Why are the Iraqi 'insurgents' targeting civilians?

[Kalish]

I can't figure out why they'd take their frustration out on those who are not responsible the invasion.

[Maple]

1. Collaborators

are treated the same way in any invaded nation.

[Kalish]

4. not collaborators

they're blowing up bombs in open markets and on open streets. What about that gas tanker that took out half a market?

[radwriter0555]

71. The "insurgents" are NOT targeting civilians. Covert ops are staging

these BS attacks to stir the pot, keep the unlawful invasion going, and accomplish the goals of destroying everything iraqi.

The "suicide" bombers don't exist. These are planted explosives, put into "searched" trucks, packages, planted in markets and so on.

[Kalish]

72. that's nuts

[radwriter0555]

76. Imagining that the iraqis are killing each other is NUTS and merely the BS

propoganda lies of the bush regime.

Why would you believe the liars?

Why would the iraqis kill each other? By all IRAQI repots, such as the riverbend blogger, the iraqis are UNITED against the US death squads.

I choose truth. Not lies and propaganda from known liars, whores, cheaters, thieves and murderers.

The iraqis are none of those things.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[radwriter0555]

84. Proof? BUSH didn't need PROOF to invade an entire fucking country, and you

now want validation that the bush regime isn't LYING -- AGAIN?

Where is your basis in believing the iraqis are killing each other? Because the liars told you it's so, that it must be true?

Apply simple basic LOGIC. Then read the iraqi bloggers. Then you determine where the truth lies. Does it lie with the known invaders, liars, whores, rapists, murderers, thugs and thieves in the bush regime? Or does the truth lie with the iraqi people who never attacked the US, who can barely defend themselves, yet YOU seem to think want to waste their precious weapons and ammunition killing each other?

Again, just ask WHY they would kill each other, then, ask yourself why wouldn't the US troops and covert ops be killing the iraqis? Who has the MOTIVE?

Then, once again, ask yourself WHY the US invaded iraq... and why, if the US invaded iraq to take out saddam hussein, is the US STILL IN IRAQ and now killing iraqis?

Just use simple logic, and stop watching CNN, FOX and stop reading MSM bullshit. If you want the truth, you'd best read this young lady's words.. then we can chat with honesty http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

[Kalish]

87. you talk with no specificity about liars

I guess everyone's lying to you. All the media, including the 'liberal media' like AAR. Everyone agrees there is an insurgency. Riverbend, AAR, the NYTimes, Fox News, everyone. We just disagree on the causes of it, and what can be done about it.

Honestly, you are the ONLY one I've encountered, anywhere, who claims the insurgency is a hoax and that it's all been planted and conspired and carried out by American forces - like someone wouldn't rat that out creating the biggest media story of the century.

You're arguments are craaiiizeeee....

[radwriter0555]

89. Then you didn't read the Riverbend blogger, did you? You don't have the

guts to read what a simple woman living in iraq has to say about it, do you?

I'm not crazy. I'm right. You can't handle the truth because it's so far outside your little world of possibility.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

5 years ago people said I was crazy when I said that bush was going to steal the elections, and he did it twice.

5 years ago I said bush would invade iraq. I also said he would stage his own reichstag. When 911 happened, everyone said I was nuts to think the bush regime was responsible, and now most of the world agrees with ME.

Call me all the names you want. I know I'm right and that you can't even begin to imagine what is really happening in iraq.

How about this, prove me wrong. Prove to us that the iraqis are killing each other.

[Kalish]

90. Have fun on your little island

hope you don't get too lonely.

[radwriter0555]

91. Right, I should just think like everyone else so that I can be popular?

I'll work on that. After all, it's more important to be popular than to think for myself, and to know the truth, right?

So tell me what you think of the riverbend blogger? How do you feel about her words? Is she a liar?

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

Unbelievable...
“Not only can they not find WMD in Iraq,” I commented to E. as we listened to the Bush speech, “But they have disappeared from his speeches too!” I was listening to the voiceover on Arabiya, translating his speech to Arabic. He was recycling bits and pieces of various speeches he used over two years.

E., a younger cousin, and I were sitting around in the living room, sprawled on the relatively cool tiled floor. The electricity had been out for 3 hours and we couldn’t turn on the air conditioner with the generator electricity we were getting. E. and I had made a bet earlier about what the theme of tonight’s speech would be. E. guessed Bush would dig up the tired, old WMD theme from somewhere under the debris of idiocy and lies coming out of the White House. I told him he’d dredge up 9/11 yet again… tens of thousands of lives later, we would have to bear the burden of 9/11… again.

I won the bet. The theme was, naturally, terrorism- the only mention of ‘weapon’ or ‘weapons’ was in reference to Libya. He actually used the word ‘terrorist’ in the speech 23 times.

He was trying, throughout the speech, to paint a rosy picture of the situation. According to him, Iraq was flourishing under the occupation. In Bush’s Iraq, there is reconstruction, there is freedom (in spite of an occupation) and there is democracy.

“He’s describing a different country…” I commented to E. and the cousin.

“Yes,” E. replied. “He’s talking about the *other* Iraq… the one with the WMD.”

“So what’s the occasion? Why’s the idiot giving a speech anyway?” The cousin asked, staring at the ceiling fan clicking away above. I reminded him it was the year anniversary marking the mythical handover of power to Allawi’s Vichy government.

