Iraq
REDACTED
April 16, 2008
For those who wish to watch Redacted by De Palma. The whole film can be watched here.
It's 1h.30mn. And as M who forwarded me the link, satirically said "Get a pack of cigarettes, a bottle of your favorite drink....and watch on...and please don't forget the popcorns."
The film was inspired by REAL events in "liberated" Iraq, one of which is the rape of Abeer Al Janabi, 15 yo, who was gang raped by your brave boys and then burnt, and have her family massacred.
The pictures at the end of the film are REAL. So is your Occupation...
So enjoy your Occupation!
:: Article nr. 43124 sent on 17-apr-2008 02:51 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=43124
Link: arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2008/04/redacted.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Notes from the Iraqi Resistance...
April 13, 2008
This post is a transcript of the interview with M.Al-Shammari,(head of the Islamic Army of Iraq/IAI) aired on Al-Jazeerah on the 9th of April 2008, an interview conducted by Ahmad Mansour.
M.Al-Shammari replies and comments are in Italics. IAI is ONE faction of the Iraqi Resistance(IR).
I have tried regrouping his replies under headings to simplify it for the reader.Please do remember that this a transcript from hand written notes.
1) Words of Introduction by Al-Shammari - in response to a question re.the surge and the IR.
Petraeus did not make any progress in Iraq. This is nothing but another lie in the series of lies started by Bush with his WMD's. There is no progress.
The Resistance has not changed its strategy which is the end of the occupation. Petraeus alleged that the attacks are down by 60% when 2007 was the year that witnessed the highest rate of attacks.
The Resistance did change its tactics but not its strategy. The Americans are desperate for some calm before the November elections, but the Resistance will decide when to implement an upsurge in its attacks against the occupier, maybe during certain "crucial moments" but this is up to the Resistance to decide when and how. As I said, there is a change of tactics but not of strategy.
2) What about the "drop" in the IR attacks ?
What looks like a current "drop" is not a weakness. We are a realist/pragmatic movement. There have been changes in the Iraqi political scene, namely Al-Qaeda, the Sahwa and the sectarian Shiite militias and we adapt accordingly. There have been many attempt to "purify" the Resistance by the occupiers and others...
So, no, we did not dissolve or dilute, either against Al-Qaeda or the sectarian Shiite Militias.
In fact the Americans by backing the sectarian Shiite militias wanted just that, to weaken us. Remember that we are facing a dual occupation, we've said in the past and we repeat it again, a dual occupation by the US and Iran.
3) On Sectarianism.
a) You have been accused of Sunni Sectarianism, what do you have to say to that?
The IR protected Shiites in many areas from their own death squads. The IR has condemned and condemns attacks on civilians, we do not blow up markets filled with innocent lives. This is a propaganda tactic by the occupier to discredit us. Suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians, beheadings, car bombs and the rest are all the work of the Occupation, the mercenaries, the Mossad, the Iranian militias and its sectarian squads. On many occasions, cars have been stopped at checkpoints only to find out that during their search they (US forces and militias) have planted bombs in them without the car owner's knowledge.
The IR does not do such things. We need the Iraqi people, all of the Iraqi people, it is from them that we draw force and support, how can we target them ? We are a Resistance movement against the Occupation (both American and Iranian) not against the Iraqi people. We need our people. How can we kill our own people ?
The sectarian parties and militias backed by Iran and the US started the sectarian and civil war. We do not blame the Shias but the parties and the militias who are totally bought by Iran and who managed to co-opt some of the Iraqi Arab Shiites to their side. A good number of Arab shias are aware of that, and a number of Shia tribes in the South have spoken out against the Iranian influence and we have contact with them and encourage them. They reject these militias and the Iranian influence. Leaders of these sectarian Shiite parties and their religious representatives terrorize the Shias, by calling them "Kafirs" (disbelievers) if they don't follow such and such party or militia...
Our theological differences with Shiism can be resolved through discussion, we are not anti-Shiism. We are anti sectarian Shiite parties and militias who are supported by Iran.
Our program is the liberation of ALL Iraqis and Iraq from the Occupation. We are not here to liberate Sunnis alone. Ours was never a Sunni program alone. We do not follow such sectarian thinking.
