[BlackGriffen]

ABC News article about shift in tactics. If this is true, then it looks to me like the insurgents are making a critical mistake. For the same reason the US had to try to avoid civilian targets, the insurgents should do so, too.

Attacking civilians is going to transform them from insurgent patriots to unpopular rebels.

BlackGriffen

[MathewM]

Excuse me but from your post it seems that you are putting the insurgents and the US military on the same moral grounds.

I'm sorry your home team is playing dirty but that's the nature of the beast.

[MacGorilla]

This doesn't mean their defeat. Its a calculated move to generate support. "US troops can't provide security" will be what they are saying. Its also a risk, this may work against the rebels as well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Attacking civilians is going to transform them from insurgent patriots to unpopular rebels.

"Transform them"?

[kindbud]

Terrorists don't often get what they ask for. Even if their desires have merit, they still don't ask politely enough.

Blowing up a restaurant full of people in order to raise the priority of your demand to end hunger in Ethiopia would probably be counter-productive to achieving your goal.

If you're asking for a favor or for further consideration of your desires and wishes, the least you could do is show some respect and appreciation while you're asking. My momma taught me courtesy and respect. It's worked for me when I find myself in need of a favor.

I'd bitchslap a terrorist before I'd listen to any message they wanted to send. Then I'd do exactly the opposite of what they wanted me to do.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Excuse me but from your post it seems that you are putting the insurgents and the US military on the same moral grounds.

I'm sorry your home team is playing dirty but that's the nature of the beast.

I'm doing no such thing. What I posted is actually an attempt to antiseptically analyze the consequences of a tactical shift by the insurgents. I argued that the US had to minimize civilian casualties in order to win hearts and minds. I am simply applying the same argument to the insurgents.

And there is no excuse for lack of reading comprehension on forums.

Simey: I'm talking from a PR standpoint. The insurgents need a friendly native population, or they're ****ed. If, in the Iraqi public mind, the insurgents become monsters, it's over.

MacGorilla has provided the only salient counterpoint thus far. I agree that such will be a factor, I don't think that it will fly for long. Especially as the Iraqis become increasingly responsible for the security situation, that won't fly.

The other factor that I didn't consider, though, is that if the insurgents choose their targets based on region, then it could lead to a civil war. Such an event may or may not be a success from their standpoint.

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

Originally posted by kindbud:
I'd bitchslap a terrorist before I'd listen to any message they wanted to send. Then I'd do exactly the opposite of what they wanted me to do.

Is it fair to label the Iraqi resistance "terrorists"? The media avoids calling them "freedom fighters" or "resistance members" preferring instead to call them "Insurgents" because it sounds less dignified, but at the end of the day, there's very little difference between an Iraqi "Insurgent" and a French Resistance fighter or an anti-apartheid freedom fighter. I find it telling that certain people label those who are resisting the US occupation as "terrorists." It shows that these people don't think it's fair for the US to encounter resistance to its plans for Iraq which in turns suggests a suspension of the reality of what actually happened and continues to happen in Iraq.

Ironically, most of the people who label the Iraqi Resistance as terrorists would be the first to label anyone who resisted a foreign occupation of the US as heroes. Let's not forget that the US went into Iraq without valid cause (none recognised under international law at any rate), killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure and then started installing a puppet government and dishing out Iraqi resources to US persons.

Whilst it's true that Iraqis are inceasingly bearing the brunt of the resistance, I'm not sure that automatically makes the Resistance terrorists. South Africans bore the vast majority of the casualties in the fight against apartheid. That is, the armed struggle was aimed against those South Africans that supported an oppressive regime. In the same way, the vast majority of attacks that do wind up killing Iraqis are aimed at those Iraqis who are aiding and abetting the occupiers - interpreters and collaborators with the US army, policemen, CPA officials. The fog of war is often bandied about by the US. Why should it not apply to the Resistance? When an IED intended to take out an American Humvee explodes prematurely killing Iraqis that is as much the fog of war as when the US kills children playing with marbles outside a vacant home. The Resistance has considerably fewer means and technology than the US and they still manage to kill fewer innocent people than the US does.

Some of the attacks perhaps have less to do with resisting the occupation than they do with plain criminality; political manouevering (like the Mosque bombing) or terrorism. Even the attack on the UN could be seen to be an act of resistance in that it was aimed (incorrectly in my opinion) against people who were seen to be helping the US to consolidate.

