Who is killing US soldiers in Iraq???? IMPT question.

[skip fox]

Until we know exactly what is happening, it will be impossible to
react correctly. If the attackers are Saddam loyalists, sprinkled
with a few Shite fanatics, as we're being told, then we keep doing
what we're doing: raiding known Ba'ah party members' houses &c.

But IF, as I think Peter Bergman contended, that Iraq has become
a magnet for al-Quaeda (having stocked 150,000 of its favorite targets--
American soldiers), then we're in quite a different contest!

The point is, that the administration is still SPINNING (i.e., lying), claiming
it's the former and not the latter. Why? Because the former is far more
'fixible' than the latter. Hell, now they're lying to themselves.

[pbeal]

1. this is just my view on what is happening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=398&mesg_id=398&page=

[Brian Sweat]

6. I suspect you are both right

Al Qada has millions of angry Arab youth to draw upon. As time goes on, this could get worse. Especially, if the Shi'a get involved.

[skip fox]

7. Intelligent and insightful post, but . . .

But what do we know factually? I'm not trying to discredit your insight
and knowledge, but what exactly do we know? Have we captured anyone
in the process of attacking and have they been Ba'ath or al-Quaeda? What
does the evidence suggest? I mean, I ain't arguing . . . I'm asking!

[skip fox]

8. Intelligent and insightful post, but . . .

But what do we know factually? I'm not trying to discredit your insight
and knowledge, but what exactly do we know? Have we captured anyone
in the process of attacking and have they been Ba'ath or al-Quaeda? What
does the evidence suggest? I mean, I ain't arguing . . . I'm asking!

[GregW]

2. It's whoever Bush asked to "Bring 'em on"

[Generic Other]

3. George W. Bush

His finger might as well be on the trigger.

[bowens43]

4. What leads you to believe that either of these scenarios are true?

It may just be the general population trying to to take their country back from an invading army or it may be all three of these things. There is no reason to assume that it's only saddam loyalists and terrorists who oppose the US presence in Iraq. After all, we have helped to make their lives a living hell for decades.

[skip fox]

9. Yes, of course . . . but if we continue

thinking it's just Ba'ath party attackers, then we've got our head in the sand.

I wasn't assuming anything. I was interrogating our government's current assumptions.

[Brian Sweat]

11. How about all three?

[poskonig]

5. Iraqis fighting for God and Country.

Is this really far out? I think not.

[CWebster]

10. How about

just ordinary everday Iraqis who resent the occupation of their country?

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. Who 'd be attacking Iraqi troops if they were shooting kids in your town?

There's your answer!

[hang a left]

13. My opinion for what it is worth

Is that it is the Iraqis. Otherwise we would see more suicide bombings, car bombings, and larger scale attacks. They are trying to run us out of their country. They know Americans at home will not tolerate many more casualties. Wolffuck can keep telling them we will stay the course regardless of the deaths of American soldiers, just makes matters worse, they know that is not true. Why do you think the killings have been kicked up a notch in the last week. There has to be legitamacy to the reconstruction efforts, that will not come without an UN mandate. These retards won't go to the UN because they don't want the pie cut. They don't want international oversight. These CITIZENS are just like us, we would be doing the same thing if we were illegally invaded, our innocents were slaughtered and the enemy was destined only to rape and pilfer our gross national product.

[opihimoimoi]

15. Arrogance being what it is sometimes can be taught

in this case, our good soldiers there are the targets from the result of arrogance.

They are soldiers not peace keepers. They in the wrong business at this point. The Military teaches obedience, in a rough manner, meaning, the soldiers carry out their tast with the training they been taught. Then if this is remotely true, they treat the Iraqi people as their own sargents treat THEM.... sometimes in a rough condenscending manner/ this grates on the Iraqis as it would us given similar situations. My take is we got the wrong people doing the good mission of showing the people there that is a better life after all. We are fucking it up and we don't know what the hell to do.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

14. Vietnam scenario repeats.....

Same damn thing the French proclaimed.

Same damn thing the US government proclaimed.

"to stop the spread of Communism"
"to liberate the Vietnamese"
"to bring freedom to the Vietamese"


but it didnt work. All the BS about bringing 'freedom'
to Vietnam never worked, American CIA screwed it up
beyond all recognition.

Installing a fraud government, 'friendly' to US interests
never worked.

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


With evil Bush nothing has changed since Plato's days..........


“The price good people pay for their indifference to public
affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
—Plato (427-347 BC)



"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure... The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

-- Congressman Abraham Lincoln

- -

[ChillEB]

16. I don't buy it...

I don't buy EITHER explanation, at least, not in all cases. It's remarkable how consistently the media whores portray the attackers as 'Hussein Loyalists', without having the SLIGHTEST CLUE as to whether or not that is what they truly are. The US media is nothing more than stenographers for the White House. King George's personal propaganda machine, reporting WHATEVER they are told by the WH as the gospel truth, with no apparent effort to independently verify the veracity of ANYTHING they are told to state as fact.

People in this nation *REALLY* need to become aware of the fact that, in reality, NO NEWS SOURCES are legally obligated to tell the truth about ANYTHING.