Had Sunnis been sectarian, then historically, during the Abbassid, Ummayad and Ottoman eras (eras of Sunni rule) the Sunnis would have wiped out all other sects, including the Shias, but that has evidently not been the case. Our stand is for the Islamic Umma not for the Sunni sect. We defend the whole of Iraq not just the Sunnis.
b) But the Resistance is nonetheless majority Sunni, and stayed Sunni, has it not ?
The Iraqi Resistance is majority Sunni by default. The U.S. is the one who brought the sectarian Shiite parties and militias when it invaded and occupied. And they were/are backed by Iran. The Marjaiya (Shiite theological council) backed these parties and militias. The U.S is the one who brought the division of Iraq into sects and ethnicities. Arabs - Sunnis and Shiites, and Kurds. The Americans in yet another lie, said that Sunni represent only 20% of the Iraqi population, when in fact the Sunni represented 43% of the population. Hence their logic was/is, since Sunnis are such a minority, they really don't count much in the "democratic process" since they are a negligible portion, hence Federalism/Partition is a viable option. And in Iraq, Federalism means Partition.
4) On Al-Qaeda and the Sahwa (Awakening Council)
Bush spoke of the Sunni intifada against Al-Qaeda through the Sahwa. What is the influence/role of the Sahwa on the Iraqi Resistance ?
There are s five types of Sahwa members.
- Some are paid allies of the Americans (sell outs) and are working for them.
- Others have joined because they have been without income and have been unemployed for many years and that was one of the American tactics
- Others realized that Iran had a full grip over the sectarian militias and that they posed the most immediate threat after all the sectarian cleansing that took place.
- some are just financial opportunist
- some as a reaction to the works of Al-Qaeda.
But a good deal of those who joined the Sahwa are realizing that their true interests lie with the Resistance and many have backtracked and left the Sahwa. And we are a pragmatic movement, and we realize that the Sahwa is also due to the works of Al-Qaeda. Moreover, the Sunnis have been targets for the US forces, the AQ and the sectarian government and its militias.
With Al-Qaeda, we've had conflict and clashes. Their hidden strategy of targeting our mosques, academics, markets, civilians, and ex-army officers who fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war-- raised many questions and as to what their hidden agenda is.
Furthermore their "takfeeree"(accusing someone of being an unbeliever) program for both Sunnis and Shiites was unacceptable to us. They managed to cause a split within the Sunnis and this makes us doubt their intentions. They even targeted our own Resistance fighters. Our policy is not to directly fight them but we will defend ourselves against any of their attacks and we pray that they be guided to the right path and cease their hostilities. The latest Bin Laden message had in fact a negative impact. Our differences with AQ are not political, but IDEOLOGICAL.
5) On Muqtada Al-Sadr.
The latest events in Basra with the Mahdi resistance fighters . Do you consider this Shia resistance rising along the same path as your Resistance ? Are they anti Maliki and anti-Occupation?
In the very beginning when Muqtada Al-Sadr in 2004 in Nejaf, was fighting the occupation, we welcomed him and encouraged him, until, the men (within his army) who fought the occupation were liquidated one by one and Muqtada and his men were co-opted by Iran...
We consider the Mahdi Army one of the worst militias, responsible for a lot of the sectarian cleansing that took place.
In fact, Muqtada and his men voted for Al-Maliki, and have been engaged in the political process for over 5 years now, is it now that they remembered the occupation and the resistance, after 5 years ?
Sadr's conflict with Maliki and the Badr Brigades is over the provincial elections and who controls the resources (oil)
If Muqtada Al-Sadr wants to be part of the Resistance, he needs to DESIST and stop displacing and exiling Iraqis, he needs to stop burning mosques and engaging in sectarian cleansing, which he has not stopped doing till this day...
6) On Maliki's "government" and Iran.
We do not recognize this puppet government issued from the occupation and we don't deal with it. The Maliki government is overtly pro-American and covertly pro-Iran. Hence Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq was no surprise to us. We have said it before and will repeat it, this is a dual occupation (American-Iranian).
There is an imperial convergence of interests between Iran and the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan. There is an Iranian imperialist design under the American imperialist design.
Iran opportunistically used its geographical proximity and its religious influence over the Shiites of Iraq to fulfill its imperialistic project - that of occupying Iraq. Iran in 8 years of war did not manage to secure anything in Iraq, but under the American banner it managed to achieve what it could not achieve in 8 years of bloody war.