This is not to say that I support the killing of innocent people or even generally support the violence perpetrated by the Resistance, but I don't support the violence perpetrated by the US either and frankly the people against whom this violence has been perpetrated by the US have every right to defend themselves. Clearly there can be no peaceful resistance to the US. There comes a time in a struggle for self-determination when you have to resort to violence. Sometimes that means that innocent lives are taken. It's highly unlikely that the Resistance will ever take anything remotely near the number of innocent lives that the US and its allies have taken in Iraq. Even if the Iraqi people do get sick of the Resistance's methods (rather than being intimidated into aiding the Resistance), I can't see them turning to the US for support. The US is still the common enemy. What will probably happen if Iraqis start to resist the Resistance, is that they will solve the problem internally and Iraq will become increasingly polarised descending ultimately into a state of civil war.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Simey: I'm talking from a PR standpoint. The insurgents need a friendly native population, or they're ****ed. If, in the Iraqi public mind, the insurgents become monsters, it's over.

I don't think they were ever bidding for popular support. As far as I can tell, the insergents were/are two groups: foreign jihadists, and fedayeen Saddam former regime members. Neither group care much for the majority of Iraqis, or are cared for by the majority of Iraqis.

Their tactic always has been to try to create the impression that Iraq is ungovernable by anyone other than the Ba'ath Party. That's why they targeted international aid groups, and the UN as well as any Iraqi trying to build a new Iraq (such as the police). Their aim is to create chaos, with the hope that they can drive out any foreign stabilizing element. That means anyone, not just Coalition troops. With respect to the UN it worked -- after the one bomb, the UN pulled out.

Their other target is the Coalition military and the new Iraqi police . As with their attacks on foreign aid workers, their battle isn't for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, it is to convince westerners that we must pull every westerner out of Iraq. Then the former regime would move back into the vacuum that would create and reestablish the former regime. They don't need and wouldn't get Iraqi public support for that. All they needed was to create a climate a fear. That's how Saddam ruled, and how they hope to prevent a new Iraq from being created -- not only by the Coaltion and international aid groups -- but most particularly by Iraqis.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think they were ever bidding for popular support. As far as I can tell, the insergents were/are two groups: foreign jihadists, and fedayeen Saddam former regime members. Neither group care much for the majority of Iraqis, or are cared for by the majority of Iraqis.

Because that would undermine your certainty in your rectitude. It cannot be that these people are Iraqis that are pro-self-determination, because that does not fit with your world picture.

Their tactic always has been to try to create the impression that Iraq is ungovernable by anyone other than the Ba'ath Party. That's why they targeted international aid groups, and the UN as well as any Iraqi trying to build a new Iraq (such as the police). Their aim is to create chaos, with the hope that they can drive out any foreign stabilizing element. That means anyone, not just Coalition troops. With respect to the UN it worked -- after the one bomb, the UN pulled out.

"As far as I can tell" their tactic appears to be to discourage people from aiding the occupiers, and to discourage people that are assisting in the 'Americanisation' of Iraq. This may also be demonstrated by discouraging people from making life too comfortable for the Iraqi populace, because if they are uncomfortable, and the blame can be laid on the Americans (for invading), then the 'insurgents' will be winning hearts and minds.

Their other target is the Coalition military and the new Iraqi police . As with their attacks on foreign aid workers, their battle isn't for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, it is to convince westerners that we must pull every westerner out of Iraq. Then the former regime would move back into the vacuum that would create and reestablish the former regime.

As noted above, their battle is very much for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and that may be achieved by convincing 'westerners that we must pull every westerner out of Iraq'. This does not necessarily mean that the former regime would be sucked into power, it means that the Iraqis would be free to choose their own leadership. This may be unpleasant, but the occupying forces created this problem by invading and occupying, the insurgents didn't dreate this mess - they are simply trying to take advantage of it.

[a climate of fear] is how Saddam ruled, and how they hope to prevent a new Iraq from being created -- not only by the Coaltion and international aid groups -- but most particularly by Iraqis.

But of course the occupying forces are not creating a climate of fear. They are standing at street corners handing out lollipops.

Of course they are trying to avoid a 'new Iraq', when that 'new Iraq' is another Puerto Rico - an American protectorate, kept tame to satisfy the whims of the current White House incumbent.

'As far as I can tell' (great phrase, by the way Simey - appears to legitimise what you are saying without actually implying any knowledge whatsoever) most Iraqis probably want the 'old Iraq' back (probably without Saddam Hussein, true, but they would probably be comfortable with an oligarchy, seeing as that is all they have known, and have enjoyed, for centuries). It is mostly the American lap-dogs that want a 'new Iraq', as that way they stand to benefit from being at the top of the pile.

If a 'new Iraq' is to be created, it should be created by Iraqis, not by westerners. (and that doesn't mean the hand-picked Iraqis that the US administration approves of)

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As with their attacks on foreign aid workers, their battle isn't for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, it is to convince westerners that we must pull every westerner out of Iraq. Then the former regime would move back into the vacuum that would create and reestablish the former regime. They don't need and wouldn't get Iraqi public support for that. All they needed was to create a climate a fear. That's how Saddam ruled, and how they hope to prevent a new Iraq from being created -- not only by the Coaltion and international aid groups -- but most particularly by Iraqis.

