caused the 'resistance' to turn on AQ at that time?"
Many factors, including but not limited to the simmering friction between the groups where they met that had existed since AQ set up shop in Iraq. The diverging goals of AQ and the Iraqi Resistance. The impossibility of fighting AQ, America and the "Shia" resistance groups at the same time.
[rhus] "What specific event caused him to announce his change of heart at that time?"
The specific post referred to a friend of his dying in Iraq.
But I believe that Zeyad's change of heart was not a bolt from the blue. I believe it was a slow process of realisation that the promises of the US were fake, that the Americans didn't know what the heck they were doing, that the consequences of the invasion were far worse than anybody could have thought and that Iran was likely going to have great influence over Iraq from then on. Add to this stew of discontent the increased religious sentiment sweeping Iraq and the disgraceful murder of Zaidun (whom you still deny had a right to defend himself, Rhus) and the disgraceful "investigation" conducted by the Americans.
I can only speculate here; I'm not Zeyad. But such "conversions" rarely happen from just one event.
Aw, what the heck:
[rhus] "This was describing the death of a militia fighter. A legal target, yes?"
How about I answer that when you decide whether Iraqis under attack from American troops are allowed to defend themselves or not?
[rhus] "8. How about if they, like Rachel and Um Ayad, are taught to consider every single violent death to be the US's responsibilty?"
The consequences of the invasion ARE the US' responsibility. Some deaths to a lesser extent, I'll grant that, but ultimately the invasion was the cause of all this misery.
[rhus] "What caused the 'resistance' to turn on AQ at that time?"
Many factors, including but not limited to the simmering friction between the groups where they met that had existed since AQ set up shop in Iraq. The diverging goals of AQ and the Iraqi Resistance. The impossibility of fighting AQ, America and the "Shia" resistance groups at the same time.
[rhus] "What specific event caused him to announce his change of heart at that time?"
The specific post referred to a friend of his dying in Iraq.
But I believe that Zeyad's change of heart was not a bolt from the blue. I believe it was a slow process of realisation that the promises of the US were fake, that the Americans didn't know what the heck they were doing, that the consequences of the invasion were far worse than anybody could have thought and that Iran was likely going to have great influence over Iraq from then on. Add to this stew of discontent the increased religious sentiment sweeping Iraq and the disgraceful murder of Zaidun (whom you still deny had a right to defend himself, Rhus) and the disgraceful "investigation" conducted by the Americans.
I can only speculate here; I'm not Zeyad. But such "conversions" rarely happen from just one event.
YES! YES! I did it! My ulterior motive was to make johninnz miss PeteS !! Hurrah!
LOL, Johninnz.
But I think MNF - ISF I'MA FAG Anand is worse than Rhus.
At least Rhus keeps a single leg in reality. And he's not nearly as utterly slimy as the Indian slug.
(Gee, I hope Rhus doesn't get a big head from all these compliments I'm giving him.)
OK, now, lunch for sure.
Bruno, you missed a big one in #9. Maybe Marcus will get it with a full tummy.
_
What, that AQ was killing civilians? Sure, you can add that to the stew.
Close. "that AQ was killing _______ "
_
Bruno, tomorrow Rhus is going to play over at Anand's place.
See, Anand's got this big sandpit, and all these toy soldiers labelled IA 9-7 and MNF 2-3 and all.
They move their soldiers around the pit, and go 'Rat-tat-tat-tat' and 'blam-blam' and like that.
Anand always plays the IA, of course. Rhus will play the Minnesota National Guard.
And they will blow up the Bruno/AQ doll.
Lynette will bring them cookies and cyanide for lunch.
Oh, won't they have fun!
IA 9-7? Rhus should be OK, then. Well, so long as Anand doesn't break out the dreaded IA 14D ... oh, wait, that fat bully Sadr from next door ripped that one up, so they can't play with that action figure. I hear that Uncle Petraeus is bringing Anand a roll of sticky tape to patch it up, though. Dunno if it will ever really be the same ... now, if only they could get Uncle P to go and fight Sadr, before he steals their cookies as well.
Bruno: "But I believe that Zeyad's change of heart was not a bolt from the blue. I believe it was a slow process of realisation..."
Yeah, I agree. Just wanted to know what caused him to announce it though.
_
Man, those Swedish socialized lunch breaks must be like 2 hours long!
_
Bedtime
rat-tat-tat-tat.
Good night, johninnz.
_
"Man, those Swedish socialized lunch breaks must be like 2 hours long!"
THAT is what I need.
Rhus, are there any other virtues of socialism that you want to extoll?
I can fortunately take a lunch break for whatever period of time I damn well please. But I must also unfortunately get some work done on occation so just because I'm not here ready to launch into debate at all times it doesn't follow that I am on lunch.
Our Swedish socialized lunch breaks are normally about 30 minutes and we do NOT drink vodka with lunch.
RhusLancia
You’re inquisitive today. Are you busy creating an archive of your opponents views? Are you going “Big Brother” on us? Remember, there’s not yet such a thing as “thought-crime”.
Here goes then:
Hej, Marcus. I know what they think, yes. I know what you think (I think). I wanted to find out if you knew what they think, and could express it as clearly as they do. Yes, you do & can. Well done.
OK. More questions. I'll number these for real so we can see which ones get honest answers from you and others. For the most part, i think you're honest. Bruno and An Italian maybe not so much, John too drunk & angry to tell, and johninnz is a toss up apparently.
6. […] This was describing the death of a militia fighter. A legal target, yes?
I went back to the article to get the background and found out that:
“Kabi, 34, said Akeel had been planting a roadside bomb when he was shot multiple times by an American soldier.”
Definitely a legal target as far as I see it. Well… the fact that I view the entire invasion and occupation as an illegal enterprise might support the argument that no deaths following in their wake can be deemed legal. But that’s in a wider context, so let’s isolate the situation and say that a militia member placing bombs is a legitimate target during war.
7. How might Iraqis feel about the death of an innocent civilian?
The same way other people feel about it I guess. You would have to be way more specific if you’re looking for an answer that includes who they blame and why, because that would be completely dependent on the circumstances.
[cont.]
"(the Iranians compelled the two sides to cease the hostilities)"
It's those masterfully evil yet bumbling Iranians taking lessons from the Americans again. First you set up all your puppets in a circle and have them start shooting each other. Oops. Then you make them stop.
8. How about if they, like Rachel and Um Ayad, are taught to consider every single violent death to be the US's responsibilty? (regardless of who handled the purely technical aspect of actually taking their life)
Taught? By whom? I don’t really see how you could have a dead civilian and “teach” the relatives who they should blame, that would probably come quite naturally. I’m sure those with relatives blown to bits by Al Qaida first and foremost blame Al Qaida. I’m sure those with relatives arrested and killed by death squads from various militias blame the militia they think responsible and/or Iran for allegedly backing them. Those with relatives killed in bombing raids or at checkpoints or in raids certainly lay the blame on their occupier.
However, I think that no matter by whom a person is killed the grieving relatives will feel his/her death is a consequence of the war itself. And America started the war. I happen to agree with this view since I, unlike PeteS, think that sometimes consequences must be taken into consideration.
9. AQ had at least a tacit alliance with many of the "Hummer-bomber-only" 'resistance' since the beginning of the insurgency. I believe it was more than that, but that is not my question. Many of the 'resistance' began turning on AQ in the summer/fall of '06. AQ had been killing innocent civilians hand over fist for a long time before that. What caused the 'resistance' to turn on AQ at that time?
My interpretation is that this was primarily down to the following:
* AQ had not only been killing Shia indiscriminately but they were enforcing a very harsh and unpopular brand of Islam upon the Sunni community as well, with corporal punishments for small crimes, forced marriages, etc.
* The AQ tactics of drawing the Shia into a civil war to “awaken the slumbering Sunnis” proved disastrous for the Sunnis themselves once the Shia retaliated with full force.
* It then became impossible to keep up the fight against the occupation forces AND take on the Shia militias within or outside the ISF.
* I also think an American change of approach which allowed for negotiations and more pragmatic solutions than before facilitated this shift. Better COIN if you will.
10. On Monday, October 16, 2006, our venerable host said this:
"I now officially regret supporting this war back in 2003. The guilt is too much for me to handle." (scroll for it)
What specific event caused him to announce his change of heart at that time?
I can’t remember that post. It may be from just before I started following Zeyads blog closely. I might go back and read it, since you linked to it, but not today.
Ok, while we wait for Marcus I'll cop to something.
For a long time, I thought Iraq ought to be privatized, that its Arab Ba'ath SOCIALISM was a problem.
However, a long time ago Marcus had a comment about how Sweden's socialism was not so bad, huge tax rates and all. Got me thinking.
I ended up deciding Iraq's SOCIALISM was not nearly as much of a problem as how it was implemented and mismanaged by Saddam (like everything).
Many Iraqis dig Saddam's health care and education programs, for example. Well, good for them. It occurs to me that Iraq can afford to take care of its people using its oil revenues, and do a good job of it too. So, let 'em have some socialism in Iraq. Just don't make it so similar to National Socialism like it was under Saddam.
_
@Smugtalian the Sadrist Sycophant, 04.01.08 - 1:54 am and later:
first time I hear of my partnership with the Shia militias. This scumbag Pietrino is good at inventing new lies,!
What?! Mudslinging around here has to be truthful and accurate? When did the rules change?
There was NO SUCH THING as a "post-1921, pro-treaty IRA" (IRA meaning 'Irish Republican Army', which was incompatible by definition with a 'Free State' having an oath of allegiance to the English king); so, indeed, there was never a "'legitimate' IRA", to use your nauseating language, you idiotic bedbug !
Oh God, Oytalian's gone all anti-treaty on me! It's bad enough having 85 contentious years of domestic history defined by the one rock-and-a-hard-place decision that split Collins and Dev, without the friggin' Italians weighing in to pour petrol on the fire! Tell you what Smugtalian, next Easter Monday you can parade outside the GPO holding a placard that explains how the IRA were bodily assumed into republican heaven on December 6th 1921 to be replaced by doppelganger Free Staters. What? You were there last week? Was this you with yer Shinner mates? I love that little Chinese cailín peering bemusedly from behind one of the GPO columns -- she and her hard-working immigrant mates will thankfully steamroll over these sad old dinosaurs some day soon
And who is cheering for more killing, oh Oyrish Pinocchio ? It was you, clapping your hands at this criminal initiative of the Badr Brigades/SIIC and Maliki against their Sadrist pals, a gang action that has caused the death of some 600 Iraqis, and that has utterly failed.
I think you'll find if you scroll back up that I was hoping for dialogue and for an EXCLUSIVELY PEACEFUL approach, Smugtalian. Is that what you hope for too, or are you happy with the mayhem?
It was NOT, as Zeyad rightly noticed, the 'Rule of Law' against the JAM: it was just rival militias vying for power.
That, of course, is your (and maybe Zeyad's) GUESS. So do you think it's vewy vewy good for the people of Iraq to have armed militias in control of the country's most precious material resource? Or do you think some resolution should be sought? How? What do you think a centralist like Malike should do? (Not sure why I'm bothering to ask, mind you -- I don't think you DO constructive comment, do you ).
Please, oh so truthful Pietrino, some evidence, please:
1) of my previous support for AQ
2) of my present support for al-Sadr
Hey, let's not forget the Commies too. But I don't think they were murderous enough for you. Your support for AQ and al-Sadr is evidenced by your obvious glee at their success in killing coalition forces.
I see I did a lousy job of separating your questions from my answers so the posts are a bit botched. You'll just have to make do though, because now I'll have to go for one of those socialist brea... work, work I mean, I'm going to do some work!
No problem, Marcus, I understood your answers. Most are workable enough, that is, within the acceptable range of what I was fishing for.
So, to review, as far as I can tell we started down this road with Marcus's statement:
If you think you will ever get an acknowledgment from Pete, or anyone else in that crowd, that there may exist an insurgent who is a Hummer-bombing one but not a veggie-bombing one you are in for a grave dissapointment.
I began asking questions. I've numbered them and pared down the context a bit. I've put the answers I was fishing for at the bottom. yours vary here & there, but I think they work.
==============
1) where is the triggerman hiding?
2) What do you think of those civilian deaths? ('those' being collateral damage from attacks on MNF, GoI, or ISF)
3) who does commenters like Um Ayad and Indigo consider responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths?
4) Could you please state what you understand that (asymetric warfare) to mean?
5) Is that accurate, gentlemen? (that the US's overwhelming military advantage must be countered with alternative strategies)
6) [a militia man was describing how if he wins, he wins; or if he dies, he wins] A legal target, yes?
7) How might Iraqis feel about the death of an innocent civilian?
8 ) How about if they, like Rachel and Um Ayad, are taught to consider every single violent death to be the US's responsibilty? (regardless of who handled the purely technical aspect of actually taking their life)
9) [AQ had a tacit alliance with the 'resistance' prior to ~ Sep '06] What caused the 'resistance' to turn on AQ at that time?
10) What specific event caused him [Zeyad] to announce his change of heart at that time? [mid October 2006]
answers:
http://i236.photobucket.com/albu...cia/
answers.jpg
_
@Bruno, 04.01.08 - 3:37 am: a certain Irishman that really should know better, given the extreme lengths I went to in beating down Lee on the infamous Oil Law Thread.
So infamous, in fact, that I have still not read one single word of it. Not that I want to rehash it, whatever it contained. The general level of paranoia about the oil law leaves me bored stiff, frankly.
If you want an in depth breakdown a la Lee.C. , well, we can start with the examination of the words: "given up the idea"
Sweet Jesus, no, don't go there. I can see us debating the meaning of "up" for weeks.
... which necessarily implies that there had to BE an idea in the first place, which has since been abandoned. That begs the question of WHAT the idea was, which was given up.
Oh, all of a sudden you are giving a great deal of credence to a transcript concocted by this "(admittedly unreliable) Oyrish source". Let's just agree then, given that we are treating this transcript as gospel truth, that the USA abandoned plans early on to have any stake in Iraqi oil. I would consider that a minor victory at least.
Now, while I don't agree that the US has shelved plans to exploit and control iraqi oil...
Doh! How naive I was! What I meant was that "the bits that suit Bruno are gospel truth while the bits that don't are clearly insertions by CIA operatives".
So. There was unanimous agreement that the 'resistance' must use asymmetrical guerrilla tactics in order to make up for the lack of miltary parity with the US. We went on to talk about how people felt about civilian casualties and touched on how the 'resistance' may think about civilian casualties.
Here is the last question: "who benefits" from inflicting civilian casualties: the 'resistance' or the US?
I have to go to bed and can't see if you dodge what I consider to be a very obvious answer. So here are related followups:
what incentive does the 'resistance' have for minimizing civilian casualties? None. In fact, as a strategy, they are better served in maximizing casualties. Civilian deaths, regardless of the circumstances, are a 'success' of the insurgency in inciting hate & further violence, eroding confidence, presenting the insurgency as a viable alternative to the MNF/GoI.
what incentive does the MNF/GoI/ISF have for minimizing civilian casualties? A lot. Civilian deaths, regardless of the circumstances, are a 'success' of the insurgency in inciting hate & further violence, eroding confidence, presenting the insurgency as a viable alternative to the MNF/GoI.
If you have gone all the way through this discussion and still believe the 'resistance' does not use civilian deaths (and suffering) as a 'tactic' against the MNF/GoI/ISF then... I dunno... insert something bad about you here (like 'you have poopy pants' or something).
_
[italian] "It was NOT, as Zeyad rightly noticed, the 'Rule of Law' against the JAM: it was just rival militias vying for power."
[petes] "That, of course, is your (and maybe Zeyad's) GUESS."
PeteS, that's simply wrong, and you have to be as blind as a bat not to see it.
All the analysts and all the commenters can see it was a straightforward clash between Maliki and Sadr. Those that dig a bit deeper point to the Badrist affiliation of the IA units used in the attack. If you seriously buy into the official bullshit of this being a "government" crackdown against "various" militias, then I challenge you to show me where the Fadhila and the Badr militia especially were attacked and disarmed.
[petes] "Let's just agree then, given that we are treating this transcript as gospel truth, that the USA abandoned plans early on to have any stake in Iraqi oil."
Which would mean that yes, you WERE blowing smoke at this point: [petes] "Maybe there was no such plan in the first place.""
[bruno] "Now, while I don't agree that the US has shelved plans to exploit and control iraqi oil..."
[petes] "Doh! How naive I was! What I meant was that "the bits that suit Bruno are gospel truth while the bits that don't are clearly insertions by CIA operatives".
Nice try.
Maybe you should try to stop sounding so clever and rationalise your position before posting two contradictory things in future. YOU endorsed that transcript, hell, you were so hot and bothered about it that you spent a considerable amount of time bashing it out for us to read. THEN you went and posted something at odds with the said transcript.
It's not me that has the case of denial, it's YOU, PeteS.
Now, unless you can post information to the effect that the US has given up its endorsement of the Oil Law, then I reiterate that YES, America STILL DOES intend on getting its mitts into the Iraqi oil sector, to both exercise leverage over it and to profit from it.
[marcus] i think you're honest. Bruno and An Italian maybe not so much"
Aw, crumbs, Marcus, that hurt. Almost as much as the neck pain I got from reading your upside down post at photobucket ...
But seriously, why do you think I'm not an honest commenter?
[rhus] "what incentive does the 'resistance' have for minimizing civilian casualties? None."
Unfortunately, that's at odds with a lot of the reality on the ground - ie - when attacks are about to be launched, Iraqis magically melt off the streets and the US patrols in question pretty much know they are going to be hit because the Iraqis have been alerted by their mates in the local resistance cell.
[rhus] "what incentive does the MNF/GoI/ISF have for minimizing civilian casualties? A lot."