The real victor in Iraq is Iran. Iran is after all a neighbor.
- When the axis of Evil welcomes the Great Satan and there has been 4 rounds of talks between the US and Iran what does that mean ?
As I said, there is a convergence of interests between the US and Iran, in their imperialist designs in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Inside of Iraq, Iran and the US are Muta'a partners (temporary marriage) and outside of Iraq there is a cold war going on between them. We don't know how long this Muta'a marriage will last in Iraq, maybe they will turn it into an American civil marriage.
Iran has occupied Iraq and has helped the U.S occupation. Iran's interests in Iraq are not just strategic but they also derive from greed. We all know the tactics of "taqiya" (dissimulation)and Maliki is serving both. It is in the interest of Iran not to have any form of stability in Iraq. The US and Iran are only fighting on who will get the bigger share of the cake.
- But Iran offered to pay 1 billion dollars for the reconstruction of Baghdad.
We don't need nor want Iran's money and contribution. We are against ALL occupation. Iranian or American.
7) On the Arab Countries' role
The Arabs by falling under the American hegemony have allowed Iran's influence to extend to the Gulf. The Arab countries have left Iraq to herself and forgot about their own Arab interests and submitted to Americans interests instead.
The Iraqi Resistance has a 14 point political program and its different factions even though may disagree on tactics, agree on the overall strategy.
The IAI has already visited Egypt, and we are establishing contacts with other Arab countries. I think they are seriously considering the points we have raised here...
8) On the future of the Occupation, Iraq and the US.
Iraq lives in a total daily chaos. Those who died, died because of the American/Iranian occupation. The occupation has created chaos -- political, economic and social chaos. It has torn apart the Iraqi social fabric.
The US is not serious about negotiating with the IR. We are open to negotiations and a withdrawal of the US troops.
But Bush is aiming for a definitive "victory" in Iraq before his end of term.
After 5 years, Bush is still hoping for a total victory. That is why he is pushing the Maliki government to sign a long term bilateral treaty with Iraq which will ensure both Federalism/Partition, oil, and a long term US presence.
For us Victory means totally Victory - the End of the Occupation(s)
:: Article nr. 43006 sent on 13-apr-2008 05:54 ECT
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=43006
Link: arabwomannews.blogspot.com/2008/04/notes-from-iraqi-resistance.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
____________________________
REDACTED
April 16, 2008 |
:: Article nr. 43124 sent on 17-apr-2008 02:51 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=43124
Link: arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2008/04/redacted.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Notes from the Iraqi Resistance...
|
April 13, 2008  This post is a transcript of the interview with M.Al-Shammari,(head of the Islamic Army of Iraq/IAI) aired on Al-Jazeerah on the 9th of April 2008, an interview conducted by Ahmad Mansour. M.Al-Shammari replies and comments are in Italics. IAI is ONE faction of the Iraqi Resistance(IR). I have tried regrouping his replies under headings to simplify it for the reader.Please do remember that this a transcript from hand written notes. 1) Words of Introduction by Al-Shammari - in response to a question re.the surge and the IR. Petraeus did not make any progress in Iraq. This is nothing but another lie in the series of lies started by Bush with his WMD's. There is no progress. The Resistance has not changed its strategy which is the end of the occupation. Petraeus alleged that the attacks are down by 60% when 2007 was the year that witnessed the highest rate of attacks. The Resistance did change its tactics but not its strategy. The Americans are desperate for some calm before the November elections, but the Resistance will decide when to implement an upsurge in its attacks against the occupier, maybe during certain "crucial moments" but this is up to the Resistance to decide when and how. As I said, there is a change of tactics but not of strategy. 2) What about the "drop" in the IR attacks ? What looks like a current "drop" is not a weakness. We are a realist/pragmatic movement. There have been changes in the Iraqi political scene, namely Al-Qaeda, the Sahwa and the sectarian Shiite militias and we adapt accordingly. There have been many attempt to "purify" the Resistance by the occupiers and others... So, no, we did not dissolve or dilute, either against Al-Qaeda or the sectarian Shiite Militias. In fact the Americans by backing the sectarian Shiite militias wanted just that, to weaken us. Remember that we are facing a dual occupation, we've said in the past and we repeat it again, a dual occupation by the US and Iran. 3) On Sectarianism. a) You have been accused of Sunni Sectarianism, what do you have to say to that? The IR protected Shiites