Well, if your theory is true, then they are employing the same philosophy as Colonel Sassaman - and if his strategy is sound, they should "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" by default.

Of course, they may or may not have "a lot of money for projects", so that could impede things a bit for them.

[davesimondotcom]

The title makes it seem like you would be disappointed if the insurgents* lost.

*P.C. term for terrorists.

They haven't EVER cared if they killed civilians...

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Troll:
Is it fair to label the Iraqi resistance "terrorists"? The media avoids calling them "freedom fighters" or "resistance members" preferring instead to call them "Insurgents" because it sounds less dignified, but at the end of the day, there's very little difference between an Iraqi "Insurgent" and a French Resistance fighter or an anti-apartheid freedom fighter. I find it telling that certain people label those who are resisting the US occupation as "terrorists." It shows that these people don't think it's fair for the US to encounter resistance to its plans for Iraq which in turns suggests a suspension of the reality of what actually happened and continues to happen in Iraq.

Your logic is ****ed up.

Fine, let the insurgents kill innocent civilians. They're not terrorists they're freedom fighters.
Just as long as the ends justify the means: American coalition forces leave Iraq for B'aathist party rebels and Islamic Extremists to take over.

I'm sure 95% of the Iraqi people would just love this idea!

Again the idiots on this board speak for the minority (how very liberal) of Iraqis instead of the majority (how very conservative).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Well, if your theory is true, then they are employing the same philosophy as Colonel Sassaman - and if his strategy is sound, they should "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" by default.

Of course, they may or may not have "a lot of money for projects", so that could impede things a bit for them.

Who the hell is Colonel Sassaman?

[confucious slam]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who the hell is Colonel Sassaman?

linky here
linky there
Linky, linky everywhere

[confucious slam]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Just as long as the ends justify the means

so sorry, but one must inquire
whom, here do you indicate?
This very callous reason, dire
applies to either side of slate.
are not civilians sacrificed
too, by US troops to liberate?

[kindbud]

Originally posted by confucious slam:
so sorry, but one must inquire
whom, here do you indicate?
This very callous reason, dire
applies to either side of slate.
are not civilians sacrificed
too, by US troops to liberate?

Ah, but civilians in Iraq were already dying
on our collective indifference, Saddam was relying.
hussein gassed the kurds to squelch an uprising
while the UN was debating, pontificating, and surmising.
A liberation, of sorts, was about to draw near
with the French and Germans, of course, bringing up the rear.
On the streets dancing, they are in Iraq
chanting "up with America, down with chirac"
the message was clear, we know wrong from right
and we're aware that the French will run from a fight.

-Spliffdaddy

[kindbud]

*SMACKDOWN*

(high-fives himself)


edited to add:

take your weak-ass rhymes back home to your momma.

I grew up on gangsta rap, yo.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Terrorists don't often get what they ask for. Even if their desires have merit, they still don't ask politely enough.

I agree completely.

I'd do exactly the opposite of what they wanted me to do.

This I disagree with. IF their desires have merit, you might wish to consider them; NOT because the terrorists want you to, but because it may be the right thing to do. Doing the exact opposite of a desire that may have merit is about as ignorant as trying to achieve that desire through the use of terror.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MathewM:
I'm sure 95% of the Iraqi people would just love this idea!

Again the idiots on this board speak for the minority (how very liberal) of Iraqis instead of the majority (how very conservative).

How do you know what 95% of Iraqis want? It seems to me 95% of Iraqis want the US to get the hell out of their country and let them make up their own minds as to what form of government they should have and who should own their natural resources. And you disparage Islamic fundamentalists and Ba'athists like some patriarch of Iraq; as if you decide what kind of government is legitimate.

Of course taking lives, especially civilian lives is not nice, but it's also necessary sometimes. We could make a list that runs into pages where those who resisted an occupation despite the deaths caused were referred to as freedom fighters rather than terrorists; at least retrospectively. It seems to me that those who refer to the Iraqi Resistance as terrorists have a rather transparent agenda. "We're giving them all this good stuff, so they can't possibly dislike us; there must be evil elements at work here". It's a sort of "How dare they resist us?" attitude. How naive! How can you miss the fact that Americans have caused untold misery for Iraqis; that Americans continue to cause misery in Iraq. Calling the Resistance terrorists is to ignore the reality of what has happened in Iraq.

Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes for 10 minutes. Imagine Germany invaded the US and was occupying you. Do you think the US population would sit on their arses and wait for the German government to decide what the US will look like politically and who will own what? Doubtful! Those Iraqi are fighting for freedom from the US; they're fighting for the right to decide for themselves what happens in their country. Collateral damage is regrettable, but probably necessary.