Unfortunately, that's also at odds with reality, since it's abundantly clear - especially after hearing what was said at Winter Soldier - that American forces in iraq place "force protection" as their #1 priority, and as a result Iraqi civilians have suffered greatly.
Maybe, Rhus, your logic breaks down in reality because Iraqis are, you know, IRAQIS and give a damn as to whether their roadside bomb kills Uncle Ahmed on the way home from work? And that US soldiers are, you know, US SOLDIERS that are more concerned with getting home in one piece and who can't tell the difference (or don't care) between guerrillas and civilians, so it's full auto all the time?
Yeah, yeah, Bruno (9:42 am), I take your points. Sometimes it's hard to avoid a little foray into into pigheaded dogmatism, just to feel more at home around here.
On a slightly more serious note, you're not the only one who gets to believe only a subset of the Horgan interview (or any other news). Just because I thought it was good enough to transcribe doesn't mean I necessarily agree with his comments about American eyes on oil, any more than I agreed with his comments about peak oil (which I don't).
Regarding Maliki and al-Sadr, the one thing I believe about Iraqi political machinations is that they are murky, open to many interpretations, and rarely "monocausal" to use this authors term.
Bruno, that was the botched post I was referring to where I mixed Rhus's earlier questions with my own answers without separating them clearly. You are asking about a section that RhusLancia wrote and I pasted in order to answer it. It's originally from:
RhusLancia | Homepage | 04.01.08 - 6:02 am |
and not from my later post:
Marcus | 04.01.08 - 7:26 am | #
And the "upside down post at photobucket"....
Also Rhus's handywork, not mine.
Btw, Bruno (9.44 am)have you just not had enough coffee today, or do you think Marcus is RhusLancia just because he gave some answers that weren't overwhelmingly anti-American
Aw, crumbs, Bruno, that hurt. Mistaking Rhus's comments for mine...
Ah, I see Marcus has already corrected you.
Since we're all being so vulnerable here, I'm sorry if I suggested the Infamous Oil Thread wasn't infamous.
...
Oh, hang on. No I'm not.
Well, as Homer Simpson said: "Doh!"
I should have known that Nordic efficiency would NEVER have allowed an upside down post to slip through.
No time to read all the comments, but I just had to say:
Sneerlander and Smugtalian
Bruno: "Maybe, Rhus, your logic breaks down in reality because Iraqis are, you know, IRAQIS and give a damn as to whether their roadside bomb kills Uncle Ahmed on the way home from work? And that US soldiers are, you know, US SOLDIERS that are more concerned with getting home in one piece and who can't tell the difference (or don't care) between guerrillas and civilians, so it's full auto all the time?"
Maybe, Bruno, you do not read the daily violence roundups on antiwar.com by Margaret Griffis that you happily link to frequently. If you did, you would see that, just limiting the discussion to "collateral" casualties from IEDs, your creative writing is divorced from the reality on the ground.
And, notwithstanding the extra effort you put in to remake reality into one where your 'resistance' heroes do NOT wantonly kill and injure Iraqi civilains, the question I asked remains "who benefits"? And the answer is vewy vewy obvious indeed to anyone who understands the tactics, resources, and opportunities they have available to them in order to realize your ultimate fanasy of an Amrikan defweat.
_
Well, I had a little sleep, which was useful, as I learned more that way than by hanging around to find out the point of RhusLancia's pathetic little fishing exhibition. Seemed to just peter out (hi Pete) in general confusion, really.
I think what he was trying to say was something like: just as there is a Manual of Military Law, and/or a Geneva Convention, that our troops are meant to abide by, so there should be a Manual of Insurgent Tactics, an Anbar Convention or something, that the bad guys should observe.
His conclusions, if that's not too generous a word, seem to be multifold:
(1) Since the veggie-bombing variety of insurgent clearly don't follow the MoIT, probably don't even own one, this justifies (a) the original invasion, (b) the continued occupation (c) playing in Anand's sandpit, and (d) masturbation.
(2) Since both veggie-bombers and Hummer-bombers tend to be a little, well, ruthless and fanatical, this justifies our sterling troops throwing away their own rulebooks from time to time.
(3) Under the Bush Doctrine, it is strictly forbidden for anyone to mention any such activity by our side, not even to express perfunctory "regret" a la Lynette in her more squeamish moments. (This I gather is pretty much Pete's position.)
(4) Because of all of the above, squared and minus the number you first thought of, anyone harbouring the least doubt about the nobility and integrity of our cause is (a) an AQ supporter, (b) anti-American, (c) a Communist and (d) Bruno.
And of course (5) Because of (4) above, we will continue our efforts until either (a) "victory," (b) the end of George Bush's term of office (c) hell freezes over or (d) all youse Liberuls have died of boredom, whichever comes soonest.
Yaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnn.
Back to bed, I guess.
Cock-a-doodle-oooooooooooooo! The sun has risen on Sneerland!
johninz ...
I think what he was trying to say was something like: just as there is a Manual of Military Law, and/or a Geneva Convention, that our troops are meant to..bla bla yada yada etc
nope johnyboy try again marcus gets closet to the prize (i think it was marcus)
Are you going “Big Brother” on us?
i call it the camp counselor effect. rusty likes to change the dynamics when the new (ie currebt events) become insufferable for HIS SIDE ie EMPIRE. when lame dick/impotency sets in he likes to firmly establish the roles, because even if his tool becomes inoperative he seeks to remain in control. ie:
No problem, Marcus, I understood your answers. Most are workable enough, that is, within the acceptable range of what I was fishing for.
get it, 'within the acceptable range'
LOLOLOLOL
yes massa rhus anything you say massa rhus
what i find interesting is to go back in the thread (i have done this NUMEROUS times w/him @ 24's) and identify when he gets all camp counselor on us. this will usually identify what he DOESN"T want to discuss.
i am too lazy to do it now, (sorry) but as i recall it was around the time bruno posted NUMEROUS links about the limp dick factor w/regard to the US military/iraqi forces, the sunni insurgency claiming responsibility for the attacks on the green zone, the us military CHANGING LOCALS FOR THEIR EMBASSY, and such.
hm, i could be wrong, just a theory. i did hear from one of our more reliable propaganda pushers the whole affair w/sadr was not such a big deal, hardly anyone was affected story over, little blurp move along.
rusty, do you have a new list of little questions for us to put us to sleep.
did you hear anything about the new location for the embassy?
is this 'within the acceptable range' of discourse????
ah yes, i have gone back and consulted the thread, , li'l rusty started up w/his campboy blathering after brunos ' Analysis of the outcome of the fighting:' post followed shorlty after also posting all those newsbites refuting troll central's allegations.
prior to that he was in shrink mode "- your perceived enjoyment & magnification of difficulties by the GoI & ISF as well as willingness to frame JAM's experiences as overwhelmingly successful.
since bruno's newsbites directly threaten the propaganda assault occuring now and likely to follow better to just leap to another mode altogether.
since everything you say rhus is so steeped in bullshit you rely primarily in your roles of authority to rescue any remaining perceived viabilty for your character . yawn. or something. that's my observation anyway.
sorry to be such a stick in the mud. ok, back to the party. we will all line up in our bunks and the boys can answer questions til we fall asleep.
johninnz, it's much simpler than that. We all agree that, militarily, the 'resistance' has no chance against us. We all agree that they must be more creative in their tactics. So the point of all that was to show how useful civilian casualties are to them. They have an incentive to, at worst, maximize civilian casualties and at best pay little attention to them. I think it's quite clear that that is what they do.
What makes this interesting for me is how it is such a red line for you all that cannot be crossed. Look at poor Bruno making stuff up out of whole cloth in order to avoid saying that yes, in fact civilian casualties are an important contributor to the overall 'resistance' strategy.
And how funny is it that An Italian Sadr Loyalist chooses to remain silent on this issue? Truth be told, I think he saw this coming from a mile away and knew he could not get close to "the line". I'm really surprised you all got as far as you did. I thought Marcus might see it coming and continue the discussion because, frankly, I think he has more integrity than most porties.
Now, even *nnie swoops in try to blur the obvious connection. I wonder if her boss Howard Dean put her up to it ??
sorry sorry sorry that was so mean i take it all back.
bwaaaaaahhhhhhh
that's what happens when i get bored.
bwwwahahahahahah
here, i will highlight something 'nice 'rhus said.
Many Iraqis dig Saddam's health care and education programs, for example. Well, good for them. It occurs to me that Iraq can afford to take care of its people using its oil revenues, and do a good job of it too. So, let 'em have some socialism in Iraq. Just don't make it so similar to National Socialism like it was under Saddam.
ah rusty you are so very generous. we should let them go to school for free and all?
i have an idea, how bouts we compromise...as long as they sign those little itty psa'a we can let them have some of the money... say .00003% and then we can let them spend it any ol way they want? they can even be socialized about it???
whatcha think.. or did you mean WE COULD LET THEM CHOOSE NATIONALIZED/SOCIALIZED OIL , or whatever the hell they wanted, or better yet instead of letting them do anything we could just keep our friggin mouths closed and not interfer?
nah, we probably shouldn't do that.
*nnie: "since bruno's newsbites directly threaten the propaganda assault "
Bruno's newsbites are a propaganda assault !!
Now, even *nnie swoops in try to blur the obvious connection.
frankly i was in scroll mode w/regard to the questions. once i saw the camp counselor mode i tried not to get sucked in. i think it will take me abiout 2 seconds to figure out your bogus strawman begining w/I think it's quite clear that that is what they do.
i know it will include the obviousness of the US CONSTANTLY denying they cause hardly any civilain death or some such mindfart
the point of all that was to show how useful civilian casualties are to them.
actually i would ammend that to say your point is to use civilian casualities to your benefit while denying they are your responsibility. which they are.
beyond that this is the same argument you have been blathering about since i met you on this board. do you have a manual w/lists of them you haul out to drag bored bloggers into your sites when the news cycle works against you?
rhus , pete, anyone.. heard any gossip on a change of local as a result of the green zone bombings?
what do you think of the news (allegations whatever) of the greenzone bombings being sunni inspired? still think its 'iranian' inspired?
this is the same argument you have been blathering about since i met you on this board.
what i meant was it is one of your top rave fav's. and not this board but the iraqis blogs.
just another way and rearranging the deck chairs but still we get sucked into discussing your allegation that the 'terrorists' just looooove civilian deaths, cause 99.999999% of them, commit them for the sole purpose of propaganda, beat their usage to a bloody pulp, and squeeze as much juice out of that turnip as they possibly can because for the most part they are bloodthirsty muthafuks who would kill their own mother if they could sell the idea for more war.. or something, am i there yet.
yada yada
rhus , pete, anyone.. heard any gossip on a change of local for the embassy as a result of the green zone bombings?
interested minds want to know
booga booga booga
honkey infidel muthafukkas
booga booga
allah akbar
Sorry annie ... too busy right now celebrating the demise of another tyrant -- Mugabe's demise looks imminent. Hurrah!!!
Mwari ropafadzai nyika yeZimbabwe
Nyika yamadzitateguru edu tose;
Kubva Zambezi kusvika Limpopo,
Navatungamiri vave nenduramo;
Ngaikomborerwe nyika yeZimbabwe.
O God, we beseech Thee to bless our native land;
The land of our fathers bestowed upon us all;
From Zambezi to Limpopo
May leaders be exemplary;
And may the Almighty protect and bless our land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9...h?
v=9sqH4t4Hl3A
Let ONE PERSON on World Socialist Website write ONE OP-ED about how cool Mugabe is and how he's getting the shaft from Amreeka, and *nnie will shill for him from that day forward until the end of time.
Mugabe's demise looks imminent.
ok, we have our theme
*nnie will shill for him
we have the roles we are supposed to refute or affirm
is that all?
is that all you have for us? no words from your leader of disassociation or surprise?
any news of our li'l maliki leaderboy successes today or the success of the mighty badr..
comeon.. i want some fresh meat. this stalled action w/questions and answers designed to direct us on some moral pathway.....
zzzzzzzz
i'm going to the garden, when i come back i want something a little more cutting edge in terms of propaganda, not the same ol same ol.
booga booga booga
Mugabe
Honkies
booga booga
BOOGA!
allah akbar
booga booga booga
mugabe booga honkies
booga booga
Aha! I spoke too soon! there WAS a purpose to RhusLancia's absurd angling. He was seeking to prove that "the point of all that was to show how useful civilian casualties are to them." (i.e. the 'surgents)
And of course the logical corollary, implied if not actually stated, is that HUMVEES ARE VEGETABLES.
Thus, there is no distinction between veggie-bombers and Humvee-bombers.
Also, since the aim of both types of bombers is to cause the maximum civilian casualties, it is clear that very few Humvees have really been harmed.
And those 4000 missing Americans aren't really dead. They're living it up in secret recreation camps inside the Green Zone, so that the rest of our brave boys can fight on in memory of them.
What? Relocate from the Green Zone, just because a few non-existent Humvee-type bombers keep lobbing rockets and mortars into it?
Over RhusLancia's dead body!
Hey, now there's an idea ...
Confused,
"So yesterday Maliki said the Mahdi Army is worse than Al-Qaeda, and today he is praising the Mahdi Army and calling for peaceful dialogue. He seems to have abandoned his belligerent stance against "outlaws" of a few days ago. Any of you informed pundits care to explain to us what is going on?"
I think it's called divide and conquer.
And it seems that recruiting for the Iraqi Army is going just swimmingly. (h/t to DJ at the Fourth Rail). DJ's point being, that people don't join the losing side.
Meanwhile, Pete is "celebrating the demise of another tyrant -- Mugabe's demise looks imminent. Hurrah!!!"
Hush, Pete. Even you should be capable of understanding that none of us atheistic lefty Liberals would regret Mugabe's downfall. You would have to join hands with us (yuk) while we all danced in celebratory circles.
What we depraved lefties might regret is that if Mugabe clings to power by brutal means, which I'd say is quite on the cards, there'd be little prospect of international humanitarian intervention, because the superpower that could lead such a process is preoccupied elsewhere, and rather knackered by its efforts there.
And its diplomacy has been rather discredited also, so any lead it offered in that way probably wouldn't worry Mugabe much.
It is all, of course, ultimately the fault of the veggie-bombers.
CSM: "In Baghdad, the government lifted a three-day curfew but US and Iraqi forces maintained a siege of sorts on Mahdi strongholds in eastern Baghdad, such as Sadr City and Shaab and Shuala on the northwest side. All vehicles were banned from going in and out except for authorized food and medicine deliveries.
Everyone going in was searched by Iraqi forces. US troops kept a close eye from a distance. A US Abrams tank, a Bradley fighting vehicle, and an armored truck stood guard at Mudhafar Square on the edge of Sadr City. US soldiers have also moved into the main municipal building off the square.
"They killed him here, look," recounts Salem Dhiab, pointing to the bullet-riddled gate where he says his neighbor, Ahmed Bayrouzi, was shot by a US sniper after venturing out Sunday in violation of the curfew to check on his sister who lives close by".
What do you think Rhus, or better yet what the hell do ya think Ahmed was thinking? Would you ever consider venturing out to check on your sister (even if she were deathly ill or being 'visited' by an occupier) say if the roles were reversed and Iraqi occupiers were locking down your city and their snipers were positioned all around you?
Good shooting or bad shooting?
And do you think America will have won over the hearts and minds of Ahmed's neighbours, family members and friends after executing him at his own front gate. Certainly checking on one's sister shouldn't be sufficient cause for a trigger happy marine to relieve the boredom he might have been facing from an overnight surveillance? Do you think he was under orders to shoot anything that moved?
What d'ya think? No veggie bomber here, just a rather brutal, sadistic murder by one of your Marines, the type that you probably had wet dreams fantasizing about when all you could do is play at those stupid war games firing blanks.
No doubt it was moments such as these that brought Shameous over from his intial disapproval to being a full fledged advocate of America's war in Iraq. That, and the hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqis, the millions forced from their country and the other hundreds of thousands killed. Those considerations must have put a smile on his face as well.
I know it is April fool's day but...
(RhusLancia) who does commenters like Um Ayad and Indigo consider responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths?
Strange Rhus is asking other commenters this question.
Why didn't he ask me and Indigo?
I can only speak for myself... perhaps this will help.... I am watching "No End in Sight" on TV Channel More 4. A must watch. Writing this during the adverts. Will not be back tonight.
http://www.channel4.com/documentaries/
Iraq's Descent Into Chaos
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/
Um Ayad: "Why didn't he ask me and Indigo?"
Marcus asked that too. I explained above.
_
@annie: i'm going to the garden, when i come back i want something a little more cutting edge in terms of propaganda, not the same ol same ol.
Bush just died of a massive coronary. Cheney too, by a great coincidence. Nancy Pelosi has been sworn in, and has announced the withdrawal of all US troops with immediate effect. Apache helicopters are being retrofitted with skids for extra effect. Blackhawks will carry extra troops in bambi buckets. There will be skids on the bambi buckets.
Militias of all stripes have announced a half-day ceasefire in celebration, but confirmed that hostilities would resume tomorrow.
propaganda/april fool..i was thinking more along the lines of heritage house's Britain Should Launch a Troop Surge in Iraq
(surge being such a popular expression) there's a bunch of excellent sound bites (descend into a state of barbarism/anarchy/vicious gangs/rule of law.. alien concept/ future freedom of millions of Iraqis ..ultimately depend .. Britain to intervene/ armed thugs/terrorizing /smuggling /arms / oil, extorting/ mob rule ) then squished in about halfway down this .. There are also important strategic reasons for a robust and aggressive British presence. There is a vital need to maintain security along the Iraq-Iran border, as well as to protect the supply routes that run from Kuwait to Baghdad.
dicey, too bad they can depend on their trustie badr troops to guard that border w/iran..
back to reality US Embassy moving elsewhere. Sunni group claims GreenZone attacks
General Faisal AlAsafi, commander of a Green Zone entrance-protection unit, told AlArab that American Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave the order Saturday night to move the location of the Baghdad Embassy, temporarily, from the Green Zone to an alternate location, which he didn't specify. He said a crew composed of dozens of officials and diplomats moved the contents of the embassy to another location toward the west[ern part of] Baghdad, fearing additional rocket attacks on the Green Zone, insisting that the move is a temporary one, with the aim of the success of the joint forces in stopping the rocket attacks on the Green Zone, and pointing out that the British and Australian embassies might take the same decision in the coming hours.