in many areas from their own death squads. The IR has condemned and condemns attacks on civilians, we do not blow up markets filled with innocent lives. This is a propaganda tactic by the occupier to discredit us. Suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians, beheadings, car bombs and the rest are all the work of the Occupation, the mercenaries, the Mossad, the Iranian militias and its sectarian squads. On many occasions, cars have been stopped at checkpoints only to find out that during their search they (US forces and militias) have planted bombs in them without the car owner's knowledge. The IR does not do such things. We need the Iraqi people, all of the Iraqi people, it is from them that we draw force and support, how can we target them ? We are a Resistance movement against the Occupation (both American and Iranian) not against the Iraqi people. We need our people. How can we kill our own people ? The sectarian parties and militias backed by Iran and the US started the sectarian and civil war. We do not blame the Shias but the parties and the militias who are totally bought by Iran and who managed to co-opt some of the Iraqi Arab Shiites to their side. A good number of Arab shias are aware of that, and a number of Shia tribes in the South have spoken out against the Iranian influence and we have contact with them and encourage them. They reject these militias and the Iranian influence. Leaders of these sectarian Shiite parties and their religious representatives terrorize the Shias, by calling them "Kafirs" (disbelievers) if they don't follow such and such party or militia... Our theological differences with Shiism can be resolved through discussion, we are not anti-Shiism. We are anti sectarian Shiite parties and militias who are supported by Iran. Our program is the liberation of ALL Iraqis and Iraq from the Occupation. We are not here to liberate Sunnis alone. Ours was never a Sunni program alone. We do not follow such sectarian thinking. Had Sunnis been sectarian, then historically, during the Abbassid, Ummayad and Ottoman eras (eras of Sunni rule) the Sunnis would have wiped out all other sects, including the Shias, but that has evidently not been the case. Our stand is for the Islamic Umma not for the Sunni sect. We defend the whole of Iraq not just the Sunnis. b) But the Resistance is nonetheless majority Sunni, and stayed Sunni, has it not ? The Iraqi Resistance is majority Sunni by default. The U.S. is the one who brought the sectarian Shiite parties and militias when it invaded and occupied. And they were/are backed by Iran. The Marjaiya (Shiite theological council) backed these parties and militias. The U.S is the one who brought the division of Iraq into sects and ethnicities. Arabs - Sunnis and Shiites, and Kurds. The Americans in yet another lie, said that Sunni represent only 20% of the Iraqi population, when in fact the Sunni represented 43% of the population. Hence their logic was/is, since Sunnis are such a minority, they really don't count much in the "democratic process" since they are a negligible portion, hence Federalism/Partition is a viable option. And in Iraq, Federalism means Partition. 4) On Al-Qaeda and the Sahwa (Awakening Council) Bush spoke of the Sunni intifada against Al-Qaeda through the Sahwa. What is the influence/role of the Sahwa on the Iraqi Resistance ? There are s five types of Sahwa members. - Some are paid allies of the Americans (sell outs) and are working for them. - Others have joined because they have been without income and have been unemployed for many years and that was one of the American tactics - Others realized that Iran had a full grip over the sectarian militias and that they posed the most immediate threat after all the sectarian cleansing that took place. - some are just financial opportunist - some as a reaction to the works of Al-Qaeda. But a good deal of those who joined the Sahwa are realizing that their true interests lie with the Resistance and many have backtracked and left the Sahwa. And we are a pragmatic movement, and we realize that the Sahwa is also due to the works of Al-Qaeda. Moreover, the Sunnis have been targets for the US forces, the AQ and the sectarian government and its militias. With Al-Qaeda, we've had conflict and clashes. Their hidden strategy of targeting our mosques, academics, markets, civilians, and ex-army officers who fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war-- raised many questions and as to what their hidden agenda is. Furthermore their "takfeeree"(accusing someone of being an unbeliever) program for both Sunnis and Shiites was unacceptable to us. They managed to cause a split within the Sunnis and this makes us doubt their intentions. They even targeted our own Resistance fighters. Our policy is not to directly fight them but we will defend ourselves against any of their attacks and we pray that they be guided to the right path and cease their hostilities. The latest Bin Laden message had in fact a negative impact. Our differences with AQ are not political, but IDEOLOGICAL. 