I'm not saying the US should up and leave immediately, but it should have had a better plan in place to transfer power to Iraqis. There still seems to be no coherent plan to do this anytime soon. IMHO, if the US had listened to other groups and managed the whole process of dealing with Saddam a little better, none of this would be happening now. But it didn't and for the US to call people names and bemoan their lot is not helping anyone. What they have to do is put control of Iraq in Iraqi hands as soon as possible. And if the Iraqis decide to become an Islamic state or to give the Ba'athists another go, so be it. That is their right.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who the hell is Colonel Sassaman?

Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander overseeing the Iraqi village of Abu Hishma, quoted in the New York Times, Dec 7th, 2003:

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force - force, pride and saving face."...

"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.

Sounds to me like some people on both sides of the conflict have approximately the same idea about how to do business. I wonder how these guys can get away with making troubling statements like that to the press.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who the hell is Colonel Sassaman?

Why Simey - your Google is slipping!

Here's One

[christ]

Originally posted by kindbud:
<ditty>

-Spliffdaddy

I disagree with the content, but that was mighty fine doggerel, my man!

[kindbud]

I'd like to go on record as saying that if the Germans ever obtain the balls to occupy US soil - I'll swear my allegiance to Germany that very day.

Seriously, though, I suppose my feelings as a US citizen under German occupation would depend on how oppressed I was under the former government. If most citizens were miserable, they may be happy to see damn near any change in government. I think the iraqi citizens, for the most part, are grateful to see the Ba'ath party gone - and grateful to coalition forces for providing that service - but they don't (and shouldn't, imho) want to be America's bitch. That's not our intent...and if it is, then we're doomed to failure in the long run.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander overseeing the Iraqi village of Abu Hishma, quoted in the New York Times, Dec 7th, 2003:

If you have a link to the entire article, please post it. Your use of ellipses worries me. A snipped especially bothers me when a statement seems so self-contradictory, as in "[w]ith a heavy dose of fear and violence . . . I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," That really doesn't make any sense and I can't help wondering what the full context was. For example, who was meant specifically by "these people." All Iraqis, or maybe just the former Ba'athists behind the bombing campaign? Are those the same people he wants to convince that the Coaltion is there to help them? Or do you think that might mean the rest of the population?

I notice also the fact that the sentence is incomplete (it ends in a comma). Did you cut him off, or did the New York Times?

In any case, a LTC isn't really a strategist. That's why I had never heard of him.

[christ]

Originally posted by kindbud:
I'd like to go on record as saying that if the Germans ever obtain the balls to occupy US soil - I'll swear my allegiance to Germany that very day.

Seriously, though, I suppose my feelings as a US citizen under German occupation would depend on how oppressed I was under the former government. If most citizens were miserable, they may be happy to see damn near any change in government. I think the iraqi citizens, for the most part, are grateful to see the Ba'ath party gone - and grateful to coalition forces for providing that service - but they don't (and shouldn't, imho) want to be America's bitch. That's not our intent...and if it is, then we're doomed to failure in the long run.

Interesting. All around I thnk I prefer bud to Spliff. I got the impression that Spliff would have fought to the end to stay American.

What if it were Communist China, or North Korea, instead of Germany?

I also think that, in general, the (live) Iraqis are glad to see the back of the Ba'ath party, And they may well be grateful to the allies for that. I'm not entirely sure that, given the choice, these same folks would have chosen this method of getting rid of it. If you had a boil on your toe, and someone cut off your leg, you may be glad to see the end of the boil - given the choice, however, you may have preferred the leg.

(It must also depress these same folk that Ba'athists are actively being recruited into the 'new' Iraqi infrastructure (police etc.), the justification being that these folks 'know something about the local community, and about policing'. The occupying force seems intent in helping ex-Ba'athists in rebuilding their power base.)

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you have a link to the entire article, please post it. Your use of ellipses worries me. A snipped especially bothers me when a statement seems so self-contradictory, as in "[w]ith a heavy dose of fear and violence . . . I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," That really doesn't make any sense and I can't help wondering what the full context was. For example, who was meant specifically by "these people." All Iraqis, or maybe just the former Ba'athists behind the bombing campaign? Are those the same people he wants to convince that the Coaltion is there to help them? Or do you think that might mean the rest of the population?

I notice also the fact that the sentence is incomplete (it ends in a comma). Did you cut him off, or did the New York Times?

In any case, a LTC isn't really a strategist. That's why I had never heard of him.

This is the link (second page of a two page article, behind a login - macnn/macnn works, but you legals probably have your own sign in I guess)

I can post the whole NYT text if google and looking yourself are too much trouble, but I guess that you wouldn't believe it if I posted it, I may have misquoted or something!