“Oh- Allawi… Is he still alive?” Came the indolent reply from the cousin. “I’ve lost track… was he before Al Yawir or after Al Yawir? Was he Prime Minister or did they make him president at some point?”

9/11 and the dubious connection with Iraq came up within less than a minute of the beginning of the speech. The cousin wondered whether anyone in America still believed Iraq had anything to do with September 11.

Bush said:
“The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.”

Do people really still believe this? In spite of that fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, in spite of the fact that prior to the war, no American was ever killed in Iraq and now almost 2000 are dead on Iraqi soil? It’s difficult to comprehend that rational people, after all of this, still actually accept the claims of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Or that they could actually believe Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 2003.

We did not have Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. We didn’t know that sort of extremism. We didn’t have beheadings or the abduction of foreigners or religious intolerance. We actually pitied America and Americans when the Twin Towers went down and when news began leaking out about it being Muslim fundamentalists- possibly Arabs- we were outraged.

Now 9/11 is getting old. Now, 100,000+ Iraqi lives and 1700+ American lives later, it’s becoming difficult to summon up the same sort of sympathy as before. How does the death of 3,000 Americans and the fall of two towers somehow justify the horrors in Iraq when not one of the people involved with the attack was Iraqi?

Bush said:
“Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. … The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

He speaks of ‘abroad’ as if it is a vague desert-land filled with heavily-bearded men and possibly camels. ‘Abroad’ in his speech seems to indicate a land of inferior people- less deserving of peace, prosperity and even life.

Don’t Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as ‘Abroad’ was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region?

Don’t Americans realize that ‘abroad’ is a country full of people- men, women and children who are dying hourly? ‘Abroad’ is home for millions of us. It’s the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children- your field of war and terror.

The war was brought to us here, and now we have to watch the country disintegrate before our very eyes. We watch as towns are bombed and gunned down and evacuated of their people. We watch as friends and loved ones are detained, or killed or pressured out of the country with fear and intimidation.

Bush said:
“We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul…”

Yes. And Bush is extremely concerned with the mosques. He might ask the occupation forces in Iraq to quit attacking mosques and detaining the worshipers inside- to stop raiding them and bombing them and using them as shelters for American snipers in places like Falluja and Samarra. And the terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul? Maybe they got their cue from the American troops who attacked the only functioning hospital in Falluja.

“We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while a country is at war is even harder."

Three decades of tyranny isn’t what bombed and burned buildings to the ground. It isn’t three decades of tyranny that destroyed the infrastructure with such things as “Shock and Awe” and various other tactics. Though he fails to mention it, prior to the war, we didn’t have sewage overflowing in the streets like we do now, and water cut off for days and days at a time. We certainly had more than the 8 hours of electricity daily. In several areas they aren’t even getting that much.

“They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law.”

We’re so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces.

As to Iraqi forces…There was too much to quote on the new Iraqi forces. He failed to mention that many of their members were formerly part of militias, and that many of them contributed to the looting and burning that swept over Iraq after the war and continued for weeks.

“The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day.”

Indeed they are. The forte of the new Iraqi National Guard? Raids and mass detentions. They have been learning well from the coalition. They sweep into areas, kick down doors, steal money, valuables, harass the females in the household and detain the men. The Iraqi security forces are so effective that a few weeks ago, they managed to kill a high-ranking police major in Falluja when he ran a red light, shooting him in the head as his car drove away.

He kept babbling about a “free Iraq” but he mentioned nothing about when the American forces might actually depart and the occupation would end, leaving a “free Iraq”.

Why aren’t the Americans setting a timetable for withdrawal? Iraqis are constantly wondering why nothing is being done to accelerate the end of the occupation.

Do the Americans continue to believe such speeches? I couldn’t help but wonder.

“They’ll believe anything.” E. sighed. “No matter what sort of absurdity they are fed, they’ll believe it. Think up the most outrageous lie… They have people who’ll believe it.”

The cousin sat up at this, his interest piqued. “The most outrageous lie? How about that Iraq was amassing aliens from Mareekh and training them in the battle art of kung-fu to attack America in 2010!”

“They’d believe it.” E. nodded in the affirmative. “Or that Iraq was developing a mutant breed of rabid, man-eating bunnies to unleash upon the Western world. They’d believe that too.”

[Kalish]

92. there is nothing in that blogpost

and let's remember riverbend is just a blog...

but there is nothing in that blogpost to justify, or qualify in any way, your assertion that the insurgency is all 'BS' made up and committed by US forces.

[radwriter0555]

100. Ah, so if it's not written by someone else, it's not possible? Who do you

think should be the FIRST person to say the insurgents are not killing each other? Should it be george bush? Or one of the bush reporters? Or a pentagon official? Who is possibly more credible than me? Who would you believe?

Why can't it be ME that says the bush regime is a pack of liars and that the insurgents are NOT killing each other? Or is it imperitive that you believe only specific news sources?

Then, I'd like to understand why you insist on relying on bush approved news sources for your information.

What scares you so much about the concept that the iraqis are NOT killing themselves and each other, clearly this notion has touched a nerve.