5) On Muqtada Al-Sadr. The latest events in Basra with the Mahdi resistance fighters . Do you consider this Shia resistance rising along the same path as your Resistance ? Are they anti Maliki and anti-Occupation? In the very beginning when Muqtada Al-Sadr in 2004 in Nejaf, was fighting the occupation, we welcomed him and encouraged him, until, the men (within his army) who fought the occupation were liquidated one by one and Muqtada and his men were co-opted by Iran... We consider the Mahdi Army one of the worst militias, responsible for a lot of the sectarian cleansing that took place. In fact, Muqtada and his men voted for Al-Maliki, and have been engaged in the political process for over 5 years now, is it now that they remembered the occupation and the resistance, after 5 years ? Sadr's conflict with Maliki and the Badr Brigades is over the provincial elections and who controls the resources (oil) If Muqtada Al-Sadr wants to be part of the Resistance, he needs to DESIST and stop displacing and exiling Iraqis, he needs to stop burning mosques and engaging in sectarian cleansing, which he has not stopped doing till this day... 6) On Maliki's "government" and Iran. We do not recognize this puppet government issued from the occupation and we don't deal with it. The Maliki government is overtly pro-American and covertly pro-Iran. Hence Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq was no surprise to us. We have said it before and will repeat it, this is a dual occupation (American-Iranian). There is an imperial convergence of interests between Iran and the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan. There is an Iranian imperialist design under the American imperialist design. Iran opportunistically used its geographical proximity and its religious influence over the Shiites of Iraq to fulfill its imperialistic project - that of occupying Iraq. Iran in 8 years of war did not manage to secure anything in Iraq, but under the American banner it managed to achieve what it could not achieve in 8 years of bloody war. The real victor in Iraq is Iran. Iran is after all a neighbor. - When the axis of Evil welcomes the Great Satan and there has been 4 rounds of talks between the US and Iran what does that mean ? As I said, there is a convergence of interests between the US and Iran, in their imperialist designs in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Inside of Iraq, Iran and the US are Muta'a partners (temporary marriage) and outside of Iraq there is a cold war going on between them. We don't know how long this Muta'a marriage will last in Iraq, maybe they will turn it into an American civil marriage. Iran has occupied Iraq and has helped the U.S occupation. Iran's interests in Iraq are not just strategic but they also derive from greed. We all know the tactics of "taqiya" (dissimulation)and Maliki is serving both. It is in the interest of Iran not to have any form of stability in Iraq. The US and Iran are only fighting on who will get the bigger share of the cake. - But Iran offered to pay 1 billion dollars for the reconstruction of Baghdad. We don't need nor want Iran's money and contribution. We are against ALL occupation. Iranian or American. 7) On the Arab Countries' role The Arabs by falling under the American hegemony have allowed Iran's influence to extend to the Gulf. The Arab countries have left Iraq to herself and forgot about their own Arab interests and submitted to Americans interests instead. The Iraqi Resistance has a 14 point political program and its different factions even though may disagree on tactics, agree on the overall strategy. The IAI has already visited Egypt, and we are establishing contacts with other Arab countries. I think they are seriously considering the points we have raised here... 8) On the future of the Occupation, Iraq and the US. Iraq lives in a total daily chaos. Those who died, died because of the American/Iranian occupation. The occupation has created chaos -- political, economic and social chaos. It has torn apart the Iraqi social fabric. The US is not serious about negotiating with the IR. We are open to negotiations and a withdrawal of the US troops. But Bush is aiming for a definitive "victory" in Iraq before his end of term. After 5 years, Bush is still hoping for a total victory. That is why he is pushing the Maliki government to sign a long term bilateral treaty with Iraq which will ensure both Federalism/Partition, oil, and a long term US presence. For us Victory means totally Victory - the End of the Occupation(s)
|
:: Article nr. 43006 sent on 13-apr-2008 05:54 ECT
Link: arabwomannews.blogspot.com/2008/04/notes-from-iraqi-resistance.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Uneasy lies the chutzpah crown
April 14, 2008
No sooner had I awarded the chutzpah crown to Tzipi Livni (post below) than along come some other contenders: Iraq's financial free ride may be over. After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest foes of the war to the most steadfast Bush supporters, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up more of the tab, particularly for rebuilding hospitals, roads, power lines and the rest of the shattered country.