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you have a link to the entire article, please post it. Your use of ellipses worries me. A snipped especially bothers me when a statement seems so self-contradictory, as in "[w]ith a heavy dose of fear and violence . . . I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," That really doesn't make any sense and I can't help wondering what the full context was.

I didn't post the link to NYT because it's now archived in the "pay-to-read" area. Look again at the quote - the ellipses was not where you say it was. I didn't edit anything, I just quoted two paragraphs. That quote was all over the web, and I'm surprised you didn't hear something about the flap.

A REGION INFLAMED: STRATEGY; Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For example, who was meant specifically by "these people." All Iraqis, or maybe just the former Ba'athists behind the bombing campaign? Are those the same people he wants to convince that the Coaltion is there to help them? Or do you think that might mean the rest of the population?

I notice also the fact that the sentence is incomplete (it ends in a comma). Did you cut him off, or did the New York Times?

In any case, a LTC isn't really a strategist. That's why I had never heard of him.

Many web sites punctuate quotes that way. That was the end of the sentence (in the article). I assume he's talking about the people of the Abu Hishma. But that's me. No matter who he's talking about, I don't like his apparent philosophy while acting as a member of the Coalition.

[confucious slam]

Originally posted by kindbud:
*SMACKDOWN*

(high-fives himself)

please masturbate in private.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by christ:
This is the link

Thanks, C.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I'm surprised you didn't hear something about the flap.

Some people don't hear things that contradict their arguements.

[kindbud]

Seeing the quote in full context makes its meaning differ quite a lot, don't you think?

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by kindbud:
I'd bitchslap a terrorist...

My thoughts exactly

[BRussell]

I'm sure that many Iraqis do support the "insurgents."

This may be my cultural superiority complex talking, but I'm not convinced these people want anything other than a dictatorship, let alone wanting a liberal democracy. If they didn't like their dictatorship, why the hell didn't they do something about it over the past several decades? Look how easy it was to crumble this regime with just a little pressure. At what point do you blame the people for their government?

And I'm sure a good number of Iraqis didn't mind it because they weren't the ones getting shafted - it was the Shia, or the Kurds, or whatever. We should leave 'em to their murdering torturing sonofabitch until they, or at least those in their region, decide they really don't want it anymore.

Or until they're an imminent threat to us.

[christ]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Seeing the quote in full context makes its meaning differ quite a lot, don't you think?

No.

[christ]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm sure that many Iraqis do support the "insurgents."

This may be my cultural superiority complex talking, but I'm not convinced these people want anything other than a dictatorship, let alone wanting a liberal democracy. If they didn't like their dictatorship, why the hell didn't they do something about it over the past several decades? Look how easy it was to crumble this regime with just a little pressure. At what point do you blame the people for their government?

And I'm sure a good number of Iraqis didn't mind it because they weren't the ones getting shafted - it was Shia, or the Kurds, or whatever. We should leave 'em to their murdering torturing sonofabitch until they, or at least those in their region, decide they really don't want it anymore.

Or until they're an imminent threat to us.

Substitute 'oligarchy' for 'dictatorship' (less emotive), and I (unsurprisingly) agree with this sentiment[/AOL]

[kindbud]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm sure that many Iraqis do support the "insurgents."

This may be my cultural superiority complex talking, but I'm not convinced these people want anything other than a dictatorship, let alone wanting a liberal democracy. If they didn't like their dictatorship, why the hell didn't they do something about it over the past several decades? Look how easy it was to crumble this regime with just a little pressure. At what point do you blame the people for their government?

And I'm sure a good number of Iraqis didn't mind it because they weren't the ones getting shafted - it was the Shia, or the Kurds, or whatever. We should leave 'em to their murdering torturing sonofabitch until they, or at least those in their region, decide they really don't want it anymore.

Or until they're an imminent threat to us.

I'm about this close to agreeing with that premise.

I don't want to, though. But that's the feeling I have in the back of my mind.

Of course, what you WANT and what you NEED are two different things. Who wouldn't be happy with a non-intrusive,caring,kind dictatorship where life was wonderful. Sure beats going to the polls every November and trying your luck.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Seeing the quote in full context makes its meaning differ quite a lot, don't you think?

It doesn't make any more sense to me in context than out of context, actually, but that's my opinion. You are, of course, entitled to yours.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you have a link to the entire article, please post it. Your use of ellipses worries me.

That's called a Dowdism.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I notice also the fact that the sentence is incomplete (it ends in a comma). Did you cut him off, or did the New York Times?

Wouldn't be the first time for the NYT. See above...(Dowdism)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Many web sites punctuate quotes that way. That was the end of the sentence (in the article). I assume he's talking about the people of the Abu Hishma. But that's me.