And Asafi said many parliamentarians and ministers have emptied their premises in the Green Zone following a series of attacks that were accurate and precise in targeting the offices of foreign embassies and the government of Iraq, and the homes of many of ministers and parliamentarians.
they're not on the run or anything like that.
*nnie: "And Asafi said many parliamentarians and ministers have emptied their premises in the Green Zone following a series of attacks that were accurate and precise in targeting the offices of foreign embassies and the government of Iraq, and the homes of many of ministers and parliamentarians."
Do you condone these attacks?
_
@johninz, 6:13 pm: Even you should be capable of understanding that none of us atheistic lefty Liberals would regret Mugabe's downfall. You would have to join hands with us (yuk) while we all danced in celebratory circles.
I don't think I claimed a monopoly on dancing. Be my guest -- is that what the pink trousers were for?
What we depraved lefties might regret is that if Mugabe clings to power by brutal means, which I'd say is quite on the cards, there'd be little prospect of international humanitarian intervention, because the superpower that could lead such a process is preoccupied elsewhere, and rather knackered by its efforts there.
And its diplomacy has been rather discredited also, so any lead it offered in that way probably wouldn't worry Mugabe much.
Typical swipe at the US but it's bullshit. Save your opprobrium for all the other useless f*ckers. The European Union could have done something about Zimbabwe, but it didn't -- in particular Chirac decided to snuggle up to Mugabe while in office. China, characteristically, acted entirely scurrilously. The African Union mostly stood idly by, until it was too late. Thank God that Zimbabweans may have finally seen sense.
i wonder if they are using helicopters for their escape? not escape, i didn't mean that. their...exit.
American officials have barred his paper and others from bringing any video equipment into the Green Zone since the attacks started, and have barred the taking of any pictures of the damage.
oooh (stomps foot), i guess they don't want any enduring memories of them taking off from the rooftops, that would go over like a lead brick.
bumerella, no fair. i'm sure someone will record it with their cell phone.
For heaven's sake, Canadian John, are you quite incapable of paying attention?
RhusLancia has proved, hasn't he, that all civilian deaths in Iraq, without exception, have been caused by the insurgents, not by US troops or planes.
Therefore, that friendly Marine sniper could not possibly have shot Ahmed. He was just pointing him the way to his sister's place, with his friendly rifle, and a dastardly insurgent sneakily shot him in the back, so it would be blamed on the Marine.
Well, all right, you can stay on the left side of the classroom, but go and sit down the back.
And stop that goddam reading!
Do you condone these attacks?
rhus, ask me again after the msm here in the US reports it. do you believe this report? can you confirm it?
@annie: He said a crew composed of dozens of officials and diplomats moved the contents of the embassy to another location toward the west[ern part of] Baghdad, fearing additional rocket attacks on the Green Zone
Nonsense. The insurgents don't have missiles with that kind of range. We all know the embassy is 8,000 miles long and contains 6 trillion rooms.
*nnie: "do you believe this report? can you confirm it?"
You link stuff you don't believe? I thought only Um Ayad does that. Not surprised though.
_
"Not surprised though."
We'd finished with that Embassy anyway - pool wasn't big enough.
Just how long do they expect to keep their new location in West Baghdad secret from the insurgents?
RhusLancia should apply for a foreign service job in Iraq. He'd fit right in.
You link stuff you don't believe?
you are such a drama queen. i forgot how much you love a good strawman. it aint me shillin' for the con artists. i ask you if you believed it. obviously if our empire wanted us to know about it, they would allow photos /video and the 'defining moment speech would be repeated w/some fun spin on the story. but that ain't happening. so i am wondering if you are allowed to cross the line from unreality, to reality. do you believe it?
maybe it is an april fools joke?
hey rusty, i understand if you can't stray from the manual.
consider that little asteric you're using as me winkin' atcha. between you and you tho, when your head hits the pillow, does truth ever seem like an option for ya?
I believe this:
The AlArab reporter notes that American officials have barred his paper and others from bringing any video equipment into the Green Zone since the attacks started, and have barred the taking of any pictures of the damage.
Duh. Even you should understand that allowing pictures of the layout of the GZ could only help in targeting, and pictures of any damages could only assist in damage assessment and propaganda. Ever notice there aren't many pics of the GZ around in general, not just this week? Go into your garden and think about it for a while. You'll understand. Just go slowly.
Go ahead, *nnie, demonstrate how dumb someone has to be to ~not~ grasp that simple point .
_
ok, you believe that part. what about the rest? do you believe there is any restructuring of green zone facilities outside the green zone as a result of the mortar surge into it?
On Mar. 25, just as the operation was getting under way in Basra, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said “coalition forces” were providing intelligence, surveillance and support aircraft for the operation.
Furthermore, the embedded role of the U.S. Military Transition Teams (MTTs) makes it impossible that any Iraqi military operation could be planned without their full involvement.
A U.S. adviser to the Iraqi security forces involved in the operation told a Washington Post reporter by telephone on Mar. 25 he expected the operation to take a week to 10 days.
Operation Knights Assault also involved actual U.S.-Iraqi joint combat operations. U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner denied on Mar. 26 that there were any “conventional” U.S. forces involved in the operation. Only on Mar. 30 did the U.S. command confirm that a joint raid by Iraqi and U.S. special forces units had “killed 22 suspected militants” in Basra.
Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation
ouch, that's gotta sting a little
*nnie: "do you believe there is any restructuring of green zone facilities outside the green zone as a result of the mortar surge into it?"
No idea. Maybe GoI MPs & ministers are staying away for now. Maybe US personnel are hanging out at other bases. Why not? I don't think Neurotic Iraqi Wife has said anything about that. Actually, last I looked the Iraqis were happy the fighting was dying down.
_
"What we depraved lefties might regret is that if Mugabe clings to power by brutal means, which I'd say is quite on the cards, there'd be little prospect of international humanitarian intervention, because the superpower that could lead such a process is preoccupied elsewhere, and rather knackered by its efforts there.'
Most of Zimbabwe is in your hemisphere, johnwithoneninnz. Get after it.
Anybody taking any bets on eternal peace, brotherhood, and harmony in Zimbabwe, what with the US military not being involved with their regime change and all?
@ Bridget, 04.01.08 - 8:18 pm.
[Bridget] "Anybody taking any bets on eternal peace, brotherhood, and harmony in Zimbabwe, what with the US military not being involved with their regime change and all?".
Dear Beastie Bridgeen, this is TOO idiotic even out of a four-handed critter from Texas.
They'll do their tyrant in, and then peace and democracy will indeed prevail in Zimbabwe: no need at all of Apes'n'monkeys putting their filthy snouts there ...
Johninnz was of course sneering when highlighting American impotence (any possible role by the US in favour of good and decency ended more than 60 years ago): but our Apette really believes that the US should be 'regime-changing' around the world !!!
It seems that Eye-rak, that real 'model' of Ahmehwican 'benevolence' (!!!), was not enough for her (nor for that revolting imbecile PeteS) ...
@ PeteS, 04.01.08 - 7:36 am.
Oh nauseating imbecile (only the Snake 'anand' is more stomach-churning than you are), just some quick answers to your inanities.
[Oytalian] "It was NOT, as Zeyad rightly noticed, the 'Rule of Law' against the JAM: it was just rival militias vying for power".
[Pietrino] "That, of course, is your (and maybe Zeyad's) GUESS".
Ye are truly a comical, pompous, presumptuous imbecile. YOU are an ejit who 'guesses': possibly Zeyad (and many other observers) know something more than your ignorant inanities, don't ye think, oh grotesque Pervert an' Liar ?
[Sewer Abomination] "So do you think it's vewy vewy good for the people of Iraq to have armed militias in control of the country's most precious material resource? Or do you think some resolution should be sought? How? What do you think a centralist like Malike should do?".
Oh half-brained criminal, having sectarian militias in control is the very fabric of the 'New Eye-wak' created by the American occupation and its 'divide and conquer'. So, to have some of them (the Badr and Da'wa, plus, possibly, Fadhila) attacking others (the Sadrists) has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the rule of law. It just caused the death of 600 Iraqis. Only a criminal and an idiot, such as you (and your warmongering Ahmehwican friends) are, could cheer on such a criminal and demented enterprise.
[Soddymoyte & Judas] "Your support for AQ and al-Sadr is evidenced by your obvious glee at their success in killing coalition forces".
Oh retard, I recognise the unfettered right on the part of ANY Iraqi to kill the CRIMINAL invaders of their country.
AQ and al-Sadr have been much more efficient at killing Iraqis than at killing occupation forces: and I never showed ANY noticeable support for them (as for the occupation - NOT 'coalition', oh repulsive Liar - forces, they, in the name of Justice, should be exterminated wholesale).
@ RhusLancia, 04.01.08 - 3:10 am.
[Lying Pongid] "An Italian Sadr Loyalist, it may very well be that you are literally as much of a Sadr Loyalist as I am literally a simian pongid Pinocchio".
Now, of course you are 'different' from human beings, as your posts show: you're for sure a member of this novel species born in the US of Ahmehwicah, Americopithecus bellicus.
But I wouldn't ever use an expression such as your "simian pongid". You know, if you are a pongid (i.e., an ape, such as you are) you are 'simian' by definition, so it is a useless repetition.
But the fact that you are truly a Desert Ape (AND a Pinocchio !) does NOT make true my being a "Sadr Loyalist" ...
[Rhus] "I do believe you are quite sympathetic to them at the moment. I refer as evidence to
- your buying their version of motivation for the challenge in Basra (that it is related to the election) without question or considering other, more plausible reasons".
Oh vewy vewy clever guy, THAT is ACTUALLY the MOST plausible reason for the demented operation, as Zeyad noticed: only a beast with four hands, or an utter scoundrel, would have rejoyced in its being launched (like, precisely, you DID !).
[Rhus] "- your perceived enjoyment & magnification of difficulties by the GoI & ISF as well as willingness to frame JAM's experiences as overwhelmingly successful".
An' ye see, the difference between having four hands and having only two ! Our dear Rhus happily scratches his head with his hinder pair of hands, and that's enough to "perceive" things in a way absolutely different ! (different from reality, as well !).
Now, Rhussie, yes, the 'GoI' and the ( !!!) "ISF" are absolutely comical. It is not my fault that, being 'different' from human beings, like an ejit you kept glorifying those two abysmal and failed realities (even if not to the same extent of stupidity as your pal, the Snake 'anand' ! !).
Oh simian Critter, to recognise REALITY does NOT mean to be 'siding' with somebody ... yes, the JAM repulsed the attack by the rival militias (disguised as 'ISF, LOL !) and by the idiotic Anglo-American occupiers, as your own 'Time' revue noticed ... are they "Sadrist Loyalists", oh my brainless Animal ?
johninz @ 04.01.08 7:09 pm
I see your point, of course you're right, we'd both have to assume that Ahmed's death was manufactured by any one of several murderous Iraqi Militia or Al Quaeda (homegrown or imported) designing his death so that it would play right into the hands of the 'blame it on America' propogandists.
But nevertheless, I started to wonder about Ahmed's existence and the sort of day or week he might have been having.
Clearly living in Sadre City can't be on anyones top one hundred thousand list of places to live or visit. You and I might face challenges such as my 40 minute commute to work or a barely drinkable coffee or some other minor aggravation such as an employee's reliability but even then they might all seem trivial compared to the challenges this man had to face.
Consider waking up to foreign troops hunkering down in your neighbourhood with the Strykers and Abrahams and missle launchers and a mix of other lethal killing devices; or unrecognizable and overly zealous newly employed Iraqi Army members running around trying to prove their loyalty to whomever their affiliation dictates or their worth to Americans so they can collect another cherished pay cheque.
HellFire missle carrying Apaches hovering overhead looking for reasonably suspicious targets to open up on, and then hearing the explosions as they murder a few undeserving citizens a few blocks away. Problematic for Ahmed no doubt, perhaps even troublesome or nerve wrenching?
Then he realizes he can't drive his car because of a complete lockdown. He can't even venture out of his home because no one is allowed on the streets. He can't buy food or cigarettes or engage in any interaction with neighbours or family members. He's likely without any electricity. The water might be intermittent or nonexistent depending on whether the mains were compromised?
He's locked in his home praying it won't be bombed or invaded or get caught up in a crossfire!
Then he get's a phone call or maybe he starts to worry about his sister because her husbands in jail and her two sons were recently killed and she's all alone and been a bit unstable in recent weeks!
So his loyalty to family gets the better of him and his love for his sister starts to wheigh on him; and then again he hasn't heard any gunfire in recent hours or patrols and the helicopters have hunkered down for the night so he decides that he's got to go over there to see if shes ok! After all its just a couple of houses and everyone knows he's of no threat!
I mean, what would you or I do! Whimper in cowardice under a bed or show a sense of love and concern for our family!
So out he goes into the unknown and an American kid who didn't know him, didn't care about his philosophy, his dreams, his nurturing of family, his value as a friend, simply pressed the trigger and shot him in the head.
And that's all there is to say about that!
@ Rhus.
BTW, your idiotic questions and your even more idiotic conclusions are truly demented (and learn not to put jpgs upside down, please ).
It stands to reason that for ANY guerrilla or partisan movement it would NOT be very functional to cause massive civilian casualties: a guerrilla movement needs the people as the fish needs the water where to swim.
If you are unpleasant with the 'water' (like those Salafi fanatics were, in Algeria first, and then in Iraq), then people turn their backs on you, and you are finished.
This much stands to reason.
Only, my dear Desert Ape, your brain is indeed 'different': so that you cannot see the obvious !!!
Yeah yeah, poor Marine, you cannot understand guerrilla warfare ...
no clue at all ! ... so, scratch your head some more !
No surprise, actually, since you associate with King Rat Schuster and with Rat CMARII, who's making himself ridiculous, denying at the Kid's blog that the 'Niger yellow cake' was a fabrication by Michael Ledeen, LOL !!!
nyt brings us
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/0...slogin\">Inside the Black Budget, complete w/visuals. check out the grim reaper, and my favorite..
Mr. Paglen said his favorite patch was the dragon holding the Earth in its claws, its wings made of American flags and its mouth wide open, baring its fangs. (hearts and minds people!) He said it came from the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees developing spy satellites. “There’s something both belligerent and weirdly self-critical about it,” he remarked. “It’s representing the U.S. as a dragon with the whole world in its clutches.”
more fun patches. check out the panther den patch for infowarfare.
Panther Den is a Special Access Program based at Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., responsible for defending and attacking computer networks.
An Italian Sadr Loyalist: "Yeah yeah, poor Marine, you cannot understand guerrilla warfare ...
no clue at all ! ... so, scratch your head some more !"
Funny how you, being such a fan of guerillas, and warfare, as you are, do not understand "guerrilla warfare" enough to grasp some of the most simple aspects of it. So simple, that merely educating yourself by going to wikipedia's entry on Guerilla warfare, subsection "Use of terror" will give you an explanation clear enough even for your intellectual soul mate *nnie to understand:
In some cases, the use of terror can be an aspect of guerrilla warfare. Terror is used to focus international attention on the guerrilla cause, kill opposition leaders, extort money from targets, intimidate the general population, create economic losses, and keep followers and potential defectors in line.
It is possible that simple passage can cause even johninnz to take a break from sneering to nod in agreement.
An Italian Sadr Loyalist: "If you are unpleasant with the 'water' ..., then people turn their backs on you, and you are finished.
This much stands to reason."
You don't say? Here is the next sentence from the wikipedia article:
Such tactics may backfire and cause the civil population to withdraw its support, or to back countervailing forces against the guerrillas.
And isn't that precisely what happened, An Italian Sadr Loyalist? The civil population now hates AQ with as much passion as you hate peace. And they have turned on AQ wholesale. This has caused you much consternation, as their focus on their real enemies in AQ has turned down the 'Resistance's' violence against the US.
No wonder that you are turning your back on them and finding a ray of chaotic hope in your new JAM friends. "Any storm in a port", I say again.
-
RhusLancia
I have finally understood what you were fishing for with all your questions. You seem to think you laid a trap for us by ensnaring us in our own answers before springing the trap with a devious question.
[Rhus]: “Here is the last question: "who benefits" from inflicting civilian casualties: the 'resistance' or the US?”
None of them, I would say. Perhaps the undertakers in Najaf getting paid per burial benefit but I doubt they are part of the “resistance” and I’m sure they are not from the US.
[Rhus]: We all agree that, militarily, the 'resistance' has no chance against us. We all agree that they must be more creative in their tactics.
I’d say that militarily they have been proving themselves surprisingly lethal and resilient, precisely because they are using creative tactics of hit and run and hide.
[Rhus]: “So the point of all that was to show how useful civilian casualties are to them. They have an incentive to, at worst, maximize civilian casualties and at best pay little attention to them. I think it's quite clear that that is what they do.”
Ah, the point! But didn’t we also agree that a successful insurgency must have support from the local populace? And they, according to you, achieve this by… killing them?
There were/are the very different objectives of the “Resistance” and Al Qaida to consider.
The Resistance aims to expel the invader and likely to assume control of Iraq again, or at least not allow themselves to be marginalised.
Al Qaida wants to keep the US in Iraq and bleed it. The aim is to weaken their “far enemy” so that its support for their “near enemy” diminishes and the near enemy, notably the regimes in KSA and Egypt, can be beaten. Then the Caliphate can be established and blablabla, inshallah. They are fanatics and it’s a pipe dream only.