Their bill also would require that Baghdad pay for the fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement.
Perhaps the Republicans and Democrats are under the impression that Iraq asked to be invaded and have its country destroyed (not to mention the destruction caused during the preceding decade of sanctions and bombing imposed by the "civilized" world). Needless to say, they didn't, and every cent needed for rebuilding that shattered country should be coming from the millionaires and billionaires and huge corporations in the United States who this war was intended to benefit, not from U.S. taxpayers and certainly not from the Iraqi people, who have already paid the price many times over in shattered (and ended) lives.
As a reminder, in the Paris Peace Accords which ended (or began the end of) the U.S. war against Vietnam (a.k.a. the Vietnam War), the U.S. promised to pay $3.5 billion in reparations to Vietnam. Not a cent was ever paid. If the Iraqis are "hoarding" their money now, perhaps they, unlike Americans, actually learned a lesson from Vietnam, and are taking their reparations "in advance," rather than waiting in vain for them to show up after the Americans finally get out of their country.
:: Article nr. 43080 sent on 15-apr-2008 07:32 ECT
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=43080
Link: lefti.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html#4741247754583046002
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
_______________
9th of April - The Fall of America
Uneasy lies the chutzpah crown
April 14, 2008 No sooner had I awarded the chutzpah crown to Tzipi Livni (post below) than along come some other contenders:Iraq's financial free ride may be over. After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest foes of the war to the most steadfast Bush supporters, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up more of the tab, particularly for rebuilding hospitals, roads, power lines and the rest of the shattered country.Perhaps the Republicans and Democrats are under the impression that Iraq asked to be invaded and have its country destroyed (not to mention the destruction caused during the preceding decade of sanctions and bombing imposed by the "civilized" world). Needless to say, they didn't, and every cent needed for rebuilding that shattered country should be coming from the millionaires and billionaires and huge corporations in the United States who this war was intended to benefit, not from U.S. taxpayers and certainly not from the Iraqi people, who have already paid the price many times over in shattered (and ended) lives. As a reminder, in the Paris Peace Accords which ended (or began the end of) the U.S. war against Vietnam (a.k.a. the Vietnam War), the U.S. promised to pay $3.5 billion in reparations to Vietnam. Not a cent was ever paid. If the Iraqis are "hoarding" their money now, perhaps they, unlike Americans, actually learned a lesson from Vietnam, and are taking their reparations "in advance," rather than waiting in vain for them to show up after the Americans finally get out of their country.
|
:: Article nr. 43080 sent on 15-apr-2008 07:32 ECT
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=43080
Link: lefti.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html#4741247754583046002
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
_______________
 |
Thursday, April 10, 2008 |
:: Article nr. 42916 sent on 10-apr-2008 03:26 ECT
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42916
Link: arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2008/04/9th-of-april-fall-of-america.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
SADDAM IS INNOCENT, AGAIN
 |
April 5, 2008 Recently, the Pentagon has been releasing information from more than 600,000 pages of intelligence reports and thousands of hours of audio and video tapes stolen from the legitimate Iraqi government. One would think that the reason for the release of information would be to bolster the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq. Curiously, this is not the case.