I supect the fear and violence is meant to be directed at the insurgents, not the civilians. But we don't really know because of the way the quote is just kind of dropped in there. When people speak, they don't really take the time to flesh out every ambiguous phrase. Indefinite articles could mean anyone, "these people" really could mean anyone. A good journalist inserts a bracketed explanation to remove the ambiguity. This journalist didn't and worse, he left a tell-tale ," that lets us know that the quote is incomplete. That was not the end of the sentence, just the end of a clause. Consequently, it's pointless trying to analyse what the soldier was really saying. We don't have it in context, and we don't have it in full.

This is just another illustration of why I more or less stopped reading the New York Times some months ago. Even before the Jayson Blair episode it was obvious that they are very sloppy (to be charitable to their honesty).

What you want us to believe is that this LTC believes in the old joke from Vietnam: give us your hearts and minds, or we'll burn your village down. I really doubt it, but if that suits your stereotypes of US soldiers, I doubt I can dissuade you.

[confucious slam]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I supect the fear and violence is meant to be directed at the insurgents, not the civilians. But we don't really know because of the way the quote is just kind of dropped in there. When people speak, they don't really take the time to flesh out every ambiguous phrase. Indefinite articles could mean anyone, "these people" really could mean anyone. A good journalist inserts a bracketed explanation to remove the ambiguity. This journalist didn't and worse, he left a tell-tale ," that lets us know that the quote is incomplete. That was not the end of the sentence, just the end of a clause. Consequently, it's pointless trying to analyse what the soldier was really saying. We don't have it in context, and we don't have it in full.

This is just another illustration of why I more or less stopped reading the New York Times some months ago. Even before the Jayson Blair episode it was obvious that they are very sloppy (to be charitable to their honesty).

What you want us to believe is that this LTC believes in the old joke from Vietnam: give us your hearts and minds, or we'll burn your village down. I really doubt it, but if that suits your stereotypes of US soldiers, I doubt I can dissuade you.

again,

Linky, linky everywhere

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What you want us to believe is that this LTC believes in the old joke from Vietnam: give us your hearts and minds, or we'll burn your village down. I really doubt it, but if that suits your stereotypes of US soldiers, I doubt I can dissuade you.

I don't want you to believe anything, Simey. I have no stereotypes of US soldiers. You needn't dissaude me of anything. Your statements about a "climate of fear" put me in mind of this quote, and I mentioned it in a spirit of good-natured humor. That's all.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by confucious slam:
again,

Linky, linky everywhere

Linky linky all comes from the same basic NYT article. This guy's a Lieutenant Colonel, for goodness sake. That's just not that high a rank. It really doesn't matter what he is alleged to have said.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This journalist didn't and worse, he left a tell-tale ," that lets us know that the quote is incomplete. That was not the end of the sentence, just the end of a clause.

Again, the NYT punctuates that way throughout the article, when the person speaking is specified at the end of the sentence (or in the middle). I'm not saying it's correct grammatically or defending that style of punctuation, just pointing it out.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Again, the NYT punctuates that way throughout the article, when the person speaking is specified at the end of the sentence (or in the middle). I'm not saying it's correct grammatically or defending that style of punctuation, just pointing it out.

Yes they do. It's an indication that they are in the habit of dowdifying their quotes. A comma never indicates the end of a sentence. The NYT is well-written. They aren't using their commas incorrectly, just butchering their quotes. Has it occurred to you to ask why? I'll give you a hint: the article is making Vietnam allusions. That's the thesis. Gotta make those quotes fit the thesis.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Is it fair to label the Iraqi resistance "terrorists"? The media avoids calling them "freedom fighters" or "resistance members" preferring instead to call them "Insurgents" because it sounds less dignified, but at the end of the day, there's very little difference between an Iraqi "Insurgent" and a French Resistance fighter or an anti-apartheid freedom fighter. I find it telling that certain people label those who are resisting the US occupation as "terrorists." It shows that these people don't think it's fair for the US to encounter resistance to its plans for Iraq which in turns suggests a suspension of the reality of what actually happened and continues to happen in Iraq.

Ironically, most of the people who label the Iraqi Resistance as terrorists would be the first to label anyone who resisted a foreign occupation of the US as heroes. Let's not forget that the US went into Iraq without valid cause (none recognised under international law at any rate), killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure and then started installing a puppet government and dishing out Iraqi resources to US persons.

Whilst it's true that Iraqis are inceasingly bearing the brunt of the resistance, I'm not sure that automatically makes the Resistance terrorists. South Africans bore the vast majority of the casualties in the fight against apartheid. That is, the armed struggle was aimed against those South Africans that supported an oppressive regime. In the same way, the vast majority of attacks that do wind up killing Iraqis are aimed at those Iraqis who are aiding and abetting the occupiers - interpreters and collaborators with the US army, policemen, CPA officials. The fog of war is often bandied about by the US. Why should it not apply to the Resistance? When an IED intended to take out an American Humvee explodes prematurely killing Iraqis that is as much the fog of war as when the US kills children playing with marbles outside a vacant home. The Resistance has considerably fewer means and technology than the US and they still manage to kill fewer innocent people than the US does.