It's fucking sickening to watch what's happening in our country with regards to the 'news'. Something needs to be done in the legal arena which makes it some sort of crime for any news agency which portrays itself as being the bearer of truthful information to disseminate uncorroborated government propaganda (or anything else) as though it were undisputed truth.

IMHO, all 'news' sources (including the Limbaugh's and Laura Ingrahams) should have to publically certify whether they purport to be NEWS, and hence, held accountable for accurate reporting, or whether they are ENTERTAINMENT, and hence not held accountable for veracity (but still open to libel/slander suits). Limbaugh should have to tell the world, every .5 hours, that what they are listening to is 'entertainment', and hence he's under no obligation to tell the truth.

Perhaps if given this disclaimer on an ongoing basis, the wingnuts would occasionally take a step back and consider for a moment whether they are being led astray by the demagogues who seek to exploit their racism, xenophobia, homophobia, fear, and rabid nationalism in order to send them out into the world to argue to maintain the status quo in this country. A status quo desired by the mega-rich corporate imperialists who, while always powerful, have recently endeavored to completely usurp our democracy and replace it with fascist plutocracy wherein *THEY* make the laws we must all live under.

If it wasn't for the lying propaganda factory known as ths US Mainstream Media, the fascists would have NO CHANCE to do this. Without the Limbaughs and Coulters out there, lying their asses off and doing their BEST to create a HUGE divide in our population on a daily basis, the public would wield the power to STOP the hostile corporate takeover of our democracy through the power of the vote. As long as the corporate plutocrats and oligarchs keep the population (somewhat artificially) divided into "Left and Right" by lying to the people on the Right, telling them that the Left is their 'real' enemy, the fascists have a solid chance to pull off a coup. It has already begun.

Now that the PATRIOT Act has made it possible for the PNAC brigade to imprison their political enemies at will, and the voting machine software is controlled by companies who support the GOP, I believe that unless something is done to force our media to TELL THE TRUTH, the country will continue to slide further into the hands of the corporations, stolen away from 'We the People' right under our noses. And it will largely be because of the far right REFUSING to take a look at any real facts about whats going on. Spoonfed propaganda 24/7 by Rush, Faux, Hannity, Savage, etc, these people are so consumed by their hatred of 'the Left' and 'immigrants' and 'faggots' and 'welfare moms' and everybody else that they pathologically despise, that they cannot bring themselves to unite with their fellow Americans to defeat the REAL forces of evil at work in this country right now - which, guess what? Ain't Al-Qaeda.

[EAMcClure]

17. Who's killing the soldiers: the Viet Cong

Look no further than the citizenry, be they soldiers, peasants, or teenagers. Whoever resents the occupation.

The U.S. managed to kill or capture a fraction of the Iraqi army, including the fedayeen and republican guard. I'm sure they're in on it.

The U.S. had the most difficult time capturing the cities with a Shiite population. I'm sure they're in on it.

The U.S. has inflamed the Iraqi street passion through door to door weapons searches and curfews. I'm sure they're in on it.

The U.S. has inflamed the Iraqi street through their fake democratic council.

The U.S. has inflamed the Iraqi street through bribing clerics.

The U.S. is now firing upon demonstrators after first fixing their bayonets upon them.

The U.S. is conducting their occupation shamefully, empowering private contractors to remake Iraq in western image, and many Iraqis are still dealing with a ruined infrastructure through years of sanctions and bombings. When the only new pretty buildings are McDonald's and soldier quarters, expect more hurt feelings.

To see who is responsible for killing our soldier youth, look no further than the majority of the Iraqi population.

Eric

[Junkdrawer]

25. Looks like we agree.

Why is the obvious always considered subversive?

[kentuck]

18. No one knows for sure but in my opinion....

It does not take a lot of troops with hand grenades and rocket launchers to create havoc. We do not know how many weapons they have access to. We do know that they have at least one or two rocket launchers and some grenades. We do not know how many Iraqis have access to these weapons. My opinion is that if they were to kill a couple of the ambushers, perhaps the attacks might slow down somewhat. ..assuming there are not a large number of young Iraqis with these weapons?

In my opinion, the US troops should withdraw from the center of Iraq and patrol the boundaries of the city, stopping all traffic entering into the city. It is just a matter of time until "allies" of Saddam start bringing weapons and ammo to replenish the supplies of the Iraqi rebels. They could come from any direction. However, the number location to suspect would be Saudi Arabia, in my opinion. Not because they are so friendly to the "rebels" but because they are isolated in their mansions and have little idea of what is going on in their country.

This would be the worst scenario, if they are permitted to re-arm with new weapons. And I suspect that is happening as we speak. What is accomplished by sending a Humvee full of GIs thru the streets of Baghdad?? There is no necessity for that. Pull them back and use them in a more important mission if you insist on going the route that it appears you are going. Use them to patrol the roads and perimeters around Baghdad.

We do know there were a large number of the so-called Revolutionary Guard that "disappeared" during the March to Baghdad. Are they the ones creating the ambushes on Americans? Or is there outside "help", including al Qaeda, that have come into the country since hostilities ceased and the "Mission Accomplished"?