A couple of weeks ago, the Pentagon said that, according to the documents, there was absolutely no collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden. This is not earth-shattering news, but the admittance of the Pentagon of non-collusion is. A few days ago, another statement, based on the intelligence information came forth from the Pentagon: there was no Iraqi plot to kill George Bush I in Kuwait in April 1993. To this day, many people still believe the fairy tale. Again, those who followed the issue knew all along Iraq had not created such a scenario. The March 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek ran an article called "Saddam's Files," written by Michael Isikoff. It stated: President Bush said lots of things about Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq War. But few of his charges grabbed more attention than an unscripted remark he made at a Texas political fund-raiser on Sept. 26, 2002. "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time," Bush said. The comment referred to a 1993 claim by the Kuwaiti government-accepted by the Clinton administration-that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) had plotted to assassinate President George H.W. Bush during a trip to Kuwait that spring. Ever since, armchair psychologists have suggested that personal revenge may have been one reason for the president's determination to overthrow Saddam's regime. But curiously little has been heard about the allegedly foiled assassination plot in the five years since the U.S. military invaded Iraq. A just-released Pentagon study on the Iraqi regime's ties to terrorism only adds to the mystery. The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides. The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]." The stated reason behind the cowardly attack that killed Iraqi artist Layla al-Attar was as bogus as any given during the demonizing of Iraq from 1990 to 2003. Clinton proclaimed that information was in-hand that showed Iraqi operatives were behind an aborted assassination attempt on former President George Bush in April 1993 at a ceremony praising him in Kuwait. Clinton added that Saddam Hussein ordered the attempt on Bush's life. At the last minute, those who were to carry out the attack were apprehended and Clinton had to teach the Iraqis a lesson. To this day, the big lie still persists. Those arrested were merely drug and alcohol smugglers. In the aftermath of the June 26 missile attack, one-by-one the mythical would-be assassins were released from Kuwaiti jails, but, the U.S. media did not consider this information newsworthy. It was not as exciting as assassination plots and missile attacks. On November 1, 1993, the New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hersh titled "A Case Not Closed." In it, Hersh went into detail about the entire event and basically showed there was no validity to Clinton's claim. Why did Clinton order this attack? At the time, Republicans and pro-war Democrats criticized him for being "weak" on Iraq and other invisible threats against the U.S. Clinton had to earn respect. What better target than Iraq, a defenseless country that was isolated because of U.S. propaganda? According to Hersh: Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their targets and landed on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq's most gifted artists. The death toll was considered acceptable by the White House. Clinton administration officials acknowledged that they had been "lucky," as one national security aide put it, in that only three of the computer-guided missiles went off course. Thus, on a Saturday in June, the president and his advisors could not resist proving their toughness in the international arena. If they had truly had full confidence in what they were telling the press and the public about Saddam Hussein's involvement in a plot to kill George bush, they would have almost certainly ordered a far fiercer response than they did. As it was, confronted with evidence too weak to be conclusive but, in their view, perhaps not weak enough to be dismissed, they chose to fire missiles at night at an intelligence center in the middle of a large populous city. This coming, and every subsequent June 26th, most Iraqis will mourn the assassination of Layla al-Attar. And, on that day, those resistance fighters who are at work will remember her. One-by-one, each lie put forth as a reason to invade Iraq has been dismantled. Some have been debunked a while ago, while others are now being highlighted. The difference is that now the mainstream U.S. press is publishing the lies. Still, no one has been called to take legal responsibility for war crimes, so the only use for the current coming clean is that people like me can say, "I told you so." Once called "wackos," we have been vindicated. There is only one more occurrence that will herald the significance of the re-writing of the re-written falsehoods about Iraq. That day will come when the progressive and leftist elements of the U.S. anti-war and peace movements stop stating, "The war was wrong, but at least Saddam Hussein is gone." |
:: Article nr. 42747 sent on 05-apr-2008 05:47 ECT
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42747
Link: www.malcomlagauche.com/id1.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
__________________________
Police: US airstrike kills 8 in Basra
 |
