0
   

"Foes of U.S. in Iraq Criticize Insurgents"

 
 
dlowan
 
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 06:59 pm
In an interesting report, today's Washington Post, writes the following:

(Full article here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5662-2004Jun25.html?referrer=email - registration -free - required)

What do people think are the implications of this news???

Foes of U.S. in Iraq Criticize Insurgents
Clerics and Militiamen Decry Violence
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 26, 2004; Page A01


BAGHDAD, June 25 -- Key Iraqi opponents of the U.S. occupation expressed unease Friday over the wave of insurgent attacks that killed more than 100 Iraqis a day earlier, and rejected efforts by foreign guerrillas to take the lead in the insurgency and mate it with the international jihad advocated by Osama bin Laden.



The objections -- from anti-U.S. Shiite and Sunni Muslim leaders, including rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr, and even from militia fighters in the embattled city of Fallujah -- arose in part from revulsion at the fact that victims of the car bombings and guerrilla assaults in six cities and towns Thursday were overwhelmingly Iraqis. But they also betrayed Iraqi nationalist concerns that the fight against U.S. occupation forces risked being hijacked by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian whom U.S. officials describe as a paladin in bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

"We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq," Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, a Sunni cleric with a wide following, declared in his Friday sermon at Umm al Qurra mosque in Baghdad.

Since they were appointed three weeks ago, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and members of his U.S.-sponsored interim government have railed against the car bombings and other attacks. But Friday's show of disgust -- expressed in mosques and, in Sadr's case, with fliers calling for cooperation with Iraqi police -- marked the first time anti-occupation clerics and fighters sided against violence associated with the insurgency, for which Zarqawi has increasingly asserted responsibility.

In that light, it could be an important moment in the U.S. struggle to win acceptance for the military occupation and for the interim government scheduled to acquire limited authority next Wednesday. While far from embracing the U.S. occupation or the new government, the anti-occupation leaders seemed to disavow the bloodiest edge of the violence and Zarqawi's attempt to make it part of al Qaeda's vision of international jihad.......


..........."This is the first time we have heard the minaret broadcast support for the Iraqi government," said Edward Peter Messmer, the occupation authority's coordinator for the Baqubah region, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. "And it couldn't come at a better time."

Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has fought U.S. troops in the Sadr City slum in eastern Baghdad and in Najaf, 90 miles to the south, ordered his followers to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi police in Sadr City to "deprive the terrorists and saboteurs of the chance to incite chaos and extreme lawlessness."

"We know the Mahdi Army is ready to cooperate actively and positively with honest elements from among the Iraqi police and other patriotic forces, to partake in safeguarding government buildings and facilities, such as hospitals, electricity plants, water, fuel and oil refineries, and any other site that might be a target for terrorist attacks," said an order from the Mahdi Army distributed in Sadr City.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,127 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:04 pm
Thank goodness.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 11:14 pm
What I see is that they're not too psyched about their country being torn in all kinds of directions, and their people killed not just by the enemy (us) but by so many of their "helpers", and they'd prefer all parties to knock it off.
"We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq." Sounds like they're thinking a united front would be best. It's good that they're thinking, I guess. Whether this is good news for us, I don't know.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2004 01:09 am
Let's be clear here kiddies about our terms: Foes of Iraq,at this juncture are not merely disgruntled "local citizens" or upstart "insurgents", they are criminals disobeying thier new provisional government put in place by their friends, the conquering and liberation forces of the Coalition led by the US and 65 other enthusiastic other countries. The truth is that almost all save for a rag-tag few of these miscreants are Syrians, Iranians, Palestinian and other terrorist nation sponsored troops bent on Islamic Jihad. Well? So now you know. Don't you feel really dumb?
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2004 01:22 am
The fact that this sinister, dreadful assortment of lunatics is slaughtering innocent non-combattants of Iraq should at least give some sympathizers of this incredible brutality a cause to ask oneself what role you are playing in adding to the propaganda that gives these beasts cover.
Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2004 03:54 pm
Smile
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2004 06:18 pm
I would guess that your garden variety Iraqi A) is glad to be free of Saddam and B) wants us out of there on a daily basis, but is also glad to have Coalition cover as they take on the mantle of self-determination.