Are you absolutely sure that the same men who would torture and rape iraqis would NOT also plant bombs on them, in their cars, in their markets and in our sky scrapers and on our own planes?

Are you absolutely SURE that I am completely wrong?

Are you so sure that I simply cannot be the first one to say it out loud simply because I'm here.. on DU... sitting in a hotel in Rome, Italy, trying to make you understand that the world as told by bush is not what it seems, and it never has been.

[Kalish]

101. once again, you've offered not a shred of evidence

to support your absurd claims.

not a shred.

a delusional rant is not evidence of anything.

[radwriter0555]

114. Bush didn't offer any evidence either. I have though, read reports that

were quickly suppressed, one here on DU in fact, a couple months ago.

It was a story about a guy driving a truck filled with watermelons that was 'searched' by US troops, and within an hour of arriving at market, blew up. The driver believed and said that the troops put the bomb in his truck.

Stuff disappears real fast on the net, but for me, the particular article I read was a real 'ah ha'.. but I can't find it in the archives.

I don't have proof, I have a hunch and I have the knowledge of how the US operates, and how the Mossad operates (got beheadings?), and irksome as it is, my hunches are rarely wrong. I call shit all the time that's right... however bothersome that is.

You still haven't offered any explanation to the contrary actually, of why the iraqis are allegedly killing each other. The riverbend bloggers has stated several times that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are united for the first time ever.

[bryant69]

110. Yeah

OK.

You dont' have any proof of thus other than the vague "Iraqis are good people, and Americans are Bastards?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bribri16]

93. Not nuts. Just ask the Iraqis on the ground there. It'a a great tactic

used by the US, UK, and Israel. A lot of our war crimes comes from the Israeli war book, like shooting enemy in the head multiple times. We have become what we say we abhor.

[KansDem]

104. Why is it "nuts?"

Bush and his ilk are proven liars. Why believe their line of BS? From which sources do you get your news?

[Kalish]

105. to say that insurgency is fake

that the attacks are carried out by clandestine US forces is insane.

not a shred of evidence for that.

not even the 'liberal media' would agree with that.

so why are you getting on my case?

huh?

[KansDem]

106. Take a look at "Operation Northwoods"

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

ABCNews used to have a more extensive article on this, including the name of the chairman of the joint chiefs. Now, however, the information has been toned down a lot, probably so as not to offend the Bushistas.

Here are some other links:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22operation+northwoods%22

So if the US military brass was prepared to terrorize US citizens into supporting a war with Cuba, why can't you believe it would terrorize Iraqi citizens in an attempt to propagandize Bush's war?

[Kalish]

107. that's not evidence

that the insurgency is all a big fake made up by the US...

can give me any evidence of that? AAR would disagree with you. the Nation would disagree with you. in fact, you and radwriter are the ONLY two anywhere that I've seen push this idea that the the insurgency is fake and it's the US planting the bombs and IEDs in Iraq.

So I guess American troops are planting IEDs to blow up fellow American troops to continue the war?

[geek tragedy]

108. Why settle for evidence that doesn't support your claim when you

can rely on idle speculation that does?

[Kalish]

109. It boggles my mind that more people on DU don't

challenge this kind of thinking...

[geek tragedy]

111. It's like debating the Kansas state board of Education on intelligent

design.

[Kalish]

112. I can see that

I can envision the similarities. It's a form of fundamentialist wingerism, that is rampant on both the left and the right. They start with a preconceived view of the world, and facts to the contrary are dismissed using often hilarious leaps in logic. But they just dig in their heals and won't give an inch. They are so afraid.

[KansDem]

113. "So I guess American troops are planting IEDs ...

...to blow up fellow American troops to continue the war?"

Where did I say this? You discounted the possibility that the insurgency could benefit from covert ops, calling it "nuts." I simply pointed out that the US military brass has a record of reverting to convert ops to gain a psychological advantage. Now, you make a wild-assed speculation based on my post about American troops killing American troops in order to continue this war. I never said that and you know it.

[DS1]

77. How do you know this?

Are you suggesting U.S. forces are planting explosives in the vehicles of unwitting bombers?

[Kalish]

80. no kidding this guy is 'out there'

and I have some other suspicions as well.

No one normal puts forth a rant like he just did.

[radwriter0555]

86. I'm a lady, for your information. I'm not a freeper, I've been on this

board longer than most. And I'm always right.

You're the one who is questioning why the iraqis are killing each other. What's YOUR answer? Are they blood thirsty muslims who can't control themselves? Are they wild native people who hate each other MORE than they hate the US death squads? Are they even people at all, or are they, in your eyes, just animals who deserve to be killed?

What's YOUR answer? Why do YOU think the iraqis are killing each other? You didn't like MY answer, so what's yours?

[Kalish]

88. "I'm always right"

Modest too.

[jobycom]

2. Same reason we are

They see the civilians they are targetting as part of the enemy. They target the civilians who are colaborating with the US.

Same as the French Resistance in WWII. Wars are always the same. You can write the history of each one before they begin. You might get the names and battles wrong, and maybe even the outcome, but the course of the war will be the same: one side invades, civilians die; the other side fights back, civilians die; each side has to teach the other a lesson, civilians die; eventually someone wins, and the winner kills more civilians to prove they won.

[Kalish]

6. not collaborators

it's largely indiscriminate...