Sat Mar 29, 2008 A U.S. warplane strafed a house in the southern city of Basra, killing eight civilians, including two women and a child, Iraqi police said Saturday. The U.S. military had no immediate comment on the report, which came a day after the first American airstrikes were launched in Basra during a week-old offensive against militant followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Seven other people were wounded when the plane fired on a house in Basra's Hananiyah neighborhood overnight, a local policeman said on condition of anonymity because of security concerns. It was not immediately possible to independently verify whether those killed were civilians or combatants. While the Iraqi police officer claimed it was a U.S. plane, British jets also have been providing air support in the area; it couldn't be immediately confirmed whether the plane was British or American. The British military had no immediate information but said it also was looking into the reports. "We are aware of reports of incidents in the Basra area resulting in civilian casualties," said Maj. Tom Holloway, a British military spokesman. "We are investigating those reports and do not have any further details at this time." AP Television News footage showed smoke rising from Hananiyah. Pools of blood and a destroyed pickup truck were seen outside the home hit by the plane. American support in Basra came as Iraqi troops struggled against strong resistance in the city, the nation's commercial center and headquarters of the vital oil industry. Clashes there have sparked retaliatory fights in Baghdad and other Shiite cities. U.S. military intelligence analysis of the fighting in Basra indicated Iraqi security forces controlled less than a quarter of the city, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed officials in the U.S. and Iraq. The analysis also said militia members have deeply infiltrated Basra's police units. The fight for Basra is crucial for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is staking his credibility on gaining control of the city, Iraq's second largest, which has essentially been held by armed groups for nearly three years. Al-Maliki flew to Basra earlier this week to personally assume command of the operation and has vowed there would be "no retreat." The crackdown in Basra has provoked a violent reaction - especially from al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. His followers accuse rival Shiite parties in the government of trying to crush their movement before provincial elections this fall. Their anger has led to a sharp increase in attacks against American troops in Shiite areas following months of relative calm after al-Sadr declared a unilateral cease-fire last August and recently extended it for six months. In extracts of an interview broadcast by the Al-Jazeera television network, al-Sadr called Saturday for Arab leaders to voice their support for Iraq's "resistance" to what he calls foreign occupation. Many Shiite militias, including the Mahdi Army, are believed to receive weapons, money and training from nearby Iran, the world's most populous Shiite nation. The situation in Basra remained tense as a Friday deadline for gunmen to surrender their weapons and renounce violence expired, although a few complied. Al-Maliki's office announced a new deal, offering Basra residents unspecified monetary compensation if they turn over "heavy and medium-size weapons" by April 8. In Baghdad, Iraqi police said U.S. helicopters carried out airstrikes on the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City Friday night. Television footage showed destroyed buildings and the smoking wreckage of at least one car. The U.S. military said in an e-mail that the only air assault it carried out last night was in the Kazamiyah neighborhood, west of Sadr City, killing 10 militants. Iraq's Health Ministry, which is close to the Sadrist movement, on Saturday reported at least 75 civilians have been killed and at least 500 others injured in a week of clashes and airstrikes in Sadr City and other eastern Baghdad neighborhoods. The U.S. military sharply disputes the claims, having said that most of those killed were militia members. Some 40 policemen in Sadr City handed over their weapons to al-Sadr's local office, one of the policemen told The Associated Press on Saturday. "We can't fight our brothers in the Mahdi Army, so we came here to submit our weapons," the policeman said on condition of anonymity for security reasons. The police in Sadr City have long been believed heavily influenced or infiltrated by Mahdi militiamen. AP Television News footage showed a group of about a dozen uniformed police, their faces covered with masks to shield their identity, being met by Sheik Salman al-Feraiji, al-Sadr's chief representative in Sadr City. Al-Feraiji greeted each policeman and gave them a copy of the Quran and an olive branch as they handed over their guns and ammunition. Meanwhile, mortar or rockets were again lobbed on Saturday from Shiite areas in eastern Baghdad toward the Green Zone, the fortified area where the U.S. and British embassies are located, along with much of the Iraqi government. The U.S. military said in an e-mail they "have no reports of serious injuries" following the incoming rounds. Mortars also landed in Shiite areas of eastern Baghdad, killing at least one person and injuring 12, according to police. It was not clear from where the mortars were fired. ___ Associated Press writer Bradley Brooks contributed to this report.
|
:: Article nr. 42550 sent on 29-mar-2008 20:33 ECT
I
The best news site on Iraq and Palestine
Basra: Trapped in their homes, families fall victim to sickness and hunger
 |
March 30, 2008 |
:: Article nr. 42568 sent on 30-mar-2008 04:30 ECT
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42568
Link: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/30/iraq1
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
To Understand The Latest Violence in Iraq
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar
29/03/08 "AlterNet" -- - 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 discrepancyof 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.
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.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. Raed Jarrar is Iraq Consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.
Please check out the links and pass it on. THIS INSANITY MUST END.
2006 Johns Hopkins Iraq mortality study, conducted in conjunction with Al Mustansiriya University in Baghadad
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews...
Just Foreign Policy site - Numbers updated, approximate running total of Iraqi deaths
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org
ORB Study -- Updated January 2008
http://www.opinion.co.uk:80/Newsroom_...
Iraq Veterans Against the War -- Winter Soldier page
http://www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier
The Real News -- Check out their Winter Soldier Coverage and get on their mailing list
http://ww.therealnews.com