So, I think it is understandable that they want us out--but I don't think it can be viewed as anything other than good, that these Sadr types, and others, who genuinely want us out--are speaking out against those who are stymying (sp?) Iraq's ascent to self-determination, and killing their fellow Iraqis.

The political reality for the US re this 'speaking out' can only be viewed as a positive, IMO. And, I would hazard to say that the murders of Iraqis by these insurgents adds to the average Iraqi's appreciation and understanding of US/Coalition forces. They are suffering as we have been, in losing vital life, and are probably gaining empathy toward our sacrifices.

Militarily, Iraqis are more likely to drop a dime on extremists and insurgents. The religious leaders have publicly gone against the insurgents. We may have been cast as an occupying 'enemy'--but now a common enemy--a REAL enemy has brought the average Iraqi closer to the Coalition forces.

They could have called upon Iraqi's to join with the insurgents...
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2004 03:20 am
In a world of cynics and agents with black agendas the clarity and decency of your commentary is breathtaking.
We may choose to disagree on certain points but I have not a moment of doubt concerning the vigor of your opinion nor the courage and conviction by which you prosequte it.
Having attempted and failing to rally the Iraqi citizenry, the opposition has engaged in desperate measures of last resort.
Their spin-merchants will spin until the end...and long after.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 10:09 am
Another point of clarity, if I might...

It is important to note that the goal of those fomenting unrest and terrorism in Iraq--Iraqi and foreign nationals alike--is NOT the departure of the US-led coalition; they understand full-well that the coalition fully intends to depart as soon as the newly formed Iraqi government is sufficiently developed to take charge of its own country, and they know full-well that their actions are merely delaying the date upon which the coalition is likely to depart.

Their real goal is to do everything they can to ensure that the Bush doctrine of preemption is seen as a failure (or at least can be presented as such by allies in the media). Insurgents from Iran (as one example) are not fighting in Iraq due to any noble brotherly bond with their Iraqi counterparts (these nations are long-time enemies, remember?). The reality is that pretty much everyone in Iran recognizes that if the coalition leaves behind a stable, free Iraq when it leaves, the case for the Bush doctrine has been made and proven, and the days of the current regime in Iran are numbered. (And Iran is just one of many examples. You can't throw a dinar in any direction from Iraq without hitting soil being ruled by some government that is overdue for addition to the scrapheap of history's great mistakes.)
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:37 pm
Three cheers Scrat. The evacuation or "withdrawl timeline" thing is a holdover concept that ill-informed media and US critics fell on early in this IRAQ "thing". A careful reading of our official plans will reveal no such contingency planning whatsoever. We are in country in IRAQ until further notice. We are officially discussing plans to phase into a "Garrison Phase" possibly when the interim government changes over to an elected one in early '05. Conservative projections have US "boots on the ground" for in excess of 40 years. Go back to Bush's early official announcements. We are retalliating against all foes and nation-states who support or encourage world terrorism. Every nation who shares a border with IRAQ is included along with more and many others.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:50 pm
Chuckster wrote:
Three cheers Scrat. The evacuation or "withdrawl timeline" thing is a holdover concept that ill-informed media and US critics fell on early in this IRAQ "thing". A careful reading of our official plans will reveal no such contingency planning whatsoever. We are in country in IRAQ until further notice. We are officially discussing plans to phase into a "Garrison Phase" possibly when the interim government changes over to an elected one in early '05. Conservative projections have US "boots on the ground" for in excess of 40 years. Go back to Bush's early official announcements. We are retalliating against all foes and nation-states who support or encourage world terrorism. Every nation who shares a border with IRAQ is included along with more and many others.

I agree with one clarification: any extended presence by the US on Iraqi soil will be a the request and the pleasure of the Iraqi government.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:54 pm
Scrat: Ya gotta quit slammin' dope.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Foes of U.S. in Iraq Criticize Insurgents"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:45:07