[jobycom]

15. To an outsider, maybe

You remember when Rove said that liberals want to get to know their enemies? Well, that's why we do. To figure out what they are doing. The media and the Bush team doesn't know the enemy, so they see random attacks. The attacks aren't random, they are targetted at Iraqis whom they see as collaborators. That may, to them, mean an Iraqi who is fighting for the US, or an Iraqi who is supporting the US supported government, or it may mean an Iraqi who is standing in a line in a part of town where the US claims to have defeated the rebels, and thus an Iraqi who is implicitly trusting the Americans for their protection.

The aim is to show Iraqis that they will be punished for siding with the Americans. Again, same as every war.

[Kalish]

21. It's no way to build solidarity

morale, or public support.

[jobycom]

27. They are not trying to build any of those

They are trying to drive us out, and the way they do that is by keeping people from accepting us.

[Selatius]

30. No, but history teaches us a different story

Historically, it is not uncommon for those seen as collaborating for the foreign occupying power to be targeted. This was very, very common in South Vietnam during US involvement in that war. I'm not going to say it's right or wrong, but with guerrilla warfare, this is a phenomenon that does pop up.

[Swede]

3. To stir up hatred between Sunnis and Shiites.

This just adds to the chaos.

[Kalish]

10. Yeah I've heard that, but it still doesn't make sense to me

First off, it is still mind boggling that they would kill thousands of innocents like that just to set off a civil war.

But the Iraqi insurgents drawn from Iraq have some Shiite and Sunni in them.

The outside Jihad elements are aligned somewhat with the local insurgency.

I just can't imagine the Shiite elements of the insurgency would tolerate such wanton killing.

[ConfuZed]

5. Because the americans rarely go out on patrols anymore

Its usually the iraqi police

[MisterP]

7. the answer could be the Wolf Brigades in two fashions:

"civilians and police" being targeted may be the death brigades members (note that Negroponte was Proconsul or whatever in our new colony, and that Newsweek noted that we had gone with the "Salvador option"--that is, death squads).
In the 60's and 70's, Operation Gladio and other documented stay-behind organizations performed terrorist attacks to be blamed on the
"far left"--the Milan train bombing in 1980 blew the lid off of that, and they rose to power in Turkey under "our boys" in the Evren dictatorship: many here noted that the Baghdad UN bombing was on the same day that cameraman Mazen Dana was shot to death near Abu Ghraib by U.S. troops
(of course, there may be homegrown and overseas people who are just plain terrorists--all twenty of them)

[brentspeak]

8. Because they're blood-thirsty killers

Most of the insurgants are either Saddam supporters, Shiite fundamentalists, or terrorists filtering in from the unprotected Iraqi borders.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

13. Or just Iraqis who want us to get the fuck out of their country.

[brentspeak]

26. I think you're confused about something:

You seem to believe that one must liken the insurgants to the Minutemen as a prerequisite for opposing the war. I both oppose the war vehemently and despise the insurgants. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[mzmolly]

9. Why ask us? And, why did/does the US target civilians? They both do it

for the "shock and awe" factor.

They are both using misguided rationale for killing innocent people - there is no logical answer to that question.

[Kalish]

11. Tactically

it seems a poor choice, especially for people who are claiming to fight for Iraqi freedom and Muslim honor.

It just seems like a very poor tactic.

[mzmolly]

14. It's a poor tactic on both sides. The US claims to be "liberating" Iraq.

They're both full of shit.

[jobycom]

16. We targetted civilians in Fallujah

Was that really a poor choice, or was it a ruthless scheme to show the Fallujans who they should fear most? The rebels in Iraq are using the same tactic.

[Kalish]

20. We deliberately targeted unarmed civilians?

[jobycom]

24. According to eyewitness accounts, yes, that's exactly what we did.

On edit: They were all civilians. There was no army in Fallujah.

[Kalish]

28. 'they were all civilians'

You can't just call them all civilians. There were fighters there who had attacked US troops, and murderous kidnappers as well. Some real bad elements.

[jobycom]

32. They were bakers and dentists and accountants and plumbers

who were defending their mothers and fathers and children and way of life. Same as you or I would do if a nation invaded our home town.

[Kalish]

37. 'same way as you or I would'

Bullshit.

I wouldn't blow up gas tankers killing fellow Americans. I wouldn't kidnap and behead people.

[mzmolly]

42. Would you drop a napalm bomb on them? How bout a bunker buster?

Fire a tank, perhaps?

Or do you find it preferable for you and your loved ones to be ripped to shreds by a US bomb vs. a handmade one?

[Sparkly]

47. The fighting in Fallujah continued

after US troops called a truce and left.

The violence in Iraq is not solely about the US. Yes, we created it by going into a tinderbox and lighting a match. But they don't only fight US forces -- they fight each other, as well, and the powers in Fallujah were NOT peaceful to citizens there.

[mzmolly]

50. What makes you think I am not aware of this?

:hi:

My point is that some feel it's ok that we kill innocents, yet question the "motives" of the insurgency.

[Sparkly]

54. Maybe I misinterpreted your post.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

61. I think ya did.

;)

S'alright. I may have been unclear.