Some of the attacks perhaps have less to do with resisting the occupation than they do with plain criminality; political manouevering (like the Mosque bombing) or terrorism. Even the attack on the UN could be seen to be an act of resistance in that it was aimed (incorrectly in my opinion) against people who were seen to be helping the US to consolidate.

This is not to say that I support the killing of innocent people or even generally support the violence perpetrated by the Resistance, but I don't support the violence perpetrated by the US either and frankly the people against whom this violence has been perpetrated by the US have every right to defend themselves. Clearly there can be no peaceful resistance to the US. There comes a time in a struggle for self-determination when you have to resort to violence. Sometimes that means that innocent lives are taken. It's highly unlikely that the Resistance will ever take anything remotely near the number of innocent lives that the US and its allies have taken in Iraq. Even if the Iraqi people do get sick of the Resistance's methods (rather than being intimidated into aiding the Resistance), I can't see them turning to the US for support. The US is still the common enemy. What will probably happen if Iraqis start to resist the Resistance, is that they will solve the problem internally and Iraq will become increasingly polarised descending ultimately into a state of civil war.

Originally posted by Troll:
How do you know what 95% of Iraqis want? It seems to me 95% of Iraqis want the US to get the hell out of their country and let them make up their own minds as to what form of government they should have and who should own their natural resources. And you disparage Islamic fundamentalists and Ba'athists like some patriarch of Iraq; as if you decide what kind of government is legitimate.

Of course taking lives, especially civilian lives is not nice, but it's also necessary sometimes. We could make a list that runs into pages where those who resisted an occupation despite the deaths caused were referred to as freedom fighters rather than terrorists; at least retrospectively. It seems to me that those who refer to the Iraqi Resistance as terrorists have a rather transparent agenda. "We're giving them all this good stuff, so they can't possibly dislike us; there must be evil elements at work here". It's a sort of "How dare they resist us?" attitude. How naive! How can you miss the fact that Americans have caused untold misery for Iraqis; that Americans continue to cause misery in Iraq. Calling the Resistance terrorists is to ignore the reality of what has happened in Iraq.

Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes for 10 minutes. Imagine Germany invaded the US and was occupying you. Do you think the US population would sit on their arses and wait for the German government to decide what the US will look like politically and who will own what? Doubtful! Those Iraqi are fighting for freedom from the US; they're fighting for the right to decide for themselves what happens in their country. Collateral damage is regrettable, but probably necessary.

I'm not saying the US should up and leave immediately, but it should have had a better plan in place to transfer power to Iraqis. There still seems to be no coherent plan to do this anytime soon. IMHO, if the US had listened to other groups and managed the whole process of dealing with Saddam a little better, none of this would be happening now. But it didn't and for the US to call people names and bemoan their lot is not helping anyone. What they have to do is put control of Iraq in Iraqi hands as soon as possible. And if the Iraqis decide to become an Islamic state or to give the Ba'athists another go, so be it. That is their right.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
It seems to me 95% of Iraqis want the US to get the hell out of their country and let them make up their own minds as to what form of government they should have and who should own their natural resources. And you disparage Islamic fundamentalists and Ba'athists like some patriarch of Iraq; as if you decide what kind of government is legitimate.

More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see U.S. troops stay in Iraq for an extended period, according to a poll conducted by the Gallup Organization in the violence-racked Iraqi capital.

Large majorities of Iraqis emphasize the importance of free and fair elections, the rule of law, the right to criticize the government and inclusiveness in politics.

In all seven cities in the Office of Research poll, large majorities support what are generally considered to be democratic values. Nine in ten think it is very or somewhat important that people vote in free and fair elections (95%), that people abide by the law and criminals are punished (94%), that people can criticize the government (86%), and that major nationality (89%) and religious groups share power (87%). Majorities also value media that are independent of government censorship (78%) and rights for women that are equal to those of men (71%) [...]There is very little, if any, variation among the cities on these components, and there are only minor differences between men and women in their attitudes toward gender equity.

[confucious slam]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Linky linky all comes from the same basic NYT article. This guy's a Lieutenant Colonel, for goodness sake. That's just not that high a rank. It really doesn't matter what he is alleged to have said.

try this seattle times link instead
It doesn't suffer from the punctuation
problems of your complaint,
and provides quotes
of several other officials, including:

Brig. Gen. Michael Vane, deputy chief of staff for doctrine concepts and strategy at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Martin van Creveld, professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He briefed U.S. Marines on Israeli tactics in urban warfare in September.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think they were ever bidding for popular support. As far as I can tell, the insergents were/are two groups: foreign jihadists, and fedayeen Saddam former regime members. Neither group care much for the majority of Iraqis, or are cared for by the majority of Iraqis.