I realise that there is no straight dividing line where every fighter is solidly in one of the two camps, you don’t need to point that out.
But there ARE dramatic differences in goals between these groups and when arguably civilian deaths are an important factor for Al Qaida I don’t see it as a strategic advantage at all for the Resistance.
That these groups have shared a common interest in fighting the occupation is what brought them under the same umbrella. If not for the common enemy they would likely have been at each others throats years ago, with the same result as when they finally came to blows: the Resistance wiped out Al Qaida and in months cleared Anbar of the very Jihadists that had been eluding the US forces for years, PRECISELY because the Resistance they had the backing from the local populace, which is why I hardly think they had been too busy killing civilians, while AQ had quite possibly been at just that.
[RhusLancia]: “what incentive does the 'resistance' have for minimizing civilian casualties?“
Eh, that they are their countrymen? Are you saying that the WW2 partisans would have been better off had they been focusing on killing civilians in their own lands instead of ambushing Germans and sabotaging infrastructure? Yeah, that would have helped…
[RhusLancia]: “Civilian deaths, regardless of the circumstances, are a 'success' of the insurgency in inciting hate & further violence, eroding confidence, presenting the insurgency as a viable alternative to the MNF/GoI.”
No, no, no! Very wrong!
I’d say that the Resistance were doing very well against your troops until the civil war got going for real in 2006. Al Qaida helped their cause by fighting the occupation but it also ignited (or escalated, maybe Badr ignited it already in -03) the civil war which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad of more than a million people and the takeover of many neighbourhood by shia militias. This was a direct result of the violence from AQ against civilians and the subsequent bombing of the Samarra shrine. This opened up a whole new front in the war for the Resistance and it proved completely devastating for them.
And yes, civilian deaths CAN be used to make you seem like a “viable alternative”, but not if it is you that has been inflicting them.
[Rhus]: “what incentive does the MNF/GoI/ISF have for minimizing civilian casualties? A lot.”
On a strategic level yes. If the deaths are down you can claim success or at least improvement. But on a tactical level it’s worse with one dead American than a whole bunch of dead Iraqi civilians. What can stop this war is domestic US opinion turning. And that opinion is not all that concerned about Iraqi deaths, neither is your “we don’t do body counts” administration. Only US boys coming home in boxes are what matters. So, yes, I’m sure that your military try to limit civilian deaths when possible, but it’s not even close to a fraction of how important it is to limit the deaths of troops.
[RhusLancia]: “Civilian deaths, regardless of the circumstances, are a 'success' of the insurgency in inciting hate & further violence, eroding confidence, presenting the insurgency as a viable alternative to the MNF/GoI.”
actually the whole purpose of strategy of tension, which was supported by our own cia/foreign policy/neocons michael ledeen etc, does not support your theory. quite the opposite. the theory is that Civilian deaths, are a 'success' for authority presenting the authority as the only viable alternative to the 'terrorist'activity.
perhaps authority is the wrong term. it was used to inspire the public to cling to right wing agendas. i don't mention this to imply one way or another how much of the civilian death was/is a cause of the strategy. only to refute that it makes people gravitate towards militias or resistance.
i think you underestimate the populace. they understand the leaders (in the least) are not acting in their best interest, are incompetent, seek to minimilize their voice, and (in the worst) sometimes kill them and are a threat to their existense. for a populace to embrace or gravitate towards militias represents a complete lack of faith in their leaders, which is what we are seeing in iraq.
also, needless to say, iraqis don't want to be occupied. civilian deaths and the threat of them helps the occupation because they use the devastation of those deaths as a reason to stay, to protect them. as you are doing here.
also, it doesn't make sense if the populace is afraid of 'insurgent' caused death 'in inciting hate & further violence, eroding confidence,'... does the death erode confidence? or does the lack of security erode confidence?
perhaps blame is well placed if a government cannot provide for it's people, maybe it is a lame government.
News to warm the hearts of the warmongers:
"The number of internally displaced Iraqis rose to more than 2.77 million people by the end of March, some five years after the US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, the UN refugee agency said Tuesday."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m42664&s1=h1
"Four US soldiers were killed by insurgents in Iraq during the ongoing military action against the militia loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the US military reported Wednesday. The soldiers died March 26, Saturday and Sunday in Baghdad, the military reported. "
http://
news.monstersandcritics.c...iers_in_Baghdad
Official US support for torture:
"The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...0102213_pf.html
"Bush already has signaled that, following the Petraeus-Crocker report, he'll order a pause in further drawdowns of U.S. troops in Iraq below about 140,000, which is slightly more troops than were in Iraq before the "surge" began. [...] The Iraqi forces that Maliki sent to Basra contained a large number of one-time fighters in the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which vies for power with Sadr's Mahdi Army."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homep...tory/
32337.html
"US technology killing US troops in Iraq: American-made computer circuits sold to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates have turned up as detonators in the roadside bombs aimed at US troops in Iraq, a media report said on Wednesday."
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2008/a.../apr/
02iraq.htm
... but get this - the US blames IRAN for this ^ as usual.
Tahsin al-Sheikhli on his kidnapping by Madhi Army:
http://www.time.com/time/world/a...l?xid=rss-
world
Empire or Humanity? What the classroom didn't teach me about the American empire
http://www.antiwar.com/
engelhard...articleid=12617
"The Bush administration and the British government are at odds over how to treat one of the last two British residents held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials from the countries involved in the case and his lawyer say."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/0...&
pagewanted=all
"The relentless march of NATO, decades after the implosion of the Soviet Union and the death knell of the Leninist project, is surely an object lesson in the real motivations and character of "democratic" imperialism, here and in Europe. The Communist enemy may be long gone, but NATO soldiers ever onward, and ever eastward. Suddenly we're back in the heyday of the Cold War: once again we hear the War Party's clarion call – "The Russians are coming!" [...] The really bad news is that U.S.-Russian relations are likely to undergo a radical decline no matter which presidential candidate takes the White House. "
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?
a...articleid=12618
"do you believe there is any restructuring of green zone facilities outside the green zone as a result of the mortar surge into it?"
No idea. Maybe GoI MPs & ministers are staying away for now.
staying away?
AlQuds alArabi confirms the GreenZone exodus story
there is a big difference between staying away and an exodus.
[rhus] "And, notwithstanding the extra effort you put in to remake reality into one where your 'resistance' heroes do NOT wantonly kill and injure Iraqi civilains, the question I asked remains "who benefits"?"
I think An Italian and Marcus have already given pretty concise answers to that.
An Italian here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=39300#387455
... where he points out precisely the doctrine of guerrilla warfare as outlined by Mao, where the civilian population are a critical factor in aiding, concealing and acting as second-stringers for the guerrillas. The so-called sea for the fish. Keeping the civilians happy is of vital importance to the guerrillas.
And Marcus here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=39300#387461
... where he points out the need for local resistance groups to have local support, and the way that this support has aided them in doing so well.
I do of course concede that terror and assasination are an indelible part of guerrilla war.
Informers and traitors are far more dangerous to the guerrilla than the enemy, however powerful he may be, since they remove the paramount advantage of the guerrilla from him - his ability to strike and fight when he wants to and his ability to vanish. Every effort must logically be made to root these individuals out and to make sure that people know what happens to such stool pigeons.
THAT IS, however, different from the indiscriminate use of violence to randomly kill civilians. I have pointed this out over and over, that targetted killing has a purpose and makes a point, whereas random mass murder HAS NO POINT other than to piss people off. IT MAKES NO SENSE because there is no logic to it. With directed violence one can obey certain rules - ie - don't inform, don't help the invader etc - and one will likely be safe. With RANDOM violence, obeying these rules does NOT shield one from death. The ONLY blowback can be anger at the perpetrator and lust for revenge. That's what undid AQI, as even you admit.
I would say that civilian random deaths BENEFIT AMERICAN AIMS in Iraq, because they principally drive SECTARIAN VIOLENCE which is what keeps Sunni and Shia Iraqis from uniting and kicking your miserable arses back to your own country. Divide and rule wouldn't work so well, would it, if Iraqis were united!
Hello, annie! Taking a break from pummeling the invasionists at 24 Steps?
Dear Zeyad,
I'm reading your Blog for maybe 3 Years or so. And , for no specific reason, I just want to say thank you for your work.
The first time you impressed me was, when you predicted, that tey would pull out Saddam "out of a muddhole near Tikrit" and since then you almost always made the right predictions afaik ... wow.
they
hi bruno! i just finished reviewing howard zinn's video from your link. really excellent.
Taking a break from pummeling the invasionists at 24 Steps?
lol. they are the same one's here! actually i just posted your time magazine link over there, plus some text. and keeping w/the theme of news from iraq, the green zone news which i really wonder how they are going to be handling here. i suppose silent for now is the theme.
i love reading your posts
Silly girl, one does not READ a Bruno post. One inhales or absorbs it, sips and savours it...
When this whole sorry business is over, after the helicopter-skids moment, RhusLancia and Pete and their ilk will go to their graves protesting "Bruno done it! Bruno done it! We would have won if it wasn't for him!"
Truly a Blogosphere IED.
Johninz, please, enough. I'll have to butter my ears to get through doorways after you've finished ...
Thanks.
Interesting analysis showing Iranian influence in Iraq:
"Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it?
What has happened is essentially that Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which the strategy of establishing control over the fabulous oil fields of southern Iraq will not work. Control of Basra is a pre-requisite before American oil majors make their multi-billion investments to kick start large-scale oil production in Iraq. Iraq's Southern Oil Company is headquartered in Basra. Highly strategic installations are concentrated in the region, such as pipeline networks, pumping stations, refineries and loading terminals. The American oil majors will insist on fastening these installations."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...t/
JD03Ak02.html
The War Nerd: Who Won Iraq's "Decisive" Battle?
http://www.exile.ru/articles/det...CK_ID=35&
PAGE=2
Followers of this comments thread will be in a good position to answer that question.
"More recent graffiti reflects some of the nuances of Shiite politics.
''This is Badr headquarters,'' is a phrase inscribed on many of Sadr City's green trash bins. It refers to the Mahdi Army's archenemy, the Badr Brigade militia of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a Shiite party that competes with the Sadrists for influence."
http://www.newspress.com/Top/
Art...273432213029934
"The Resistance aims to expel the invader and likely to assume control of Iraq again, or at least not allow themselves to be marginalised."
"But there ARE dramatic differences in goals between these groups and when arguably civilian deaths are an important factor for Al Qaida I don’t see it as a strategic advantage at all for the Resistance."
It's a strategic advantage for the Resistance if the civilians they're killing are the ones who will otherwise control Iraq and/or marginalize the Resistance.
Bridget, the veggie-shopping civilians are probably quite low on their list possible future percieved oppressors. Just a thought...
Bruno: "That's what undid AQI, as even you admit."
That's what undid AQI in Iraq at large. What undid AQI amongst their tacit allies in the Hummer-bombing-only 'Resistance' is when AQI began killing the Hummer-bombing-only 'Resistance'.
_
Me: "We all agree that, militarily, the 'resistance' has no chance against us. We all agree that they must be more creative in their tactics."
Marcus: "I’d say that militarily they have been proving themselves surprisingly lethal and resilient, precisely because they are using creative tactics of hit and run and hide."
They have been successful in causing a steady stream of casualties on us, now averaging about one death per day. At its height, three to four per day. That is not enough to win militarily. It is enough to keep pressure on the US to withdraw through public opinion. In other words, the 'Resistance' cannot win in Iraq, but it can win in Washington if anywhere. They know this.
Marcus: "But didn’t we also agree that a successful insurgency must have support from the local populace? And they, according to you, achieve this by… killing them?"
Yes. First, remember that they know they can only win from "external" factors. That is, outcry against the war forces a premature US withdrawal, after which they think they can take the GoI & ISF out toe to toe. Second, recall that the former regime had absolutely no problem whatsoever in controlling the population through horrific and wide-ranging violence. It is what they were used to, and it worked. Tried and true. Third, revisit the fact that we all admit AQI went too far with their violence. The 'Resistance' who were merely causing "collateral" damage and attacking "collaborators" and "informers" and "traitors"? How far did they go?
Me: “what incentive does the 'resistance' have for minimizing civilian casualties?“
Marcus: "Eh, that they are their countrymen?"
Again, did that stop the former regime? Slow them down, even?
Marcus: "Are you saying that the WW2 partisans would have been better off had they been focusing on killing civilians in their own lands instead of ambushing Germans and sabotaging infrastructure? Yeah, that would have helped…"
The world was different then. The WWII partisans' only hope for success was not in having the German administration decide to pull its troops. They were softening the Germans for an upcoming invasion by external forces. If the 'Resistance' wins in Iraq it would be due to a political decision, not a military one. Does anyone, even *nnie, foresee Petraeus signing surrender papers across from a victorious al-Douri?
Marcus: "What can stop this war is domestic US opinion turning."
Exactly.
Marcus: "And that opinion is not all that concerned about Iraqi deaths,"
Wrong. "Who benefits" from the Lancet study? How about the people who have extrapolated that extrapolation into the "million dead" range, now? Who uses those numbers in every argument they make, like a carpenter uses a hammer?
Marcus: "Only US boys coming home in boxes are what matters."
Wrong again. Both matter. Yes, as far as propaganda value and home front resolve goes, US deaths matter "more".
Marcus: "But on a tactical level it’s worse with one dead American than a whole bunch of dead Iraqi civilians."
Still wrong. Remember, "some people" blame every single violent death on America, regardless of the purely technical detail of who actually killed them. This goes for some Iraqis too. Their propagandists are very active in exploiting these sentiments, and they had been quite successful. Recently, the shift to true COIN tactics by the US and greater engagement with locals has helped Iraqis see us as the good guys more and more. The fish, who used to swim freely in the sea, began to see the tide turn. However, additional civilians killed as "collaborators", "traitors", or "informants" could erode those gains by the US. And how about "collateral damage"? Even mass casualties at veggie markets. Might they begin to doubt the Americans' abilities to protect them? Could the tide turn again? Take into account, again, their propagandists always working to find and exploit cracks.
I'm pretty sure you get this more than you let on, Marcus.
_
Marcus: "Bridget, the veggie-shopping civilians are probably quite low on their list possible future percieved oppressors. Just a thought..."
A propogandist might say "look! your useless puppet government cannot protect you. Look at the fear in the streets."
_
Rhus: "That is, outcry against the war forces a premature US withdrawal, after which they think they can take the GoI & ISF out toe to toe."
This strikes me as an argument that you and the current Admin cannot possibly lose. The recent confrontation in Basra was a humiliation for Maliki, which you see as proof that we must stay, and I see as proof that the Iraqi government will need between five years and forever to be ready to take over
(see Juan Cole's latest on the level of desertions). You know as well as I that neither the economy nor political will can hold out much longer. So it's a guaranteed propaganda win against Libruls.
Thanks to Dear Leader and Cronies, we and the Iraqi's are well and truly f**ked. Do we admit that and "leave prematurely", or go on hoping (and killing innocents that get in the way)?
@Smugtalian, 04.01.08 - 10:54 pm:
Just some quick answers to YOUR inanities:
[Smugtalian] "It was NOT, as Zeyad rightly noticed, the 'Rule of Law' against the JAM: it was just rival militias vying for power".
[Pietrino] "That, of course, is your (and maybe Zeyad's) GUESS".
[Smugtalian] "Ye are truly a comical, pompous, presumptuous imbecile. YOU are an ejit who 'guesses': possibly Zeyad (and many other observers) know something more than your ignorant inanities, don't ye think, oh grotesque Pervert an' Liar ?"
Oh flowery-languaged-Smugtalian, did you bother to notice that I provided a LINK to a different (and reasonable-looking) analysis. I wasn't offering a guess at all, just a link to somebody else's viewpoint. Take it up with THEM.
[Sewer Abomination] "So do you think it's vewy vewy good for the people of Iraq to have armed militias in control of the country's most precious material resource? Or do you think some resolution should be sought? How? What do you think a centralist like Malike should do?".
[Smugtalian] "Oh half-brained criminal, having sectarian militias in control is the very fabric of the 'New Eye-wak' created by the American occupation and its 'divide and conquer'. So, to have some of them (the Badr and Da'wa, plus, possibly, Fadhila) attacking others (the Sadrists) has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the rule of law. It just caused the death of 600 Iraqis. Only a criminal and an idiot, such as you (and your warmongering Ahmehwican friends) are, could cheer on such a criminal and demented enterprise."
So what magic wand are YOU proposing to conjure up a legitimate Iraqi security force that could deal with the criminal elements in Basra? Or do you not care to apply your vewy vewy gweat bwain to the pwoblem ... only to cwiticise all attempts at a solution?
[Soddymoyte & Judas] "Your support for AQ and al-Sadr is evidenced by your obvious glee at their success in killing coalition forces".
[Smugtalian] "Oh retard, I recognise the unfettered right on the part of ANY Iraqi to kill the CRIMINAL invaders of their country. AQ and al-Sadr have been much more efficient at killing Iraqis than at killing occupation forces: and I never showed ANY noticeable support for them..."
Oh yeah, I forgot you only support Rhus's famous "patwiotic nationalist unity non-sectawian mostly Sunni wesistance". Have you found any yet?
Me: "after which they think they can take the GoI & ISF out toe to toe."
I added emphasis that time, Jarn. The hope is that, soon, either they will not think they can take them down anymore, or it won't matter what they think because they won't be able to do it.
_
An Italian Sadr Loyalist: "Oh retard, I recognise the unfettered right on the part of ANY Iraqi to kill the CRIMINAL invaders of their country."
An Italian Sadr Loyalist, do you recognise and unfetter the right of Saudis, Jordanians, and maybe even Italians to go to Iraq and kill the MNF within Iraq?