[Kalish]

52. If I was fighting what I considered to be an occupying force

here in America. I would target the occupying force, not innocent fellow Americans. I wouldn't burn my fellow Americans alive with exploding gas tanks, I know that much. I also wouldn't behead civilians. Those things I can guarantee you I would not do.

[Selatius]

57. What if they were collaborating with the occupying army?

Would you target them?

[Kalish]

62. People in a market, families in a market

doing shopping were not collaboring in any sense of the word.

I suppose I would target people who were clearly collaborating and fighting on the other side.

But the innocents killed by the insurgent's bombs are not collaborators just people trying to live their lives.

[Selatius]

65. Yes, this is true, but if you will note...

many of the ING recruitment centers as well as police recruitment centers are, unfortunately, located in heavily populated areas such as marketplaces. While they may have succeeded in killing Iraqi guardsmen and police officers seen as aiding and abetting the foreign occupying power, chances are there are going to be civilians among the dead bodies as well.

The fact that most (but I wouldn't say all) of the car bombs and suicide bombers have been targeting police stations, ING barracks, recruitment centers is probably not lost on Iraqis in general.

[ConsAreLiars]

69. And the innocents killed by the PNAC swine?

There are 10 times as many. Spend a little time looking at who "we" have killed and maimed. 10 times as many as "the insurgents." Then get back to us with your moral outrage about what "they" have done.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

(edit to add " where missing)

[Kalish]

70. Can't we talk about both?

Or on DU can we only talk about PNAC?

[ConsAreLiars]

73. When the PNAC group begins such a chaos,

they are responsible for every death, every dismemberment, every maiming, every starvation, every Depleted Uranium birth defect, every "terrorist act" that follows. To believe otherwise is delusional.

[Kalish]

75. I can say the Bush Administration made a grave mistake

but I still don't personally absolve the war crimes committed by other side.

[ConsAreLiars]

78. A "mistake?" You must be kidding yourself, or lying to yourself.

It was completely premeditated act of aggression. They laid out their plans long ago, before the SCOTUS installed them at the head of the US gov't. With absolutely predictable results. Exactly what is happening now. They are absolutely and completely responsible for every death and injury to Iraqi civilians and US soldiers ever since the invasion began.

[Kalish]

81. whatever you want to call it

they fucked up. big time.

but that doesn't make the other side comprised entirely of angels. there are some bad, bad people over there.

[ConsAreLiars]

85. Not a "fuck-up." A plan. Get real. Stop trying to excuse those monsters.

And who ever claimed that "angels" are on either side. One side started this war, and if they are not the personification of evil, then that word has no meaning.

[mzmolly]

59. I wouldn't target civilians in a war either.

But as I said, you can't make sense out of a senseless war.

[jobycom]

45. Then you'd be a traitor

And you'd be the target of the American rebels.

[Sparkly]

51. True.

And that's part of the infighting going on now. The American vs. American situation you described is part of what's going on with Iraqis fighting Iraqis.

It's all too easy to oversimplify the situation and assume that they are ONLY fighting the US.

[jobycom]

94. Exactly what I said. nt.

[Kalish]

58. So I'd be a traitor

to American rebels for not targeting Americans civilians?

Ok yeah I get it now.

[jobycom]

95. Yes

If you get it, then you understand what's happening in Iraq.

[geek tragedy]

96. Welcome to the perspective of the reactionary left.

Iraqis not trying to kill Americans are traitorous scum in this viewpoint.

Remember the murder of election workers by insurgents? The reactionary leftists here advocated the side of the murderers.

Which just goes to show that not all fascists are on the right, and not everyone on the left is a progressive.

[Kalish]

102. yep

I've known that for awhile. It's tragic really. And it's the reason I've never gone to an anti-war rally, at least not the ones in my neck of the woods.

[Selatius]

53. This ultimately depends on you

I don't know how you'd react if you lost, for instance, your entire family, but I know I wouldn't stop until either the people who killed my family are dead or until I'm dead.

Given the amount of civilian casualties as a result of the invasion, I would suspect a good number of Iraqi resistance fighters are simply out there fighting out of grief and rage and a want for revenge. The one's that deserve the most contempt, however, are the ones who are fighting not for anything but their own selfish grab for power or for some twisted religious ideology that calls for driving planes into office towers or blowing up trains and subways.

During America's own Revolutionary War, it was not uncommon for Loyalists to be targeted for killing by Revolutionaries for collaborating with the British Crown.

[Sparkly]

39. joby, the US backed out of Fallujah for a time.

It didn't work -- warlords were further oppressing and fighting innocent people there.

[jobycom]

99. Only because

we had destroyed their government and had no effective system to replace it.

That's exactly why you don't go to war to remove a leader. You don't get peace when you do that. You get lawlessness. Even a brutal dictator brings more peace than anarchy does.

[Sparkly]

35. That's disputed, to say the least.

There wasn't a uniformed "army" there, but there was horrific violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah

[jobycom]

98. Don't we have two videotapes

of American soldiers shooting unarmed and wounded people in Fallujah? One was during the second bombardment, and IIRC, the first was earlier. The soldier in the second killing was recently cleared of any wrongdoing, though the man he shot was lying on the ground, and unarmed, and seemed to be asking for help.

What you mean to say, I guess, is that the numbers are disputed, or that this was our official aim is disputed. Not that our soldiers targetted civilians.