Their tactic always has been to try to create the impression that Iraq is ungovernable by anyone other than the Ba'ath Party. That's why they targeted international aid groups, and the UN as well as any Iraqi trying to build a new Iraq (such as the police). Their aim is to create chaos, with the hope that they can drive out any foreign stabilizing element. That means anyone, not just Coalition troops. With respect to the UN it worked -- after the one bomb, the UN pulled out.

Their other target is the Coalition military and the new Iraqi police . As with their attacks on foreign aid workers, their battle isn't for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, it is to convince westerners that we must pull every westerner out of Iraq. Then the former regime would move back into the vacuum that would create and reestablish the former regime. They don't need and wouldn't get Iraqi public support for that. All they needed was to create a climate a fear. That's how Saddam ruled, and how they hope to prevent a new Iraq from being created -- not only by the Coaltion and international aid groups -- but most particularly by Iraqis.

I think you are projecting an awful lot here.

I don't see any basis for the motives and intentions you are assigning to the Iraqi resistance movement.

I don't suppose foreign helicopter gun-ships circling overhead and armed foreign troops at the corner of every street creates a 'climate of fear'?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
How do you know what 95% of Iraqis want? It seems to me 95% of Iraqis want the US to get the hell out of their country and let them make up their own minds as to what form of government they should have and who should own their natural resources. And you disparage Islamic fundamentalists and Ba'athists like some patriarch of Iraq; as if you decide what kind of government is legitimate.

Of course taking lives, especially civilian lives is not nice, but it's also necessary sometimes. We could make a list that runs into pages where those who resisted an occupation despite the deaths caused were referred to as freedom fighters rather than terrorists; at least retrospectively. It seems to me that those who refer to the Iraqi Resistance as terrorists have a rather transparent agenda. "We're giving them all this good stuff, so they can't possibly dislike us; there must be evil elements at work here". It's a sort of "How dare they resist us?" attitude. How naive! How can you miss the fact that Americans have caused untold misery for Iraqis; that Americans continue to cause misery in Iraq. Calling the Resistance terrorists is to ignore the reality of what has happened in Iraq.

Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes for 10 minutes. Imagine Germany invaded the US and was occupying you. Do you think the US population would sit on their arses and wait for the German government to decide what the US will look like politically and who will own what? Doubtful! Those Iraqi are fighting for freedom from the US; they're fighting for the right to decide for themselves what happens in their country. Collateral damage is regrettable, but probably necessary.

I'm not saying the US should up and leave immediately, but it should have had a better plan in place to transfer power to Iraqis. There still seems to be no coherent plan to do this anytime soon. IMHO, if the US had listened to other groups and managed the whole process of dealing with Saddam a little better, none of this would be happening now. But it didn't and for the US to call people names and bemoan their lot is not helping anyone. What they have to do is put control of Iraq in Iraqi hands as soon as possible. And if the Iraqis decide to become an Islamic state or to give the Ba'athists another go, so be it. That is their right.

I didn't see this post. I'm kind of stunned by it. The insurgents, or whatever we should call them aren't just causing collateral damage on civilians (i.e. killing them inadvertenly on the way to some legitimate military target) they are doing so deliberately as the object of their attacks. They are also deliberately attacking internationally protected non-combatants whose only role is to try to alleviate the suffering of Iraqi civilians. I guess some war crimes are OK with you? That's what you are defending here. As you say "taking lives, especially civilian lives [a war crime] is not nice, but it's also necessary sometimes."

Amazing.

This isn't a matter of semantics. I don't care whether they are called terrorists or not. Even if you call them the tooth fairy, the fact is what they are doing as a matter of deliberate intent is uttely contrary to all the laws of war. But I guess universal rules of humanitarian law are only useful if it can be used to attack the universal evil -- the Americans. If you are a "freedom fighter" (or one of their apologists) anything goes. "Want to kill UN workers - no problem, you are a freedom fighter." "Blow up the Red Cross? No problem! It's all in a good cause!" "Kill civilians -- deliberately? Fine with that. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs!"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I think you are projecting an awful lot here.

I don't see any basis for the motives and intentions you are assigning to the Iraqi resistance movement.

I'm inferring it from their target list. Civilians, power lines, water pipelines, international aid workers, the UN, foreign diplomats from Arab countries engaged in training the Iraqi police. Iraqi police stations. You do those things when you want to build a climate of fear among your former subjects. You don't win the hearts and minds of the population. The Ba'ath party did not govern by popularity. It is incredible to think they suddenly have become democrats.