Al Jazeera is a disgrace

[chicot]

Dont get me wrong, I dont think Al Sadr is now an ally. But the basic reason why he's stopped fighting is clear.

 

BTW...attacks today were aimed at an Iraqi police station and in a small market. According to MSNBC, whom I trust a BIT more than Lefthook.com, the Insurgents are attempting to "block a key goal of U.S. forces: to one day be replaced by newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police."

 

So....

 

If these Insurgents are fightings to end the U.S. occupation, as you claim, then why would they thwart efforts by the U.S. and Iraq to complete one of the key goals of a handover; i.e. transfer responsibility for security and policing back to the Iraqis?

 

Your'e on the clock again.................

333398[/snapback]

 

I think different groups of insurgents have different goals. The foreign jihadis probably don't even want to see the US leave - they would prefer it to mired in Iraq for years, even decades to come, where they can attack it. The Baathists want the US to leave and then stage a coup and reestablish a Baathist regime. The nationalists just want the US to leave (I'm not sure what they envisage next). I don't believe that those fighting to end the US occupation actually believe that the US ever truly intends to leave (and by "leave", I mean leave completely, with no bases left behind so you might actually agree with them in that regard).

[chicot]

As long as people are 'on the clock', does anyone want to field my question from yesterday?

Anyone?  Bueller?

333411[/snapback]

 

Patience. I'm replying to umpteen people at once (while also attempting to do some work ). I think my reply to RKFast covers what the goals of the armed resistance are.

[chicot]

Doesn't matter, considering the dude who wrote it is the owner of the website.  I sincerely hope you're not in the same political boat as the 21 year old who wrote that hate infested drivel.

333191[/snapback]

 

Well, it didn't invent the NYT article although to see the graphs you have to pay a fee. Could be that Lefthook or NYT manufactured the data but I think that's probably a remote possibility.

 

NYT article

 

I thought the tone of the Lefthook article was a bit much ("white man's burden and all that). However, I thought the following 2 paragraphs made some very good points:

 

Cynical observers would insist that the discrepancy between distribution of attacks and casualties explains that distribution, as if there is some sort of overarching plot by the resistance to focus attacks on the military precisely because less resources are needed to kill civilians. Such a view assumes, first and foremost, a central, unified command structure, and that does not exist. It also assumes that insurgents who are motivated to carry out careful, coordinated attacks in ways specifically designed to minimize their chances of death would gladly blow themselves up in the suicide attacks which have characterized the most deadly assaults on civilians: a ridiculous proposition unless we assume the insurgents are also schizophrenics.

 

Far more likely is that nationalist currents within the resistance confront and attack US forces and other symbols of the occupation whereas fanatical, opportunistic elements on the margins conduct spectacular, sectarian attacks which invariably garner sensationalistic media coverage. Indeed, Patrick Cockburn's recent April 11, 2005 report from Iraq bears out precisely this assessment. He writes: "The split is between Islamic fanatics, willing to kill anybody remotely connected with the government, and Iraqi nationalists who want to concentrate on attacking the 130,000 US troops in Iraq." Noting that "Posters threatening extreme resistance fighters have appeared on walls in Ramadi," Cockburn quotes a Ramadi Sunni imam as saying, "[The fanatics] have tarnished our image and used the jihad to make personal gains." (4)

 

That is more or less the point I have been trying to make all along.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Well, it didn't invent the NYT article although to see the graphs you have to pay a fee. Could be that Lefthook or NYT manufactured the data but I think that's probably a remote possibility.

 

NYT article

 

I thought the tone of the Lefthook article was a bit much ("white man's burden and all that). However, I thought the following 2 paragraphs made some very good points:

 

Cynical observers would insist that the discrepancy between distribution of attacks and casualties explains that distribution, as if there is some sort of overarching plot by the resistance to focus attacks on the military precisely because less resources are needed to kill civilians. Such a view assumes, first and foremost, a central, unified command structure, and that does not exist. It also assumes that insurgents who are motivated to carry out careful, coordinated attacks in ways specifically designed to minimize their chances of death would gladly blow themselves up in the suicide attacks which have characterized the most deadly assaults on civilians: a ridiculous proposition unless we assume the insurgents are also schizophrenics.