The American troops gave warning to Fallujah that any male over the age of sixteen left in the city was considered an insurgent when we began our bombardment. Independent eye-witness accounts, even from western journalists, describe soccer fields stacked with bodies, many women and children, and many men over the age of sixteen. Bodies lay in the streets because people were afraid to retrieve them. All the usual horror stories.

Our own returning soldiers have told stories of shooting civilians at checkpoints. Our own military investigations have shown cases in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib, to name two well-publicized examples, of our soldier beating and/or torturing people to death, even knowing they were civilians, and even knowing they were innocent of anything they were charged with.

Even if these are isolated examples, they point out what happens in a war, especially a war where the ultimate leadership has made no effort to control such brutality. No one has been punished for the homocides (that's how the military classified them) of two prisoners in Afghanistan (unless charges have recently been filed). Very little was done about Abu Ghraib. The news was full of soldiers shooting up civilians at checkpoints, even killing an Italian negotiator who had jsut succeeded in freeing a hostage. None of these soldiers were punished. Some were tried and then freed, including the soldier who shot an unarmed prisoner on videotape in Fallujah.

This gives the message that soldiers will receive the benefit of the doubt when a civilian is killed. There is no doubt soldiers targetted innocent, unarmed civilians. The question is just how widespread it was. That's a fine point that I doubt the angry rebels in the city would make when trying to whip up more anger at the US.

[Selatius]

38. Ultimately, we won't know what happened in Fallujah until the war ends

Until then, the US certainly would not allow anyone into the shattered city to run a thorough investigation.

One thing is clear though: That city is a shattered moonscape of ruined buildings and bomb craters. We destroyed that city to save it.

[Sparkly]

44. That's the sad truth. n/t

[0007]

116. The U.S. has killed many unarmed Iraqi civilians......

[deadparrot]

12. Because warlords emerge in a war.

Cruel people who wouldn't normally thrive except in the midst of chaos and violence.

Some of the what the media calls insurgents are, I'm sure, protecting their loved ones and their personal posessions. I know I would if my country was being invaded by a foreign army. But others are just cruel human beings who are able to run rampant when there's no law and order.

[Kalish]

25. I suppose to a great extent you are right

The environment as it exists in Iraq brings out the cruelty in a lot of people, and insanity even.

[deadparrot]

34. Such an atmosphere can definitely cause mass hysteria

and insanity on a number of levels.

Also, some people are bad. They were bad before we invaded, and they'll continue to be bad long after. The ones that advocate death and violence against innocents and anyone who doesn't adhere to or fit into their strict standards. Ideally, such people would be kept at the fringes of society, but given the long-term issues in the Middle East, not to mention our presence there in recent years, it's a lot easier for these people to take over and to gain power and influence.

When people have nothing, I think for the most part they'll rally behind strength to protect themselves, even if said strength advocates, or is responsible, for horrendous wrongs and crimes against humanity.

War changes people, it changes countries and civilizations. It's a whole new way of thinking and living, I think, and hard to understand unless you're there in the midst of it.

[Kalish]

67. I think what you say is true

For someone 18 years old you're quite wise.

[deadparrot]

68. Thanks.

I read obsessively. And, I've had a great education. A liberal elitist, to be sure.

:)

[Sparkly]

17. It's a complicated situation.

There are three main sects, and opposing groups within those sects, and factions within those groups, and feuding families within those factions... This bungled invasion stirred up a whole hornets nest, and it's been reported that the US is remarkably unaware of who's fighting who and for what.

The most visible problem is that the Sunnis do not feel they'll be represented by the new government, and they aren't accepting it. Others, including people who've come into Iraq from other countries, want to fight Americans -- in part because BushCo has rattled the saber and warned them that if Iraq succeeds, they could be next on our list of countries to invade.

[Kalish]

19. I just can't imagine what they think could be gained

by blowing up a gas tanker in a crowded market. I just don't see the strategy. It's so horrific it would seem like it would backfire on them.

[Sparkly]

23. It does backfire on them.

Somebody else drives a car bomb into another crowded area. It's urban warfare, and it can't be won through our military alone. The only solution is a political one.

[mzmolly]

36. "Violence begets violence" both sides are claiming "God/Allah"

is fighting along side them, both justify the murder of innocents.

Neither side makes much sense, war doesn't make sense.

You can't make sense out of senselessness.

[manic expression]

118. They are determined to destroy the occupation

even if it causes pain for Iraqis. They are that focused on that goal. They want to cripple the US' ability to have an occupation (take out their gas, pretty good plan actually), no matter what the cost.

Mind you, there are different parts of the "insurgency" with TOTALLY different goals. They also use different tactics.

[sam sarrha]

18. The Sunni's hate the Shiites ... no problem.. kill them, send them back to

Allah who will straighten them out and have them reborn Sunni's.

ya got to do what you got to do.. :shrug:

[Selatius]

22. Many of the attacks are launched against police stations/army depots

As a result, Iraqi national guardsmen and police officers are naturally the target, but because police recruitment centers, police stations, Iraqi National Guard recruitment centers, ING depots/barracks, etc. are located in heavily populated areas, there's invariably going to be innocent people caught in the crossfire. This is the nature of war. There are no smart bombs.