_
PeteS: "Oh yeah, I forgot you only support Rhus's famous "patwiotic nationalist unity non-sectawian mostly Sunni wesistance". Have you found any yet?"
He finds them in his dreams every night. You know the scene in Darby O'Gill and the Little People where Darby falls down the well into Leprechaun Land, and he walks into their cave where all these little leprechauns are dancing around and making merry? It's like that.
_
"Bridget, the veggie-shopping civilians are probably quite low on their list possible future percieved oppressors. Just a thought..."
Marcus, they'd be low on your list and on my list, but not on the list of the layla anwars of this world.
"after which they think they can take..."
So, how long before they're, Rhus? I stuck my neck out and said 5 years at least, so what's your guess?
I meant "before they're ready"...
@Bruno, 04.02.08 - 4:20 am: I would say that civilian random deaths BENEFIT AMERICAN AIMS in Iraq, because they principally drive SECTARIAN VIOLENCE which is what keeps Sunni and Shia Iraqis from uniting and kicking your miserable arses back to your own country. Divide and rule wouldn't work so well, would it, if Iraqis were united!
That doesn't make sense. The deaths would have to be at least sufficiently non-random that one sect perceived it was being targeted by the other. Why do you believe the old order Sunni die-hards, who imported AQ jihadists to further their cause, needed any American stirring of the pot to foment sectarian violence?
Your analysis might make sense if it was talking about an anti-occupation guerilla force hiding amongst a homogenous population... which, of course, was not the case in Iraq. Shi'ite civilian deaths were designed, precisely, to give the message that the Sunni minority could not be coerced into any new arrangement that marginalised them.
Jarn: "So, how long before they're, Rhus? I stuck my neck out and said 5 years at least, so what's your guess?"
I think they'll need less & less help from us as time goes on. The longest away is their own air support. Anand calls it the "long pole" and five years is a good guess.
But this Basra operation, which I doubt went as badly as predisposed-to-thinking-it-went-badly people are saying, was largely Iraqi on the ground. So I think our ground combat role is shrinking and will shrink more within the near future.
_
Five more years in Iraq is not gonna fly with the voting public, Rhus. And I'd call that a optimistic estimate. It doesn't take a predisposition to notice that the recent adventure only strengthened the Sadrists and Iran. It was a step backwards.
I'll give you credit for not claiming that "success is around the corner".
Notice we're still talking as if the "collateral damages" are acceptable losses.
One thing about the Basra operation that is of note, it was the Iraqis who planned and executed the logistics of moving that many men and equipment down to Basra. This has been a weak point in the past. And, indeed, this was the largest operation for them alone since the Saddam regime was in place. People seem to look at what happened in Basra as an end game, when really it may simply have been a part of the process of growth for the Iraqi military.
Coalition Operations 2007 Year in Review
_
It won't matter what happens and what you say or what happens or what time it takes Jarn. It goes like this you see:
More civilian casualties: Look at the horror the evil terrorists are causing, we must stay and save the Iraqis from them. It's the only humane thing to do. And if not.... they'll come HERE!
Less civilian casualties: See, see! It's working. The Iraqis are stepping up to the plate. We helped them with freedom and now they help us combat terrorism, so that the terrorists won't come HERE!
Jarn: "Five more years in Iraq is not gonna fly with the voting public, Rhus."
At this level, no. But if it's ramped down and violence continues to decrease, then maybe. Or, if Americans are able to clearly see the implications of the alternative of an unconditional withdrawal like Obama proposes.
_
Marcus, do you think that when the terrorists are killed and/or captured, it decreases their ability to conduct terrorist operations?
_
Lynnette, another "good" thing about Basra for Maliki is that he found out which ISF were loyal to the state, and which to the sectarian militias.
_
RhusLancia
"Marcus, do you think that when the terrorists are killed and/or captured, it decreases their ability to conduct terrorist operations?"
I would be very, very surprised if that was not the fact. The captorss would have to be very stupid if they couldn't make it so. (interesting that you use and/or so naturally, as if it's perfectly normal to catch AND kill them)
Question back at you then:
If you kill and/or capture one thousand potential terrorists and while doing so cause so much mayhem and resentment it created two thousand potential new terrorists, does the likelyhood for terrorist attacks in the future increase or deccrease?
Yes indeed Rhus. I've heard of some people being relieved of duty because they showed their questionable loyalty. Sometimes being put to the test is the only way to really find out.
And it seems that things are not completely finished in Basra.
Marcus: "(interesting that you use and/or so naturally, as if it's perfectly normal to catch AND kill them)"
I put "kill" first, as in, kill them and THEN capture them. It was a joke. I bet John writes three drunken paragraphs of nonsense about it. Watch.
Marcus: "If you kill and/or capture one thousand potential terrorists and while doing so cause so much mayhem and resentment it created two thousand potential new terrorists, does the likelyhood for terrorist attacks in the future increase or deccrease?"
Who would resent the US killing and/or capturing terrorists? Dumb question. Half joking, too.
This is an important question, isn't it? Is it better to kill and/or capture terrorists, or whatever you have in mind instead? (I was going to say appease them, but I don't know if that's what you have in mind.)
To give you a straight answer: creating two thousand new terrorists increases the likelyhood for terrorist attacks.
_
Thanks Lynnette! Interesting how many people wanted to join the IA after those ops. It's almost like, maybe they don't share An Italian Sadr Loyalist's and Bruno's newfound affection for JAM?
_
"People seem to look at what happened in Basra as an end game, when really it may simply have been a part of the process of growth for the Iraqi military."
It's amazing how different things look depending on whether you are contemplating forests or trees.
"It's almost like, maybe they don't share An Italian Sadr Loyalist's and Bruno's newfound affection for JAM?"
Or their perception of who's up and who's down.
I have put together a profile that fits each and every member of any ”Resistance” group in Iraq. There are, of course, differences between the groups and individuals but they share a surprising amount of characteristics. This is your typical Resistance fighter:
Demographics:
The Resistance fighter is a male. While bombs may occasionally be strapped on women, with or without Downs syndrome, or children or various animals it is always done so by the Resistance fighter. The carriers of the bombs are thus mere vessels utilized by the Resistance fighter to achieve his task.
He may be of any age and wear any kind of clothing. But he is nevertheless easily recognizable from his swarthy complexion and his menacing looks.
Background:
The Resistance fighter has a background in one of Saddam Hussein’s institutes of oppression. Here his task was mainly to torture people, a task he enjoyed and executed with professionalism as well as a great deal of glee. Other tasks included concocting various bacteriological and chemical substances with the hope of one day sneaking them inside the borders of the USA and killing many, many people in very, very horrible ways.
In his spare time he used to beat his five wives and any children these wives and/or other women had borne for him. In his early adolescence he moved on from burning insects with a magnifying glass to dissolving puppies, the cuter the better, in acid. But when he reached adulthood he grew weary of this entertainment and found it much more satisfying to torment people. He keeps a few at all times in a chamber in his basement.
Sexuality:
While he typically keeps five wives he does so for the sole reason of them generating his offspring. He takes pride in raising his sons in his own image and in marrying any daughter away at a very young age to a very old, and preferably ugly, and necessarily evil, man.
Sexually, however, he has no real interest in any of his wives. He gets his kicks from raping virgins, the younger the better, if possibly in front of the girl’s family. While he has made do with domestic virgins thus far his ultimate wet dream is to one day be raping very young girls from America – on the rug in the oval office.
Personality:
He is first and foremost very evil. Really, really evil. I'm talking evil like you would hardly comprehend here. But he’s not without a sense of humor. If he sees someone fall and hurt themselves he chuckles. Witnessing a lethal accident can keep him in good spirits for an entire day. And an event like a great, big car-bomb in a market, preferably a veggie-market, with scores of people burnt to crisp makes his entire week. One can say that his happiness is a linear function of the misery of the human beings in his proximity.
Goals in life:
The Resistance fighter has modest goals in life. He doesn’t wish for status or riches for himself or his family. He doesn’t really want anything more than to see things on fire, women wailing in agony, men dying painfully and children starving. The more devastation the better. He does work hard with his likeminded Resistance fighters in achieving this though. It’s not all fun and games.
He has one long term dream. That is to sabotage the oil industry in primarily Iraq but better yet in the entire Middle East. He wishes to keep every single drop of oil in the ground and witness the world in chaos from lack of fuel. Once the world has pulled through, found alternatives, and oil is no longer needed he will rejoice in the fact that his country never sold any of it, that they could have earned a lot but didn’t. He longs for such a moment when he would celebrate by climbing to the very top of an old drilling tower. There he would sit, looking out over the scorched land and go: Moahahaha! Moahahahaha!
Marcus, that's Bruno!
Marcus asks a straight question:
If you kill and/or capture one thousand potential terrorists and while doing so cause so much mayhem and resentment it creats two thousand potential new terrorists, does the likelihood for terrorist attacks in the future increase or decrease?"
RhusLancia for once gives a 'straight' answer:
" To give you a straight answer: creating two thousand new terrorists increases the likelihood for terrorist attacks."
Except, in typical fashion, he carefully slides past the actual meat of Marcus's post "... and while doing so cause so much mayhem and resentment..."
I suppose it is a straight answer really. Marcus is obviously referring mainly to the 'collateral damage' caused by the US military's excessive use of 'overwhelming force' and 'force protection' in their approach throughout their little adventure in Iraq, although 'mayhem' rather aptly encapsulates the general result of the whole US intervention right from the get-go. And RhusLancia doesn't want to talk about this.
So once again, RhusLancia's selective reading eye, which is probably due mostly to a pathological condition rather than deliberate dishonesty, sees only what it wants to see.
It's like arguing about colour with a blind person, Marcus.
Perhaps the best approach would be to treat RhusLancia the way everyone has treated the 'ooga booga' guy since he first appeared - just ignore him?
He hasn't even the wit to see that someone has stolen Marcus's identity in the silly post above.
Nah, that was really me Johninnz. You're the master of sarcasm around here, I was merely giving it a shot.
I should get a prize for correctly identifying the author of that comment by 'Marcus' as being, in fact, Marcus.
Although johninnz is also apparently the master of stealing identities. Surprised he hasn't stolen mine yet, actually. Guess I don't rate.
_
johninnz, if that is your real name, are you saying the US has caused more "mayhem and resentment" than the terrorists have?
_
re: RhusLancia | 04.02.08 - 5:52 pm
Um Ayad, Indigo, you can answer that too.
Not handing out any prices Rhus. The post was aimed at mainly you and Bridget, the two most stalwart defenders of the theory that any Insurgent is necessarily also a market-bomber. I just took my perception of your mental image of an insurgent and added some, admittedly exaggerated, details.
The last paragraph was exclusively for our resident Leprechaun.
Marcus: "the theory that any Insurgent is necessarily also a market-bomber."
No, that's not my theory. My theory is that, at best, the wider Insurgency doesn't give a rat's *ss about civilian casualties, and at worst they recognize that increasing civilian casualties are a very useful strategy for them.
They have a free pass from Um Ayad and Indigo for their actions, after all, so if it serves their purposes, why not?
_
In contrast:
In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties, and U.S. Conduct in Iraq
The belief that U.S. forces regularly violate the norm of noncombatant immunity (i.e., the notion that civilians should not be targeted or disproportionately harmed during hostilities) has been widely held since the outset of the Iraq War. Yet the evidence suggests that the U.S. military has done a better job of respecting noncombatant immunity in Iraq than is commonly thought. It also suggests that compliance has improved over time as the military has adjusted its behavior in response to real and perceived violations of the norm. This behavior is best explained by the internalization of noncombatant immunity within the U.S. military's organizational culture, especially since the Vietnam War. Contemporary U.S. military culture is characterized by an “annihilation-restraint paradox”: a commitment to the use of overwhelming but lawful force. The restraint portion of this paradox explains relatively high levels of U.S. adherence with the norm of noncombatant immunity in Iraq, while the tension between annihilation and restraint helps to account for instances of noncompliance and for why Iraqi civilian casualties from U.S. operations, although low by historical standards, have still probably been higher than was militarily necessary or inevitable.
_
Rhus (The Never Served Little Bitch):
I'm starting to think that Zeyad's description of your Iraqi Bloggers Central club membership as a congregation of 'little bitches' doesn't really do you justice!
You've long since proven yourself to be worthy of a more descriptive phrase to accurately define the level of your pathos!
Perhaps pathetic, non-serving, little bitch might offer up a more accurate definition for your relentless stupidity!
As for your: "are you saying the US has caused more "mayhem and resentment" than the terrorists have?
Unless you're beyond any minimal capability of conducting empirical analysis, I'd say America's proven ability to cause death in Iraq would make any Al Quaedist movement in Iraq envious for years to come! Suicide bombings could never rival your countrys ability to bomb and slaughter Iraqis. Your genocide in Fallujah alone would surpass any combination of terrorist acts to date!
Hi John the Ba'athist! Wakey wakey! Happy hour's almost here!
_
(RhusLancia) "They have a free pass from Um Ayad and Indigo for their actions, after all, so if it serves their purposes, why not?"
So that is your sick theory! You disgust me. I give no free pass to the killing of Iraqi innocent civilians and children by insurgents or by US troops. So much for your theory...just shows how wrong you are.
You should watch "No End IN Sight"
"The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraq’s descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insider’s tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the Spring of 2003), Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of the occupation of Iraq through May 2003) as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, and prominent analysts. NO END IN SIGHT examines the manner in which the principal errors of U.S. policy – the use of insufficient troop levels, allowing the looting of Baghdad, the purging of professionals from the Iraqi government, and the disbanding of the Iraqi military – largely created the insurgency and chaos that engulf Iraq today. How did a group of men with little or no military experience, knowledge of the Arab world or personal experience in Iraq come to make such flagrantly debilitating decisions? NO END IN SIGHT dissects the people, issues and facts behind the Bush Administration’s decisions and their consequences on the ground to provide a powerful look into how arrogance and ignorance turned a military victory into a seemingly endless and deepening nightmare of a war."
Jordan prince says Iraq presence makes US a neighbour.
AMMAN (AFP) - American military bases in Iraq have turned the United States into a "neighbouring" country, Jordan's Prince Hassan told a security seminar this week.
"The US military bases and the presence of around 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq have made the United States one of the neighbouring states in the region," he told a seminar on "Armament and Security in the Middle East" on Tuesday, his office said on Wednesday.
"American military bases remain in Germany and Japan 60 years after the end of World War Two," the former crown prince and uncle of King Abdullah II said at the two-day seminar in Amman.
He said he does not expect US troops to withdraw from Iraq "in the coming years."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/
2008...us_080402122551
Um Ayad: "So that is your sick theory! You disgust me. I give no free pass to the killing of Iraqi innocent civilians and children by insurgents or by US troops. So much for your theory...just shows how wrong you are."
And then you continue by recommending I watch a film whose description seeks to absolve the insurgents of any responsibility for their actions.
Bremer fired the Ba'athists, so of course they set upon destroying their country, what's any reasonable person to do? Um Ayad, ummm, how about... not destroy the country ??
_
I have not watched No End in Sight yet. I guess I will some day.
Having seen it, Um Ayad, can you tell me if it mentioned Saddam allowing & welcoming the jihadis into Iraq before the invasion by the thousands? I wonder what he had in mind by doing that?
_
"The post was aimed at mainly you and Bridget, the two most stalwart defenders of the theory that any Insurgent is necessarily also a market-bomber."
Nah, market bombers are probably the handiwork of AQ. Not that the Resistance is sorry to see several dozens more of the hated Shia blown away every now and then....the fewer to get in the way of regaining control of Iraq.
Marcus, you are surely aware that not all Iraqi civilian deaths are veggie shoppers. When I indicated to you that I don't buy your theory that civilian deaths are not an advantage to the Resistance, I was thinking of all civilian deaths, not just veggie shoppers.
Maybe Marcus would be more inclined to try to understand my point of view if I called him silly and wimpy.
Um Ayad, you vile, lying, sanctimonious hypocrite:
Is it not obvious by now that your childish and transparent efforts at agitpop have failed?
It is time to escalate, Um Ayad. You must demonstrate beyond question your hatred for America and your empathy for the Fuzzy Wuzzys.
Might I suggest a spectacular, public act of self-immolation? Perhaps you could do it in front of Communist Party headquarters in Londonistan.
You will certainly receive a warm welcome in Hell, where you will spend eternity in a pit of boiling excrement.
Praise Jesus!
"johninnz, ... are you saying the US has caused more "mayhem and resentment" than the terrorists have?"
RhusLancia, I should take my own advice to Marcus and just ignore you, you worthless little prick.
For the record: I first got interested in this Iraq shit back in 2004, before that I was just a spectator. That was when I saw some news clips about the destruction of an Iraqi wedding party at Makr Al Deeb. Remember that? "Foreign fighters" were all the rage then, some ignorant US apes convinced themselves that this wedding party was a bunch of them, and blew them away in the middle of the night, men women and children.
And afterwards Generals Mathis and Kimmit just blatantly and transparently lied in their teeth about the whole thing, never seen anything less convincing.
At one point the news showed a grieving Iraqi tribesman, surrounded by coffins, saying "For every one of ours, ten of theirs will die." I can't stand Islam or Muslims in general, have no connection with Iraq, but you know what? I hope he got his ten. You are intellectually and emotionally incapable of understanding that, and will remain so until the day you die, which if there is any justice left in the world should be soon.
In the Maori wars in 19th century NZ, when a few hundred part-time Maori warriors often fought the might of the British Empire to a standstill, at the battle of Orakau, the chief Rewi Maniapoto when surrounded refused to surrender, cried out "Ka whawhai tohu ahau kia koe ake, ake, ake." "I shall continue to fight you for ever, for ever, for ever."
That's what you're up against in Iraq, and you've brought it entirely on yourselves.