 

Far more likely is that nationalist currents within the resistance confront and attack US forces and other symbols of the occupation whereas fanatical, opportunistic elements on the margins conduct spectacular, sectarian attacks which invariably garner sensationalistic media coverage. Indeed, Patrick Cockburn's recent April 11, 2005 report from Iraq bears out precisely this assessment. He writes: "The split is between Islamic fanatics, willing to kill anybody remotely connected with the government, and Iraqi nationalists who want to concentrate on attacking the 130,000 US troops in Iraq." Noting that "Posters threatening extreme resistance fighters have appeared on walls in Ramadi," Cockburn quotes a Ramadi Sunni imam as saying, "[The fanatics] have tarnished our image and used the jihad to make personal gains." (4)

 

That is more or less the point I have been trying to make all along.

333432[/snapback]

 

There was a point in there?

 

The point I got is that HALF of the resistance is targeting civilians...Which would mean that you are indeed incorrect!

[chicot]

There was a point in there?

 

The point I got is that HALF of the resistance is targeting civilians...Which would mean that you are indeed incorrect!

333446[/snapback]

 

Well there was a point in there since you got it. Not sure where you got the "HALF" from - the article doesn't speculate on the relatives numbers of "Islamic fanatics" or "Iraqi nationalists".

[GG]

Al-Jazeera routinely directly quotes US claims about foreign fighters. It is left up to the reader whether or not they choose to believe them.

 

Why is there even a need for the qualifier, that it's US claims? If they are true journalists, that fact should be fairly evident, and no need to pass it off as US spin.

 

However, even if an outside observer, such as yourself includes the qualifier in the debate, it tells me that Jazeera has done its job.

 

 

Yes, most Iraqis don't want the foreign insurgents in their country. They are widely believed to have been behind a disproportionate amount of the worst attacks on Iraqi civilians, which seems fairly plausible to me at least.  However, do you believe that if you could wave a magic wand and cause all the foreign insurgents to disappear today that the insurgency would cease? I doubt it.

333379[/snapback]

 

I am not naive to think that the insurgency would go away overnight. However, I believe that it would go down dramatically.

 

I also couldn't help but notice the coincidence of this discussion happening on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Europe. Care to take a poll of Eastern Europeans what they would have wanted Churchill & Roosevelt to do?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What's even the point of this whole thread? "Al Jazeera is a disgrace"? By what standards, American ones? Well, guess what...it's a friggin' ARAB station. Precisely who is al Jazeera supposed to be disgracing here, and how?

[erynthered]

So I'm part of the problem? Yeah right, if it wasn't for me there would be no violence in Iraq

333369[/snapback]

 

When I read a book, or watch a movie, or read articles in the newspaper or read this board. Its easy to formulate an opinion. If that’s above your head, I'm sorry.

 

It's clear in my mind who you are.

[chicot]

Why is there even a need for the qualifier, that it's US claims?  If they are true journalists, that fact should be fairly evident, and no need to pass it off as US spin. 

 

However, even if an outside observer, such as yourself includes the qualifier in the debate, it tells me that Jazeera has done its job. 

I am not naive to think that the insurgency would go away overnight.  However, I believe that it would go down dramatically. 

 

I also couldn't help but notice the coincidence of this discussion happening on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Europe.  Care to take a poll of Eastern Europeans what they would have wanted Churchill & Roosevelt to do?

333974[/snapback]

 

I do not believe that everything the US states is automatically gospel. Do you? I think I was probably overstating things by saying that Al-Jazeera frames US statements as "claims". The following excerpt is fairly typical:

 

"The US military also said on Monday that its forces had launched an offensive against anti-US fighters in western Iraq near the Syrian border, killing about 75 fighters in the first 24 hours.

 

It said the offensive, being conducted with US air support in al-Anbar province north of the Euphrates River, was targeting a sanctuary for foreign anti-US fighters and an alleged smuggling route."

 

I don't really think that's really such a terrible or biased description.

 

Full article

[chicot]

When I read a book, or watch a movie, or read articles in the newspaper or read this board. Its easy to formulate an opinion. If that’s above your head, I'm sorry.

 

It's clear in my mind who you are. 

334098[/snapback]

 

I'm happy for you.