These police officers and guardsmen are probably seen as collaborators and thus traitors in the eyes of some number of Iraqis.

[jzodda]

29. The Reasons are simple

First its easier to attack civilians. Whenever they have attacked our troops they have suffered heavy losses for the most part.

Next Its Sunni's attacking Shite muslims. You see the Sunni arabs were the ones benefiting from Husseins rule. They helped to keep the majority Shite's down in the gutter. Now that the worm has turned and the Shites are the ones with power the Sunnis have decided they can not accept this and so want to kill them. Also the terrorist groups there that are part of the insurgency are Sunni. They think the Shite branch of the religion is heresy and that Shites in general are "dogs" They have said as much in their recordings and notes to the media.


So its taking out their frustration on the people they hate, and they people they do not want to control them. Also many of the Iraqi troops sent to Sunni area are Pesh Merga (Kurds) and Dawa (Shite militants with Iranian backing) The Sunnis REALLY hate those guys and so want to kill them bad

[mzmolly]

31. Why do you think DU speaks for the insurgency?

eom

[Kalish]

41. I don't

I just want to talk about it. I can't figure out the motivation. It strikes me at times as just pure nihilism.

[mzmolly]

49. Well, we know they aren't motivated by oil profits like we are.

Tough to analyze murder when there is no Haliburton $ to be made ey?

[seabeyond]

60. you know not all attacks are iraqi. you know u.s. left border open

for terrorist. you know we are fighting on their soil, in iraq, to encourage the terrorist to fight our soldiers in a country that had nothing to do with terrorism.

you know many of these people are from saudi arabia and other countries to specifically fight u.s. and that we profess better to fight there, (and loss of iraqi innocent lives) than here, where americans will die

does that help clear some of it up for you

why are you assuming the insurgients are the one killing their own. how do you know that they are. before you assume this to be the case, i would like some factual information

it is much more reasoned to me that the insurgency is fighting against the soldiers and the iraqi police and army

the terrorist involved in the innocent deaths of mass murder with no conscience

you do know we just drove by some iraqi's and soldier shot them and moved on, assuming they might be up to know good. one was a general of police? army?

why is invading a country horrible. why does it never work to invade a country. why didnt we learn this so many years ago

why did bush get elected

[seabeyond]

33. most of insurgents are going after police and army

some of the attacks are sunni against shiite. and some of the bombings are outsiders, example many from bush's friend saudi arabia that came over the unmanned borders left wide open. i would imagine they are the ones sitting off the car bombs that are indiscriminate of the victim. this is solely to create horrors, and continue with the chaos and keep the people or iraq in constant fear for the purpose of fighting the united states. some can argue that we the united dtates are unltimately responsible for these innocent deaths seeing how our purpose was to go over to that country to fight exactly these people in another country that had nothing to do with the iraqi's in the first place so the american people wouldnt be in the cross hair(suffer loss of life) of these terrorists

but then you probably knew this already

our lives on this soil is much more important and valuable than the iraqi people, from what we say in all our arrogance.

[delen]

40. This is my first post at DU

Good evening

What seems to be happening is we have started a religious sectarian war in Iraq. The Shiites are the majority and were persecuted under Saddam. The sunni's are the minority and fear reprisal from the new Shiite government. All that being said - what is even stranger is that in Iran Bushco seems to supporting sunnis. So it would seem that on one hand in Iraq * is backing Shiites against sunni's and is trying to do reverse in Iran. Keep in mind that one of the richest oil Fields on earth lyes on the Iraq-Iran border extending about 35 miles on either side.

[deadparrot]

48. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[jzodda]

56. welcome!

[fujiyama]

43. Some

I think want to try to bring more discontent among the Iraqi population, hoping this will force more Iraqis to fight the US, because of the lack of security. When the children are bombed, it is served as a warning of sorts to parents, telling them not to interact in any way with the US troops.

Others are Sunnis frustrated being out of power. Then you also have Shiites that want a theocracy.

Some view anyone even interacting with the US as being collaborators (like those training for security forces).

I'd say this is ultimately a power game with different sides vying. There is a complete political vaacum there, with no real civil authority or infrastructure (inspite of whatever "success" the "elections" had).

The "insurgents" shouldn't be idealized by anyone because it's not a true guerilla force. The indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians cannot be excused in any context. It's mindless terrorism, whether commited by us, or the insugents.

But the key point to keep in mind is that this was all the result of invading, so ultimately Bush and Blair deserve the blame for any civilian death, even if it caused by terrorist there.

[ConsAreLiars]

46. You are misinformed.

They are mostly targetting the invaders, their collaborators, mercenaries, logistics and support facilities, and puppet gov't satraps, using the same sort of indiscriminate bombing attacks that the PNAC goons are using, although with somewhat less "collateral damage."

[wiggs]

66. Thank you. Premise of the question is wrong. AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY...

it is important to recognize that war is ugly, irrational, insane, cruel and inhumane....with respect to both sides.

THAT'S WHY YOU FUCKING DON'T GO TO WAR UNLESS YOU HAVE TO AS A LAST RESORT!!

President of Egypt said we would create 100 Osama bin Ladens if we attacked Iraq. Ritter said we would make 27 million insurgents if we invaded Iraq. Hussein himself said Americans would end up leaving Iraq in body bags, not able to stomach the bloodshed.