Worthless pricks.
@Um Ayad, 7:48 pm: Jordan's Prince Hassan... said he does not expect US troops to withdraw from Iraq "in the coming years."
Um Ayad, Prince Hassan gives a half hour interview to BBC News 24's "Hard Talk" program this week -- I saw it two nights ago, but I believe the same program repeats each weeknight. I think you'll find that Prince Hassan was not saying that in a wholly negative way -- he is more worried about the Iranians than the Americans.
I watch a film whose description seeks to absolve the insurgents of any responsibility for their actions.
jesus, where do you come up w/this stuff?
@Canadian John: Your genocide in Fallujah alone would surpass any combination of terrorist acts to date!
Really, Canadian John? Does some new kind of arithmetic apply in that dreamworld you inhabit? Correct me if I am wrong, since I am just going from memory, but didn't the first Lancet report -- which was subsequently criticised for all sorts of technical faux pas, as well as having been commissioned by someone with an axe to grind and therefore perhaps can be assumed to paint America in a not-so-generous light -- didn't it suggest that the US could be responsible for as much as ONE THIRD of the excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion. So I'm wondering where you dredged up the statistic above?
mentioned Saddam allowing & welcoming the jihadis into Iraq before the invasion by the thousands? I wonder what he had in mind by doing that?
the movie isn't about the reasons for being there. maybe you should watch it before you dig a deeper hole for your reality.
I,ve been out shopping. No response from the worthless little prick RhusLancia, I see.
Worthless little prick.
Oh look, and there's RhusLancia's soulmate, Pete.
I bet he wouldn't have the morality, the decency, the integrity, the humanity, let alone the guts, to say anything even remotely intelligent about Makr Al-Deeb.
Another diminutive organ of very doubtful value.
Gee, no answers. Suprise, suprise.
And remember that series of photos, Iraqi family driving home at dusk, nervous American patrol opens fire, kills the parents, wounds the boy.
Iconic images of the war, big dumb American soldiers standing round in the hospital, holding the blood-covered kids.
Someone tracked them down later - the boy couldn't walk, and the girl said of the Americans "I would like to kill them and eat their livers."
Will RhusLancia or Pete comment about this.
Sure - they'll make jokes about Iraqi appetites.
Worthless pricks.
Resentment? Nah, forgive them Father, even though they know exactly what they're doing.
Think I'll go out for a whiskey and a smoke. Won't miss anything - neither of them will have found anything useful to say.
Worthless pricks.
I'm back, and they're still AWOL.
They would have been useful in the trenches.
The troops needed something to stand on.
Time for dinner, in true NZ style - roast leg of American missionary.
Yum.
johninnz, are you Maori?
_
Good morning Johninnz
Great post at 04.02.08 - 10:00 pm.
That was the kind of stuff I was thinking about when I questioned wether this war is creating more or less possible terrorists.
RhusLancia turns that into wether or not the US have been "worse" than the terrorists in causing mayhem (presumably in Iraq). Which is a. not the point and b. not entirely unlikely.
Even if "the terrorists" have been worse, would that prevent people affected by american nastiness to wish to return it to them?
A guy who's had his family killed at a checkpoint for instance, would he go: "Damn Americans! I swear I will kill many of them for what they did to my family. Oh, wait, those two other families over in that other town were blown to bits by terrorists. That means Americans are probably not so bad after all. I think I'm going to have a change of heart and love the US of A forever and ever!"
It is my honest opinion that the war in Iraq is generating potential terrorists like nothing before it.
johninnz, the only thing I can say about Makr Al-Deeb, and I have no expectation that it will calm you, is that it appears to have been a mistake, like almost all other cases of MNF forces killing Iraqi civilians.
I'm surprised you made it through the looting, de-Ba'athification, UN bombing and escalating insurgency/terrorism, Abu Ghraib, and Fallujah I, for example though.
_
@PeteS
"Correct me if I am wrong [...] didn't the first Lancet report [...] suggest that the US could be responsible for as much as ONE THIRD of the excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion."
Not quite. It suggested that of the excess deaths 31% have been attributed to coalition violence. 24% has another source and 45% is "unknown" meaning it could be coalition kills or the handywork of others. This was the explanation in the report:
"In many other cases the responsible party was not known, or the households were hesitant to specifically identify them."
So it's not "as much as one third" Pete. It's 31% and upward.
We can move on to specific causes and find:
Specific cause of violent death
Gunshot (56%)
Car bomb (13%)
Other explosion/ordnance (14%)
Air strike (13%)
Unknown (2%)
Accident 6 (2%)
We find here that air strikes alone rival those awful carbombs. But I guess that don't matter since the bombs (those dropped from planes) are so smart they only kill those who deserve it.
johninnz: "For every one of ours, ten of theirs will die." I can't stand Islam or Muslims in general, have no connection with Iraq, but you know what? I hope he got his ten."
Et tu, Marcus? And that solves... what, exactly? Is it justice to kill 10 people for every one who is killed?
Do you remember the alleged rape of Sabreen al-Janabi by Iraqi Security Forces? Horrible, if true. But, AQ executed thirty-two captured Iraqi Security Forces and made statements that it was for retaliation. I think there were more, I lost count at 32. Is that justice, johninnz? Do you raise your wrist to that?
You know, if I was as bloodthirsty as you I think I'd want to numb myself with whiskey too. Why do you guys think you have the moral high ground? You're even a bigot against Muslims! Are you 'Realist'?
_
No, I don't think it's justice to kill 10 people for every one of your own that is killed. I don't believe in capital punishment so actually I think it's wrong to kill even one.
But I would probably feel a whole lot different if some such tragedy was visited upon me by someone I had done no harm. I can't say how I would react, and I hope to never find out, but a desire for revenge might very well be stronger than a desire for "justice".
Why did you say it was a great post then? He said he hoped that guy got his ten. Did you misunderstand?
Do you think Saddam deserved capital punishment?
_
"A top Iraqi police general agreed to provide Al-Sadr's Mahdi army with American weapons and ammunition and had the iraqi police force kidnap U.S. informers according to a classified June 2006 US intelligence report released today by the transparency group Wikileaks."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.or....org/node/
32430
"A fragile cease-fire in the southern city of Basra appeared to hold Wednesday, despite isolated clashes between Iraqi security forces and local militias and a roadside bombing that targeted an Iraqi military convoy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...8040203322.html
""He went in with a stick and he poked a hornet's nest, and the resistance he got was a little bit more than he bargained for," said one coalition official in Baghdad who requested anonymity. "They went in with 70 percent of a plan. Sometimes that's enough. This time it wasn't." [...] One U.S. intelligence officer in Washington, however, had a somewhat different interpretation of the prime minister's motivations. While restoring order was his stated goal, he asserted, the Iraqi leader was also eager to weaken the Mahdi Army and the affiliated political party of the renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr before for provincial elections in the south that are expected to be to be held later this year."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ld/
5670524.html
"WHILE the recent fighting in Basra and Baghdad has alerted many Americans to the danger that Shiite-on-Shiite violence poses to our goals in Iraq, it should not divert our focus from another looming threat: that the Sunni tribesmen who have sided with the American-led coalition may turn against us."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/0...ion&
oref=slogin
General Odom on the "Surge" and what to do next:
"Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. [...] one need only
take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran [...] The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.or....org/node/
32419
Naturally, because Odom tells it like it is, he will immediately be denounced as a traitor and liberal defeatist. T'will be no more than one would expect from the warmongers ...
Meanwhile, here's a detailed article on how America legalised and justified the systematic use of torture on prisoners:
"As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn’t talk, the Bush administration’s highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army’s own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure—then blame abuses on the military. [...] During September a series of brainstorming meetings were held at Guantánamo to discuss new techniques. [...] “You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas,” Beaver recalled [,,,] That is to say, the techniques are legal if the motivation is pure. National security justifies anything. [...] Three different official investigations in the space of three years have confirmed the migration theory. The August 2006 report of the Pentagon’s inspector general concluded unequivocally that techniques from Guantánamo had indeed found their way to Iraq."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politi...rue%
A4tPage=all
Here's some very interesting news for history buffs - the version of the Hussein - Glaspie meeting as told by Glaspie herself, 17 years on:
http://english.daralhayat.com/Sp...c2cc/
story.html
And here's WaPo analysis of the transcript:
"During the run-up to the war, the Iraqi government released a transcript of Glaspie's meeting with Hussein on July 25, 1990, which suggested that she gave tacit approval for an invasion. Glaspie managed to convince lawmakers that the transcript was inaccurate and that she had forcefully warned Hussein not to invade. But her credibility eroded after the leak of her classified cable to the State Department about the meeting, which suggested a more conciliatory conversation with Hussein."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...id=sec-
politics
Wow, look, RhusLancia's finally worked up the courage to try and answer.
"johninnz, the only thing I can say about Makr Al Deeb ... is that it appears to have been a mistake, like almost all other cases of MNF forces killing Iraqi civilians."
All 5 of them? 500? 5000? 50,000? And counting?
And don't be shy, Rhus, don't hide behind "MNF." AMERICAN is the name you want. Be proud, stand tall for your glorious losers, who appear to have been a mistake.
When the British soldiers made 'mistakes' in early NZ, they got eaten.
Wouldn't do you any harm at all.
Marcus: "But didn’t we also agree that a successful insurgency must have support from the local populace? And they, according to you, achieve this by… killing them?"
[rhus] "Yes. First, remember that they know they can only win from "external" factors. That is, outcry against the war forces a premature US withdrawal, after which they think they can take the GoI & ISF out toe to toe."
In other words, they win by convincing the US that it isn't worth it via civilian casualties, in your opinion.
But who, exactly, are they trying to convince?
The US military? The very people that kill Iraqi civilians themselves on a daily basis? I don't think so. The US public? The US public ALREADY thinks the war was a bad idea. There is a segment of the US public - the warmongers - that remains staunch in their support for the war. It has remained so no matter HOW many Iraqis are killed. Most of the warmongers don't give a toss. I refer to people like Realist and Willie Pete. I refer to many of the demented apes at places like LGF and so forth that rant on about "Islamofascism" and whose contempt for Iraqis and Muslims in general hardly would be affected by massive Iraqi casualties. On the contrary, one gets the distinct impression that many of them welcome such slaughter. Even the "enlightened" warmongers such as yourself, Rhus, regard Iraqi civilians as second class beings, fit for lamenting as tragic accidents but not possessing the same right to self defence as everybody else, and especially not Americans.
We can take warmongers that HAVE been convinced of the need to withdraw. Take Craig, for example. It's not the massive Iraqi civvie deaths that convinced him. No. It's THE US MILITARY DEATHS that changed his mind on the enterprise. In other words, legitimate Iraqi attacks on US military targets have had this effect.
Marcus: "But on a tactical level it’s worse with one dead American than a whole bunch of dead Iraqi civilians."
[rhus] "Still wrong. Remember, "some people" blame every single violent death on America, regardless of the purely technical detail of who actually killed them."
Except for, the people that COUNT - the Americans still supporting the war, such as yourself - deny our logic and ignore it. To you, the only argument that will shift you is precisely Americans coming home in crates.
[petes] "The deaths would have to be at least sufficiently non-random that one sect perceived it was being targeted by the other."
Correct. That's what I was trying to say, implying the difference between attacks on individuals and those on mass targets. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
RhusLancia: "AQ executed thirty-two captured Iraqi Security Forces and made statements that it was for retaliation. I think there were more, I lost count at 32. Is that justice, johninnz"
Can't you read English? I can't stand those guys, already said so.
But your argument is "these guys are bad, so we have to be even badder, and that justifies our mistakes."
You discredit and betray about 2000 years of Western civilisation.
And that's why you're losing to these wankers.
Just like you lost in Vietnam.
Come on, give us your justification for My Lai.
General world view, I believe, is that that was due to a company of worthless pricks. Sound familiar?
Rhus
"Why did you say it was a great post then? He said he hoped that guy got his ten. Did you misunderstand?"
I don't agree with that specific part. Still think it was a great post. It touches on my suggestion that you may very well be creating more future terrorists than killing existing ones on your adventure in Iraq.
"Do you think Saddam deserved capital punishment?"
Sure. Many people deserve death. But I am still principally against capital punishment in any case regardless of the crimes of the perpetrator, for many reasons that have nothing to do with my opinions on the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Have you ever tried listening to yourself, RhusLancia?
"Saddam used to eat babies for breakfast. That justifies us dropping bombs on the kids at Makr Al Deeb."
Does that sound to you like the reasoning of a civilised man?
Or a worthless little prick?
And I still hope the kids' father or brother got his ten. I don't approve of people who drop bombs on kids in the middle of the night.
Do you?
Johninnz -
Seems like the American 'mistakes' in Iraq come with monotonous and predictable regularity. But never fear, CENTCOM is always at hand to mouth pointless and insipid platitudes about collateral damage and regret to the Iraqi victims. Maybe they think that the Iraqis will take them seriously, instead of spitting on their words like they deserve.
I have to wonder if Rhus really believes in this shit. If so, then maybe I should point out that the American nemesis Al Qaeda has begun spewing the same sort of crap. Check this out:
"We haven't killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else," al-Zawahiri said, according to a 46-page English transcript that accompanied the audio message posted on Web sites linked to al Qaeda. [...] "If there is any innocent who was killed in the mujahedeen's operations, then it was either an unintentional error or out of necessity," al-Zawahiri said."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...3/
MNGTVUQ27.DTL
RHUSLANCIA will now tell us how much better he feels by now knowing that the civilians killed on 9-11 was an unintentional error borne out of operational necessity. Take it away, Rhus.
Like water dripping on a stone. May take a while to wear it away, but meanwhile at least it keeps the bastard wet and slimy.
It is very bad when the terrists harm innocent cililians, RhusLancia.
But it's even worse when we do it, because WE ARE MEANT TO BE THE GOOD GUYS. We are meant to be better than them.
When your troops gun down innocents at a checkpoint, because of panic or poor training or 'force protection,' you tarnish the honour of the West.
Is that the best way to combat 'Islamofascists?' Like Marcus says, aren't you just making more of them?
"Like water dripping on a stone. May take a while to wear it away, but meanwhile at least it keeps the bastard wet and slimy."
LOL...
Bruno: "In other words, they win by convincing the US that it isn't worth it via civilian casualties, in your opinion.
But who, exactly, are they trying to convince? "
Iraqis, Americans, Swedes, New Zealanders, South Africans, Italians, etc.
An Italian misunderstood (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the use of terror in guerilla campaigns. Are you misunderstanding (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the goals of terrorism now?
Bruno: "whose contempt for Iraqis and Muslims in general hardly would be affected by massive Iraqi casualties.
...
regard Iraqi civilians as second class beings"
On the contrary, Bruno, I am truly saddened by massive Iraqi civilian casualties whether caused by the US (always by mistake) or the insurgents (usually on purpose). On the contrary, Bruno, it is YOUR side, the one hypocritically claiming moral high ground, that expresses depraved indifference towards the fate of Iraqi civilians.
Do you honestly believe a premature US withdrawal will lessen & end Iraqi suffering? If so, you're drunker than the Johns. "Antiwar" Barack Obama has expressed indifference towards a resulting genocide when/if he pulls troops. Johninnz "can't stand Islam or Muslims in general", but he wants to eat people because of a mistaken bombing of them !!!!!!!
You guys are unhinged.
_
Hey Rhus, I think you just stepped on your fish hook.
It's a bugger getting those barbs out, innit?
Marcus: "you may very well be creating more future terrorists than killing existing ones on your adventure in Iraq."
The terrorists are being killed and captured, but more importantly, terrorism is now being soundly rejected by the Iraqi people, as we discussed earlier. The fish can no longer swim in the sea. There may even be reforms & condemnation of terrorism coming from the Muslim world outside Iraq. Yes, the jihadis flocked to Iraq. No, I do not like the idea of iraq as a flypaper, Bruno. But terrorism is losing big. The only way to reverse that is if it works and helps to destroy Iraq & defweet Amerikkka.
_
Yup, there I was expressing "depraved indifference towards the fate of Iraqi civilians" at Makr Al Deeb. And there was ole' Rhus feeling all sorry for them.
Till he stepped on that fish hook. Now he's mainly feeling sorry for himself.
"depraved indifference towards the fate of Iraqi civilians" killed by the insurgents/terrorists, johninnz. Let the Muslims kill each other, eh Reali--- I mean, johninnz ??
_
Here is an extremely biased writeup of the difference between US and insurgent/terrorist violence against Iraqi civilians. Hey, if Bruno can cite a wsws.org, then I can cite this:
http://
www.thereligionofpeace.co...dyCount2006.htm
Since the beginning of the year, we counted exactly fifty incidents involving U.S. troops in which civilians were said to have been killed. Some were air strikes against terrorists, others were raids against or ambushes by terrorists in which civilians were killed in the crossfire. Although the Americans aren't trying to kill civilians and the terrorists are, we added most of these to our count anyway just to allay suspicion.
There were thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks in Iraq during 2006. IraqBodyCount often uses a "who really gives a rat's ass" method of counting deaths that even they have to admit contains overlap, so it's difficult to discern the true number of dead bodies from the beginning of the year, but the site appears to be reporting between 18,000 and 26,000 civilians killed (so much for accuracy). What's clearer is that only about 225 of these involve American troops - or about 1 in 100.
So far, there have only been three or four incidents since the war began that involve non-combatants killed intentionally by American criminals - all of of which were deplored and prosecuted by the U.S. (By contrast, Muslim terrorists commit more atrocities than that against the innocent every single day with extreme malice). The relatively small number of deaths attributed to the Americans are either accidental or a result of the collateral damage from a targeted attack against terrorists that saved lives in the long run.
The wide moral distinction between collateral damage against terrorists and the intentional murder of civilians is not done justice merely by counting bodies. Anyone who pretends not to understand this is either a fool or a liar.