[Old and In the Way]

19. The Palestinization of Iraq.

This time, we play the role of the Israeli's.

[skip fox]

20. What we're coming up with might be in conflict

with each other occasionally, but we're certainly questioning
the wistful thinking of the administration. If it was simply Saddam
loyalists, it would be relatively easy and we might actually be able
to see light at the end of the tunnel. But if not . . . well, that light
is much harder to see . . . even to imagine.

I hope something pushes our administration and/or military to start
thinking outside-the-box on this one. Exercises like this might be
offered in such a spirit.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Great question Skip....

Shiites (many if not most with ties to Iran) are the vast majority. Remember that is was OUR chemical weapons that put down the Shiite uprisings and that we helped put Saddam there in the first place. After Gulf War I, we looked the other way as Saddam put down the uprising we encouraged them to start. My guess is the Shiites remember all this VERY well.

Also note that there is no way that we will allow the Shiites to take over Iraq and its oil (even though they are the majority).

Now, do you think the Shiites want us to stay? My guess is no.

Wild card: Oil hungry China has been working very hard to establish good relations with Iran and has even tried to build nuclear reactors for them.

[Junkdrawer]

24. PS: We're being prepared in anticipation of Saddam's death...

First of all, I believe that we and the Iraqi people are being heavily propagandized when we're told that the Shiites by and large love us for getting rid of Saddam (see previous post). Once Saddam is officially pronounced dead, there will have to be someone else (other than the obvious Shiites) to blame for the on-going guerilla war. From what I now see in the "news", that someone will be a loose confederation of radical Islamic foreigners.

Does anyone here remember Vietnam and how we were told that the Vietnamese loved us and that it was only foreign influences that wanted us gone? To quote Yogi Berra "Deja Vu all over again".

[Octafish]

22. Ba'ath loyalists are just bubbling at the top of the volcano.

And Al Qaeda is a breeding ground for angry activists underneath the surface. But all around them are a whole bunch of real angry organizations: Hezbo'llah, Hamas, Saudi CIA, Mossad and many, many others that likely are active players, driving violence in Iraq. Behind them all? The BFEE. Consider the following and who gets to read INTEL first and set policy immediately after:


Saudi spy chief: CIA got 'all' our intelligence on Al Qaida since '97

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, September 18, 2002

ABU DHABI — Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki Al Faisal said Saudi Arabia and the United States have been sharing information on Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden since 1997. He said Riyad relayed to the CIA all information collected on Al Qaida.

"As director of general intelligence, I had for some time regarded Osama Bin Laden as a key intelligence target," Turki told the Riyad-based Arab News on Wednesday.

"At the instruction of the senior Saudi leadership, I shared all the intelligence we had collected on Bin Laden and Al Qaida with the CIA," Turki said. "And in 1997 the Saudi minister of defense, Prince Sultan, established a joint intelligence committee with the United States to share information on terrorism in general and on Bin Laden and Al-Qaida in particular."

Turki served as Saudi intelligence chief from 1973 until several weeks before the Al Qaida suicide attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001. He was the leading Saudi liasion to U.S. intelligence, Middle East Newsline reported.

CONTINUED...

http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_saudis_09_18.html

[notadmblnd]

23. I was kinda thinkin it might be the INC

I mean, didn't Shrubco piss those guys off? Wasn't the Iraqi National congress/Chalabi told they would be running the gvmt? I know all the members of INC were put on the consul but its not the same thing. Anyone else think the INC (all trained by the USA)could be behind the attacks?

[Junkdrawer]

26. Kick

:kick:

[Junkdrawer]

27. And another..

:kick:

[skip fox]

28. Some more thinking on the issue:

Our gov. WANTS the enemy to be Saddam loyalists: maybe with a sprinkling of
Shi'ites and a few foreigners, but mostly a loosely organized network of Sadam
loyalists. They WANT this to be the case, because it provides a winning scenerio:
Saddam is captured and, at least gradually, all the air (inspiration and money) goes
out of the opposition.

BUT IF THIS WAS THE CASE, that the opposition is lead by Saddam supporters and
Ba'ath Party members, wouldn't we expect to see assignations of Iraqis who these
opposition groups view as collaborating with the United States? Have we? If not, why
not? (Why isn't there a hit out on the individual or individuals who turned in Saddam's
sons? Or is there?)


On another point: Our new policy of rapid response raids (bypassing time-consuming analysis),
which we have been bragging about sounds like a recipe for an AMBUSH. Can you see the
headlines: 20 Americans Killed in Ambush. Scares me.

[Junkdrawer]

29. I think we're being lied to for a reason...

The gov't knows that what little support there is for staying in Iraq is based on the Saddam boogieman argument. The real reason we're there is, IMHO, to play oil keep-away with Iran/China. And for that reason, we're going to stay there until we can establish a stable non-Shiite gov't - and that could take a looooong time.

[CWebster]

30. of course there is the obviously unthinkable

It is the everyday Iraqis killing occupation soldiers.