Guerilla insurgencies and terrorist attacks were easily predicted...you've got the most powerful military in the history of the world attacking a miserable, defeated country where half of the population is under 18 years old. There is no other form of resistance possible other than stealth attacks against US and their collaborators. Anything to derail the powerhouse of momentum towards permanent occupation. Yes...innocents are killed by both sides and that is disgusting, unfair, illegal, and immoral. It is also inevitable that the fever of war will cause some to make these decisions...use of napalm, cluster bombs, suicide bombs, torture, etc..

Another related topic for another day: the US may not be working too hard to limit civilian deaths (from both sides!) and to prevent chaos and civil war. The more chaos, the more reason to stay. How else to explain insecure borders, allowing Iraqi military to go home with their guns, allowing looting of weapons sites, using Kurds in Fallujia, Abu Ghraib type humiliation, no rebuilding of Iraq, no use of Iraqi work forces for rebuilding, awesomely ineffective training of Iraqiis as soldiers and policemen, and fixing of iraq election to make sure there would not be a dominant stabilizing political force?

[durutti]

55. Most don't.

http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/04/casualties-of-colonial-wars-kenya-and.html

[knight_of_the_star]

63. Create distrust

If the Iraqi people feel that the occupying forces and the provisional gov't can't protect them, then that will give the insurgency more people to recruit and more people who will shelter them. A democracy, even a fake one without the trust of their citizens cannot function.

[musical_soul]

64. Self-interest.

Their concern is not really about freedom for all of Iraq's people. It's about getting the country to move in the direction that they want it to. Therefore, those who "collaborate" with us (by voting, wanting to participate in the process, and so forth) are in danger. They're even targeting their own fellow Sunnis.

I don't want an imperial takeover by us, but I do not believe that these people have all of Iraq's best interests in mind.

[neweurope]

74. I agree with Mister P. I think the US is responsible for most

of the attacks, not Iraqis, or if Iraqis then as collaborateurs but on behalf of the US.

We know about "Operation Gladio", a Europe-wide operation of the CIA, totally illegal, unbelievable really, which caused many hundreds of deaths. Who, after that, could ever believe the government / the CIA again? I've determined to wait at least 20 years before I believe anything. Truth will get out sooner or later.

It's in no Iraqi's interest to further destroy his country. There was no conflict between Sunni and Shia; the all important tribes usually have both Sunni and Shia members. It IS in the interest of the US, though. Follow the money. That's always the best course.

And, for God's sake, don't believe the informations of a government who years ago ANNOUNCED that it would use disinformation!

--------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Trajan]

82. I know you have gotten lots of answers ....

MANY seem a tad off base, eh ? ...

MANY are jaded ... They see duplicity and subterfuge everywhere, and perhaps they do ....

Nevertheless, I am here to report that fanatics exist, and they are willing to do nearly ANYTHING to upset the status quo ... I believe that ignorant and fanatical muslims are recruited to execute these acts, and frankly, they arent wise enough to recognize the folly of their actions ....

WHY do men fly planes loaded with bombs over neighborhoods and release those bombs KNOWING FULL WELL they will hit homes where children and women live ?

Fanatical adherence to an idiomatic code inexorably implanted through continual indoctrination ...

In other words: Men are plumb crazy ....

Nothing more to add .....

[Kalish]

83. 'men are plumb crazy'

I hear ya.

[geek tragedy]

97. Their goal is to create havoc and destabilize the entire country.

They want to make the country utterly unmanageable so that the interim government and US efforts to stabilize the country will be discredited as unable to provide security.

You'll find a number of people here who are generally supportive, or who apologize for, terrorism and murder directed at Iraqis, as long as it's the enemy doing it. Such people also pretend that they care about the lives of Iraqis when the subject is the behavior of US forces.

[Kalish]

103. just like the neocons

they only care about the Iraqis if things are going their way.

[mountebank]

117. Bingo - finally.

The first step of any insurgency is to create a deep distrust with the occupying force, to show that they are unable to provide stability and protection. The Iraqi insurgency is doing this very effectively. Now this creates a lot of distress and confusion for folks like us, because many of us think it is important that the U.S. fails to acheive its objectives in Iraq, yet we also cannot bring ourselves to condone violence from either side against innocent civilians (who, let's face it, are the target of many of the insurgency's bombs). It's a regrettable dilemma that the Bush Administration put us in - but remember that it wasn't your idea to create a situation where those sorts of choices are made, nor is your "choice" at all relevant. You don't actually have to choose whether you want civilians blown up by the insurgency or "accidentally" killed by U.S. missiles (one could, of course, argue that if you know "collateral damage" is a certainty, and you send a missile in anyway, the death of civilians is hardly accidental). It's damned if you do and damned if don't - and therefore is a choice best left to our friends in the White House.

[William Bloode]

115. I see it this way.

The most reasonable explanation to me is like this. Revolutionaries, and agitators, freedom fighters, terrorists etc. will often target civilians as a way to create chaos, and fear. This gives the perception that the status quo is not protecting you, hence making the average citizen non supportive. Also by performing such actions it causes the opposition to become more strict, and harsh as they try to quell such actions, which in turn offends/victimizes the citizens thus turning them against the government(legit or not)even more.