Since the terror campaign in Iraq is fueled by propaganda, publicizing the truth about the extraordinary measures that American troops are taking to protect civilian life would almost certainly prevent more civilians from being killed. In 2006, the number of civilians who died in encounters between the Americans and the terrorists was about four times lower than the number of U.S. troops killed.
In short, civilians in Iraq aren't dying from the war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.
_
OK, gotta go to bed. Good night, Bruno. Please don't operate heavy machinery. Good night, johninnz. Pleasant dreams about cannibalism and collective punishment. Good night, Marcus. I like Ikea.
_
"Do you honestly believe a premature US withdrawal will lessen & end Iraqi suffering?"
Premature withdrawal? Conquestus interruptus? Don't be disgusting, Rhus.
It certainly won't end it. It's a big unknown whether it will lessen or increase it. But what a pathetic situation - "we've turned this place into a snakepit with our botched occupation, now we gotta tame the snakes before we can leave."
Fish hooks in the feet, snake bites on the hands. And a blood-sucking leech crawling up your pants towards your
worthless little prick.
Yeah, withdraw it. It's not doing her much good, is it?
Just one more thing, johninnz. Here's today's violence roundup, courtesy of the very 'Resistance'-friendly antiwar.com:
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?
...articleid=12622
At least 45 Iraqis were killed and 84 more were wounded in the latest round of violence. Clashes involving Mahdi Army members and Iraqi security are now over, but the Iraqi government is still engaging in minor chest thumping in the port city of Basra and keeping Sadr City surrounded. No Coalition deaths were reported.
The Iraqi army sent a convoy into one of Basra's Mahdi Army strongholds today in an odd show of force. Although militia members mostly showed restraint, a vehicle carrying Iraqi generals was greeted by a roadside bomb in the Hayaniya neighborhood. No casualties were reported in the incident except that one journalist was injured, possibly by sniper fire. This incident comes only days after a security crackdown by the Iraqi government failed to rid Basra of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's political opponents. After hundreds were killed or injured, al-Maliki was forced to accept a truce in order to get Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's followers to stand down; however, al-Maliki continues to insist that he is cleaning up the city.
In Baghdad, two dumped bodies were found. Two people were killed and three were wounded, including a television cameraman, during a roadside bombing in Sadr City. In al-Talbiya, two people were killed and 14 more were wounded during a bombing. Three people were wounded during an IED attack at a checkpoint in Qahira. In al-Mashtal, four people were wounded during a bomb attack, while two more where injured in separate mortar fire. Two women were killed and a man was wounded when gunmen attacked their car. Mortars injured two in Dawodi. A U.S. airstrike left no casualties in Sadr City. Un unconfirmed report had five people injured when a bomb blasted their minibus in Sadr City. Also, four Iraqi soldiers were injured during security operation that netted 31 suspects.
In Muqdadiyah, eight policemen were killed and two more were wounded during a bombing. A second bomb targeting a civilian vehicle left two policemen, who were riding in it, dead and three more wounded. Also, three Americans soldiers were wounded and their Iraqi interpreter killed during another bombing.
Four people were killed and four more were kidnapped, including a tribal leader, near Dhuluiya.
In Mahmudiya, a teacher was killed and his son wounded during an armed attack.
In Mosul, woman was killed and four policemen were wounded during a car bombing. Nine people were wounded during an IED attack in Bab al-Jadid. Seven civilians were killed and 12 others were wounded during an bombing at their checkpoint west of the city. Also, two dumped bodies were found.
A suicide car bomber killed a civilian at a Sahwa checkpoint in Hawija.
No casualties were reported during home bombing in Kanaan.
In Tikrit, 15 weapon's caches and a factory were discovered.
Three people were killed and eight more were wounded during a roadside bombing in Mandali.
In Saidiyah, a woman was killed and a man was injured during an IED attack on a home.
No casualties were reported during an attack on the police chief in Kirkuk. A body was found and gunmen killed an off-duty policeman.
Five people were injured during a quarrel between Sahwa and policemen in Saqlawiyah.
Two policemen and a high school student died in Baaj when gunmen attacked their vehicle.
Also, 47 detainees were freed after they proved they were innocent of all charges.
I wonder why Bruno didn't link to it today?
_
You have just given us a perfect description of a snake pit, RhusLancia. One in which, incidentally, "three Americans soldiers were wounded and their Iraqi interpreter killed."
Guess those three won't be keeping the snakes apart until they've been patched up.
You really think your confused little army can clean up the mess they've made? They seemed to be mostly irrelevant down Basra way - though some reports did agree that they managed to hit a house full of women and kids, as usual.
Premature ejaculation?
Bruno: "In other words, they win by convincing the US that it isn't worth it via civilian casualties, in your opinion. But who, exactly, are they trying to convince? "
[rhus] "Iraqis, Americans, Swedes, New Zealanders, South Africans, Italians"
I disagree. The ONLY people that will decide when the US does or does not leave Iraq are AMERICANS. The US has already thumbed its nose at international opinion by illegally invading Iraq. America couldn't give a soggy one what the rest of us think. The only AMERICANS that want to keep US troops in Iraq are the Neocons and the invasionists. It's abundantly clear that you people don't give a crap about how many Iraqis die - if a million dead didn't satisfy you, then no amount will. You DO, however, care about how many Americans die in Iraq.
[rhus] "Are you misunderstanding (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the goals of terrorism now?"
I can't explain the logic of terror as a tool any better than I have. If you don't understand it, that's your problem.
[rhus] "On the contrary, Bruno, it is YOUR side, the one hypocritically claiming moral high ground, that expresses depraved indifference towards the fate of Iraqi civilians."
You're kidding, right? That coming from a guy that denies Iraqis under attack by American soldiers the right to defend themselves, that views such Iraqis, including Zeyad's own cousin, as second-class citizens in their OWN LAND? That have less rights than the American invader? RIGHT.
[rhus] "Do you honestly believe a premature [lol] US withdrawal will lessen & end Iraqi suffering?"
Yes.
[rhus] "The terrorists are being killed and captured"
Amongst which you would include Zaidun, if he would have had the temerity and means to defend himself from being murdered by your heroes. "Terrorist" = "Iraqi not licking US boots" to Rhus.
[rhus] "terrorism is now being soundly rejected by the Iraqi people"
The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want you to leave. It's always been like this. Tell us something new.
[rhus] "Since the terror campaign in Iraq is fueled by propaganda, publicizing the truth about the extraordinary measures that American troops are taking to protect civilian life would almost certainly prevent more civilians from being killed."
Measures such as throwing Iraqi youths of bridges, massacring families at roadblocks, launching airstrikes in neighbourhoods ... evidently, the same as WE have a different definition of "terrorist" from the American invasionists, THEY have a different understanding of the words "protect civilian life".
Rhus' heroes in action, lest we forget:
""Several veterans said it was common to carry a stash of extra automatic weapons and shovels to plant near the bodies of unarmed civilians they had killed to make it look as if they were combatants. ""
http://www.thenation.com/doc/200...7/
wintersoldier
In case there's any doubt:
"It was common for unarmed Iraqis to be killed at US checkpoints or by US convoys, they said. Many said they were congratulated on their "first kill." Some even desecrated Iraqi corpses."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/200...7/
wintersoldier
Rhus might want to forget that:
"Hicks found the area littered with human and animal corpses, including women and children, but he saw no military gear or weapons of any kind near the bodies. In the aftermath of the massacre, Hicks was told that his unit had killed 700-800 "enemy combatants." But he knew the dead were not terrorists or insurgents; they were innocent Iraqis. "I will agree to swear to that till the day I die," he said. "I didn't see one enemy on that operation."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/200...7/
wintersoldier
Now that we have briefly touched the topic of capital punishment, and I have explained that I'm against it, I see that Bruno has linked to a subject that's really on my list of dislikes - torture.
I know that capital punishment is allowed in many places the US and even if I find it a savage and primitive custom I have no real beef with you using it in your own country. It even seems to be supported by public opinion. Strangely it seems that the more religous the population the greater the support is for executing convicted felons, which in my mind presents kind of a warped image of the humanity and forgiving nature of Christianity. But I digress.
You wish to execute people for crimes they have been convicted of in a, hopefully, fair trial - fine.
What is not fine though is your government agencies running torture centrals around the world and putting human beings through extreme torment.
And don't even try to make a point about the goings on not being torture but merely "harsh interrogation" techniques. That's BULLSHIT!
It is NOT not torture when you freeze people, drown people, twist, turn, slap and hit people.
To keep someone naked, bound in forced positions in a pitch black cell in freezing conditions and bombard them with ear shattering noise and deprive them of food and drink for days, weeks, months, even years is unspeakably cruel and very much torture. Yet this is what your government has been doing constantly for the last 7 years at least and it's a fucking disgrace! You should be ashamed of it and you should voice your disagreement with these midevil actions or you are partly to blame.
And don't try to come back with some silly claim that Saddam was worse and what about the Russians in Chechnya and other crap. I know Saddam's Iraq was one of the most cruel regimes in the modern world and that torture was rule rather than exception. I know there are others who practice it, some who are called "evil" and some who are "allies".
Mostly it's dictatorships or very new, former eastern block, democracies who habitually torture. I in no way condone or excuse it. It's dispickable!
But when the self appointed leader of the "free and democratic" world where human value and liberty and the right to a fair trial when suspected of wrongdoings lower themselves to institutional torture it makes me fucking sick!
And it's counter productive anyway so you are fucking stupid as well!
You might notice that this is a subject where I have rather striong feelings. What about you Rhus, or you Bridget, do you care to voice your opinion on American government sponsored torture? Does the end justify the means?
(Lynnette, please do not get involved. You will just piss me off with your denials of any systematic torture or your false concerns of any "isolated incidents")
@ All.
On the lastest massacre by the glorious American Air Force in Basra:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/...008/apr/03/
iraq
Six more Iraqi civilians got Fweedom'n'Democwacy ! RhusLancia, Bridget and Lynnette (plus the revolting and inane PeteS) are vewy, vewy proud of it !
@ RhusLancia, 04.03.08 - 5:14 am.
[Rhus] "An Italian misunderstood (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the use of terror in guerilla campaigns. Are you misunderstanding (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the goals of terrorism now?".
Dear Arizonian Ape, the fact is that, as a US Marine, you have NO CLUE whatsoever to guerrilla war, the way it is waged, its aims and its tactics.
That's quite common among the poor Ahmehwican politicians and military: that's why you got your butts kicked in South-East Asia, and that's why you'll get your butts kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is YOU, poor simian Marine, who keep "misunderstanding" in the most grotesque way, LOL !
I find it strange that none of the nice Americans, especially Rhuslancia, want to step forward and thank Zawahiri for NOT targetting civilians in Al Qaeda's campaign.
Now, at least, they realise that the victims of 9-11 were not intentionally targetted and were only, as the US calls it, "collateral damage".
Surely they feel better after his reassuring statement?
@ RhusLancia, 04.03.08 - 2:58 am.
[Rhus] "Is it justice to kill 10 people for every one who is killed?".
Since I see that unfortunately Marcus fell into your little trap (this thing has NOTHING to do with capital punishment), if the murderers of civilians are the ARMED INVADERS of the country of those civilians, yes, it is justice not just to kill 10 ARMED INVADERS for each civilian they murder, but to kill ALL of those beasts, and liberate the occupied country of their evil (and in this case, demented as well) presence.
[italian] "as a US Marine, you have NO CLUE whatsoever to guerrilla war"
I have to admit that it IS a strange disease the Americans are afflicted with.
Somehow they are under the illusion that a foreign aggressor can bombard, slaughter and maim his way through a country, and STILL "win hearts and minds" if only he explains his motivations well enough?
I mean, is the fault with the Iraqis for being angry after they are told their relatives died for "freedom"?
Are Iraqis strange, for getting pissed off with the nice invader, after they were told their relatives were killed 'by accident' and not targetted?
I bet Americans like Rhus feel MUCH better after hearing what Zawahiri had to say, right?
Right?
[italian] "it is justice not just to kill 10 ARMED INVADERS for each civilian they murder, but to kill ALL of those beasts, and liberate the occupied country"
Right. The citizens of a country have the right to defend their country from invasion through the use of force. I agree.
An Italian Sadr Loyalist: "it is justice not just to kill 10 ARMED INVADERS for each civilian they murder, but to kill ALL of those beasts"
Kill morning, An Italian Sadr Loyalist. Killed any good books lately?
_
Me: "Do you honestly believe a premature US withdrawal will lessen & end Iraqi suffering?"
Bruno: "Yes."
OK, that's your opinion then. Completely unsupported by facts, evidence, or historical examples, but you can have your opinion.
My opinion is that monkeys would fly out An Italian Sadr Loyalist's butt first, especially unlikely because, as you know, they are usually dead when he stuffs them up there.
_
An Italian Sadr Loyalist: "Dear Arizonian Ape, the fact is that, as a US Marine, you have NO CLUE whatsoever to guerrilla war, the way it is waged, its aims and its tactics."
Dear Monkey Butt Stuffing An Italian Sadr Loyalist, I see you did not re-read even the short wikipedia article on guerrilla warfare, subsection use of terror. I repeat it here if you are too lazy to either scroll or click:
In some cases, the use of terror can be an aspect of guerrilla warfare. Terror is used to focus international attention on the guerrilla cause, kill opposition leaders, extort money from targets, intimidate the general population, create economic losses, and keep followers and potential defectors in line. Such tactics may backfire and cause the civil population to withdraw its support, or to back countervailing forces against the guerrillas.[17]
How you can follow Iraq even a little and not see that that is precisely the case is quite a stretch indeed. Perhaps your colon contains, not just un unknown number of dead monkeys, but your head as well ??
If you persist in your misunderstanding I may be compelled to think it is deliberate and dishonest.
Have a kill day!!
_
Marcus: "What about you Rhus, or you Bridget, do you care to voice your opinion on American government sponsored torture?"
I'm against the US waterboarding of the three terrorist suspects, and the use of any other means of interrogation objectively defined as torture.
Half on this subject, do you think the Guantanamo detainees should be held as "Prisoners of War" with those attendant rights?
_
Me: "Are you misunderstanding (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the goals of terrorism now?"
Bruno: "I can't explain the logic of terror as a tool any better than I have. If you don't understand it, that's your problem."
ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Maybe *nnie, your philosophical and intellectual equal, can explain it to you if you need more?
_
johninnz: "You have just given us a perfect description of a snake pit, RhusLancia.
...
You really think your confused little army can clean up the mess they've made?"
Yes, since they are. You can compare with last year's violence roundup for a comparison of just that day. and yes, i know that if you compare certain days from last week year-on-year it would not look like that. Clearly, however, yesterday was more typical than last week, much to the "antiwar" bloodlusting crew's lament I'm sure.
_
@Sneerlander: (12:29 am) Oh look, and there's RhusLancia's soulmate, Pete. I bet he wouldn't have the morality, the decency, the integrity, the humanity, let alone the guts, to say anything even remotely intelligent about Makr Al-Deeb... (12:58 am) Gee, no answers. Suprise, suprise.
Gee, thanks for the 29 minute window between five and six a.m. local time. It's not like I work for a living. You DO seem all riled up today, don't you?
when a few hundred part-time Maori warriors often fought the might of the British Empire to a standstill ... chief Rewi Maniapoto ... cried out ... "I shall continue to fight you for ever, for ever, for ever." That's what you're up against in Iraq..."
Yeah, well done you. Your old treaty of Waitangi put a bit of a dent in the chief's rangatiratanga, didn't it ... not to mention the subsequent theft of tribal lands. I see the chief's tribe has over 6,000 members in Auckland -- ask them how the forever fight is going (hint: one of the highest suicide rates on the planet). Sanctimonious prick.
...and you've brought it entirely on yourselves.
Yeah. Guys like this had nothing to do with it.
"What about you Rhus, or you Bridget, do you care to voice your opinion on American government sponsored torture?"
Against.
Marcus, you really should look at the clip PeteS just posted. Then tell me about the Noble Resistance and the killing of Iraqi civilians.
Would it count as American government sponsored torture if we displayed a continuous loop of that video of Ramzi Hashem Abed all over Sadr City, and then announced the time and place of his release back into society?
@ All
(re: PeteS, 04.03.08 - 11:12 am).
[johninnz] "Oh look, and there's RhusLancia's soulmate, Pete. I bet he wouldn't have the morality, the decency, the integrity, the humanity, let alone the guts, to say anything even remotely intelligent about Makr Al-Deeb...".
[Demented Judas Iscariot] " " [the abomination says, as johninnz foresaw, precisely NOTHING].
And I'm surprised that nobody noticed how this scumbag Pete, a traitor to Ireland, to Europe and to the whole of humankind, above did spit on Irish patriotism (calling those who care for Ireland "sad old dinosaurs" !!!, PeteS, 04.01.08 - 7:36 am), while he NEVER objected in the least to our Ahmehwican patwiots here, and to their (positively criminal) form of 'patriotism' ...
oh, surprise !!!
Nibras Kazimidebunks the Myths and Fantasies of Basra: The "Intifada" That Wasn't
Bridget
Nice to see you at least don't condone torture, and since you did not disagree with my post I assume you have noted that torture has been used by your governmment in the "war on terror".
"Marcus, you really should look at the clip PeteS just posted. Then tell me about the Noble Resistance and the killing of Iraqi civilians."
He was from Ansar Al Islam, right? Affilliated with Al Qaida, right? Now, have I not said again and again that I consider those guys raving lunatic fanatics?
If we are to believe that sick freak, and I am not saying I have any serious doubts about his story, I guess Sadr is off the hook for the killing of Baquer Al Hakim, for which there was an arrest warrant out for him at one point.
"Sadr’s Triumphant Surrender"
"by getting his butt kicked, surrendering control of Basra, and being mocked as an Iranian catspaw Sadr has… succeeded."
"He was from Ansar Al Islam, right? Affilliated with Al Qaida, right?"
As are, or were, many in the Noble Resistance.
"I guess Sadr is off the hook for the killing of Baquer Al Hakim, for which there was an arrest warrant out for him at one point."
There's always al-Khoi.
[Smugtalian]: [the abomination says, as johninnz foresaw, precisely NOTHING].
Just giving yer pal in Sneerland a chance to get over himself.
[Smugtalian]: And I'm surprised that nobody noticed how this scumbag Pete, a traitor to Ireland, to Europe and to the whole of humankind, above did spit on Irish patriotism (calling those who care for Ireland "sad old dinosaurs" !!!, PeteS, 04.01.08 - 7:36 am)
Hey, now you're tryin' ta KILL me with laughin'.
Republican Sinn Féin are "those who care for Ireland"??? Spare me! They do not even recognise the country I live, or my right to a democratic vote. They reject the will of the 94% majority in the Republic, and the majorities of both Nationalists and Unionists in the North to ratify the Good Friday agreement. They want to ethnically cleanse the 10% of the population of this island who self-identify as British, and impose a Marxist regime on the rest of us. What a joke! The Irish have come to a working accommodation over their ancient problems with the neighbours. Where were these old abstentionist dinosaurs when the vote was cast? Fuck 'em. ÉIRE ABÚ !!! ÉIRINN GO BRÁCH !!!
I can see yer aul' ma from the commie brigades indoctrinated you well, though. And don't even get me started on what JPII had to say about yer Marxist mates.
Marcus, do you agree with An Italian the Monkey Butt Stuffing Sadr Loyalist, that "terror" is not a tactic employed by guerillas in guerilla warfare (and especially the Iraqi one!) ??
Do you agree with Bruno that "terrorism" as a tactic does not use civilian casualties as a prop to coerce societies and governments (and especially terrorism in Iraq!) ??
Marcus, do you think "Realist" is really "johninnz" in - or out of - disguise?
_
"I see the chief's tribe has over 6,000 members in Auckland -- ask them how the forever fight is going" (Pete)
That was rather the point, Pete - surprised you didn't get it. Since Rewi Maniapoto we've had 150 years of blarney about God's Own Country, great little multicultural paradise, land of complete equality, Waitangi Tribunal settlements and all that. We mingle in the supermarkets like a cuddly little rainbow.
And yet listen to extreme Maori radicals, speak to some Maori late at night when the booze is flowing freely - there's still an undercurrent of resentment, no other word for it.
And the Maori wars were a terribly sporting and gentlemanly affair compared to what's been going on in Iraq.
And then there's the Maori concept of utu - payback for offended honour. Memories of some tribal rivalries still linger, going way back to pre-European days.
And aren't the Arab's meant to have similiar ideas about ultimate payback for grievances?
After the way RhusLancia's mistake-prone heroes have behaved, do you really think the Iraqis are just going to forgive and forget? Is that tribesman at Makr Al Deeb now best buddies with the local marines? After only four years?
Your mob best buddies with the English now, are they? Gonna rejoin the United Kingdom?
After all, they're just next door, and you sort of speak their language.
They're not big hulking amoral armoured brutes from 8000 miles away.
Be guided by one of your favourite Englishmen, Pete, good ole Ollie Cromwell.
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
And let's not contemplate the bowels of Bush. He's got polyps, eh?
johninnz: "And yet listen to extreme Maori radicals, speak to some Maori late at night when the booze is flowing freely - there's still an undercurrent of resentment, no other word for it."
Who could have imagined, in 1942, that we'd be BFF with the Germans and Japanese less than a decade later? They endured fire-bombed cities, a nuclear strike, and thousands of rapes by real occupation troops among many other things. We endured similar atrocities against us. People can heal, you know.
Yes, resentment lingers, and there will be some who will have lingering hatred implanted in them decades from now because of this. But if this didn't happen, then because of something else.
I saw a quote from an Anbari Iraqi a while ago that was like "yes we had a blood debt, but it's been paid". We're not quite BFF with the Anbar Sunnis, but most honest accounts are that relations are much better now, still improving, and this is reflected in the latest Iraqi opinion polls.
_
And another point, Pete. The British troops were so impressed with their Maori opponents that they gave up in disgust and went home, left the settlers to sort it out themselves, like at Parihaka.
It was many years after the wars before any Pakeha could venture into the King Country.
(Had some good times down on the farm there myself, though, in my youf. Didn't just wander onto the Taumaranui Marae, though.
Do you really see RhusLancia becoming a welcome guest in Basra anytime soon?)
11 September 2001
Never forget
Never forgive
Kill them
Kill them all
Kill then now
@john in zambia/zimbabwe: Didn't just wander onto the Taumaranui Marae, though.
Is that bad news for pākehā? Were you worried it would be your tangihanga?
Do you really see RhusLancia becoming a welcome guest in Basra anytime soon?
Sure, especially if he was an oil engineer. More and more I'm realising that this resistance to the oil law is to keep oil in mafia hands and out of Baghdad coffers. All this sanctimony in these comments about stealing oil from the Iraqi people ... that's what's happening NOW!
@john in z-land: Be guided by one of your favourite Englishmen, Pete, good ole Ollie Cromwell.
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
There's only one phrase with which all Irishmen associate good ole genocidal Ollie Cromwell: "To Hell or to Connaught".
RhusLancia
I see you’re full of questions again. Getting to be a bit of a trademark of yourse.
[Rhus]: ”Marcus, do you agree with An Italian […] that "terror" is not a tactic employed by guerillas in guerilla warfare (and especially the Iraqi one!) ??”
I do. When it comes to the kind of terror you’re thinking about i.e. market bombings. That they use ”terror tactics” to scare people who might consider working for the invaders is certainly so, but that they should indiscriminately kill civilians I seriously doubt. There are those who do it, mind you, that is pretty obvious. But those I would consider ”terrorists” and not ”guerillas” and I say there is a difference between the two.
[Rhus]: ”Do you agree with Bruno that "terrorism" as a tactic does not use civilian casualties as a prop to coerce societies and governments (and especially terrorism in Iraq!) ??”
I don’t think that Bruno has ever said that. I pretty sure actually. You will need a clear reference of him saying so before I answer this.
[Rhus]: ”Marcus, do you think "Realist" is really "johninnz" in - or out of - disguise?”
No.
[Me]: "What about you Rhus, or you Bridget, do you care to voice your opinion on American government sponsored torture?"
[Rhus]: ”I'm against the US waterboarding of the three terrorist suspects, and the use of any other means of interrogation objectively defined as torture.”
I’m glad to hear at least that. And FYI the waterboarding of those three ”suspects” are the tip of an iceberg, I hope you are aware of that. The USA really need to change its entire policy regarding treatment of detainees. Now!
[Rhus]: ”Half on this subject, do you think the Guantanamo detainees should be held as "Prisoners of War" with those attendant rights?”
Either that or give them their rights as civilian detainees. If they are prisoners in what is considered a war they should be given ”prisoners of war” rights. If they are considered common criminals they should be tried in a civil court of law. Your government has NO RIGHT to invent other classifications and hold human beings in dreadful conditions indefinetly without the opportunity to get their case tried.
And, btw, YOUR civilians who are suspected of committing crimes in a foreign country should be tried in that countrie’s courts. If you are so adamant that the Iraqi government is democratic and just why do you fly any trigger happy contractor out of there instead of letting the Iraqi law take its course?
Marcus, forgot to mention that I appreciated your satire of 04.02.08 - 5:21 pm (), and agreed with your comment of 04.03.08 - 7:48 am ()
@ PeteS, 04.03.08 - 1:18 pm.
[Satanist Oyrish Louse] "I can see yer aul' ma from the commie brigades indoctrinated you well, though".
Oh discredited compulsive LIAR and clown, my mother was in the ANTI-Communist partisan brigades in WW2.
And those who are not familiar with Ireland may not see the lies contained in your slithering paragraph about Republican Sinn Féin (who NEVER were "Marxist", by the way, oh comical LIAR and clown).
For sure, they are courageous (albeit impractical) Irishmen and Irishwomen, NOT indecent, cowardly, treacherous vermin such as you are, wee Pete, .
johninnz: "Do you really see RhusLancia becoming a welcome guest in Basra anytime soon?)"
I'm not an oil engineer, so no, me neither. I wouldn't think twice about visiting Japan or Germany though.
_
Me: "”Marcus, do you agree with An Italian […] that "terror" is not a tactic employed by guerillas in guerilla warfare (and especially the Iraqi one!) ??”
Marcus: "I do. When it comes to the kind of terror you’re thinking about i.e. market bombings. That they use ”terror tactics” to scare people who might consider working for the invaders is certainly so, but that they should indiscriminately kill civilians I seriously doubt. There are those who do it, mind you, that is pretty obvious. But those I would consider ”terrorists” and not ”guerillas” and I say there is a difference between the two."
Just to be clear, I do in fact maintain that the ones you think of as purely guerillas had at the very least a tacit alliance with the ones who indiscriminately killed civilians in ie veggie market bombings.
But what I am talking about here is the less spectacular terror tactics of killing, kidnapping, and intimidating civilians by those you think of as purely guerillas as part of the guerilla tactics they were employing. Add to this the sabotage of infrastructure to deny services, killing reconstruction teams, and attempting to undermine the effectiveness of the new gov't at every turn.
Classic, textbook insurgency. Classic, textbook guerilla war.
You really, really want to hang with An Italian Monkey Butt Stuffing Sadr Loyalist on this one? Is there any more room for your head up his butt?
_
FWIW, Marcus, re your comment on the Guantanamo detainees, I think their status and rights need to be more clearly identified & defined by the US and international community. I don't think any rational person wants KSM out on the street because "the glove don't fit" or some such, but he needs to be dealt with more justly than he would treat any of his captives.
Me: ”Do you agree with Bruno that "terrorism" as a tactic does not use civilian casualties as a prop to coerce societies and governments (and especially terrorism in Iraq!) ??”
Marcus: "I don’t think that Bruno has ever said that. I pretty sure actually. You will need a clear reference of him saying so before I answer this."
I was referring to:
Me: "Are you misunderstanding (deliberately?) a fundamental precept of the goals of terrorism now?"
Bruno: "I can't explain the logic of terror as a tool any better than I have. If you don't understand it, that's your problem."
The "fundamental precept" I mentioned was that terrorism uses civilian casualties as props with the "intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments".
I took Bruno's statement to mean that he disagreed with me, and, actually, the dictionary definition of terrorism. If you don;t see that, then fine, I will grant you that because I'm very generous and I like Ikea.
But let me put it to you this way, then:
Do you agree that "terrorism" as a tactic uses civilian casualties as a prop to coerce societies and governments (and especially terrorism in Iraq!) ??
_
RhusLancia:
"Do you agree that "terrorism" as a tactic uses civilian casualties as a prop to coerce societies and governments (and especially terrorism in Iraq!) ??"
The only thing I don't agree with is the singling out of Iraq.
Otherwise I would agree that striking at civilians to further an agenda of some sort is basically what terrorism is all about.
News:
"A US military air strike on a house in the southern Iraq city of Basra killed three members of a family and wounded three more, a teenaged survivor said on Thursday."
http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/...fri/
apr4w14.htm
"U.S. troops killed five Iraqi policemen and wounded 11 people during a predawn military operation in the city of Hilla, 100 km south of Baghdad, a city police source said on Thursday."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
englis...ent_7913464.htm
Sucks when they can bomb you back:
The U.S. military says an American airman has been killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad."
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/
200...ualties,00.html
"Anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on Iraqis on Thursday to demonstrate in millions next week to protest the U.S. occupation of Iraq. "
http://english.people.com.cn/900...77/
6386502.html
"More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ld/
5673624.html
Meanwhile, here's a promising new US ally.
Al Qaeda #2: We'll Attack Iran
http://blog.wired.com/defense/20...eda-2-
well.html
Al-Qa'ida deputy lashes UN as 'enemy'
http://www.theaustralian.news.co...0-
15084,00.html
America and AQ have so many things in common ... is it any wonder that the US recruited AQI members in Iraq?
[rhus] "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
In other words, you're referring to America's War of Terror against Iraq, which 100% falls into this definition.
Look down, Rhus.
Notice the great big hole you just blasted into your foot?
In case anybody wants to buy into Rhuslancia's distorted representation of my words, perhaps we ought to revisit them here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=52090#387470
... But I'll post the entire thing again, slightly edited:
**
[rhus] "And, notwithstanding the extra effort you put in to remake reality into one where your 'resistance' heroes do NOT wantonly kill and injure Iraqi civilains, the question I asked remains "who benefits"?"
I think An Italian and Marcus have already given pretty concise answers to that.
An Italian [...] points out precisely the doctrine of guerrilla warfare as outlined by Mao, where the civilian population are a critical factor in aiding, concealing and acting as second-stringers for the guerrillas. The so-called sea for the fish. Keeping the civilians happy is of vital importance to the guerrillas.
And Marcus [...] points out the need for local resistance groups to have local support, and the way that this support has aided them in doing so well.
I do of course concede that terror and assasination are an indelible part of guerrilla war.
Informers and traitors are far more dangerous to the guerrilla than the enemy, however powerful he may be, since they remove the paramount advantage of the guerrilla from him - his ability to strike and fight when he wants to and his ability to vanish. Every effort must logically be made to root these individuals out and to make sure that people know what happens to such stool pigeons.
THAT IS, however, different from the indiscriminate use of violence to randomly kill civilians. I have pointed this out over and over, that targetted killing has a purpose and makes a point, whereas random mass murder HAS NO POINT other than to piss people off. IT MAKES NO SENSE because there is no logic to it. With directed violence one can obey certain rules - ie - don't inform, don't help the invader etc - and one will likely be safe. With RANDOM violence, obeying these rules does NOT shield one from death. The ONLY blowback can be anger at the perpetrator and lust for revenge. That's what undid AQI, as even you admit.
I would say that civilian random deaths BENEFIT AMERICAN AIMS in Iraq, because they principally drive SECTARIAN VIOLENCE which is what keeps Sunni and Shia Iraqis from uniting and kicking your miserable arses back to your own country. Divide and rule wouldn't work so well, would it, if Iraqis were united!
**
Good news from Iraq, in picture format:
http://www.zcommunications.org/F...es/
chomsky3.gif
Come get your good news!
"The December 2007 report did not mention other good news: Iraqis appear to accept the highest values of Americans, which should be gratifying. [...] Since Iraqis attribute the accumulated evil of the whole primarily to the invasion, it follows that they accept the core principle of Nuremberg. Presumably, they were not asked whether their acceptance of American values extended to the conclusion of the chief prosecutor for the United States, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply its principles to ourselves. Needless to say, U.S. elite opinion, shared with the West generally, flatly rejects the lofty American values professed at Nuremberg, indeed regards them as bordering on obscene. All of this provides an instructive illustration of some of the reality that lies behind the famous "clash of civilizations."
http://www.zcommunications.org/z...ewArticle/
17048
Americans really, really love Iraq, and care deeply for it. That's why:
"Only 37% of Young Americans Can Find Iraq on a Map"
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bi...04786624&
EDATE=
[Me] "I can see yer aul' ma from the commie brigades indoctrinated you well, though".
[Smugtalian]: Oh discredited compulsive LIAR and clown, my mother was in the ANTI-Communist partisan brigades in WW2.
Oh. Your aul' ma from the ANTI-commie brigades indoctrinated you very poorly, so.
[Smugtalian]: And those who are not familiar with Ireland may not see the lies contained in your slithering paragraph about Republican Sinn Féin (who NEVER were "Marxist", by the way, oh comical LIAR and clown).
Ok, fair enough, I will admit that they split with the more rampantly Marxist of their party, but I will point you at the "competition clause" (LOL) of their proposed constitution for "Éire Nua": "Article 8. Every citizen has the right to equal pay for equal work, and the right to join a trade union for the protection of workers' collective interests, and these rights must be acknowledged by all employers".
Bruno, paraphrasing An Italian Monkey Butt Stuffing sadr Loyalist: "Keeping the civilians happy is of vital importance to the guerrillas."
This is false. They do not have to be happy. They have to be under control. Terrified works as well, and is much easier to establish and maintain. Did Saddam's regime teach you nothing? Or, to spin a challenge some lefties and Iraqi bloggers sometimes use: name one hospital that the insurgents have reconstructed? One water project? Street paved? electricity project? Etc!
Bruno: "I do of course concede that terror and assasination are an indelible part of guerrilla war."
[alt] + PrintScreen
That means you'll need to wiggle around the obvious in your next paragraph. Oh look, you do!
Bruno: "Informers and traitors are far more dangerous to the guerrilla than the enemy, however powerful he may be, since they remove the paramount advantage of the guerrilla from him - his ability to strike and fight when he wants to and his ability to vanish. Every effort must logically be made to root these individuals out and to make sure that people know what happens to such stool pigeons."
And it is in the application of those principles, narrowly in your case to maintain your ruse of conscientiousness, and broadly in the actual application of those principles on the ground by your beloved 'Resistance' that contributes a large measure of terror in Iraq.
Recall again the example of your beloved 'Resistance' who attacked the family of an Iraqi Policeman, an event repeated dozens, hundreds, thousands of times across Iraq, and your shallow condemnation of them for doing it with something like "they should have shot just the policeman instead". Oh really??
Well Bruno, seeing as how they attacked his family, an event repeated dozens, hundreds, thousands of times across Iraq, do you think it is fair to say they were using terror as a tactic in their guerrilla war? Do you think this tactic is employed narrowly, or broadly? Do you think the 'Resistance' would/should launch an investigation, arrest, try, and convict the insurgents who did that?
_
Commenting by HaloScan
