'The true face of Iraqi resistance'

The true face of Iraqi resistance

We will all pay the price if Labour today backs continued occupation

Sami Ramadani
Thursday September 30, 2004
The Guardian

Rarely have delegates to a party conference had such potential to influence the course of history as they do today. In Labour's debate on the occupation of Iraq, the party will confront the biggest question facing the country: will Britain continue to follow the lead of President Bush, or will it change course and help to give the Iraqi people the chance to determine their own future? Ominously for the prospects of Labour and the government - as well as for the future of Iraq - it looks likely that delegates will vote to back the continued bloody occupation of the land of my birth to save the prime minister's political skin.

There are now two Iraq wars: the first is being fought with helicopter gunships and cluster bombs along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates; the second is being fought here in Britain and in the pre-election US. This is a propaganda war in which the hundreds of Iraqis killed every week by US bombardment fail to make the headlines, while the horrifying images provided by a Jordanian kidnapper and killer of British and US contractors is portrayed as the true face of Iraqi resistance. Thus the real human suffering, and the reality of the widespread resistance to occupation, is hidden from view, while bombing what US generals call Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "supporters' hideouts" is portrayed as a necessity. And so Falluja, a besieged city of 300,000 people, is under daily aerial attack, and parts of Sadr City, the poorest neighbourhood of Baghdad, are being reduced to rubble. Many towns and villages across Iraq are encircled, and thousands of people arrested to crush popular resistance to occupation.

The vast majority of Iraqis reject Zarqawi and his ilk - as do the resistance and its supporters in Falluja, Sadr City and across Iraq. Many even suspect that the occupation forces are somehow encouraging the likes of Zarqawi, or at least failing to prevent their crimes, as a way of obscuring the fact that most Iraqis now actively support a patriotic and widespread resistance movement.

The occupation forces have admitted that the attacks on them by the resistance rose last month to 2,700. And how many of these 2,700 attacks a month were claimed by Zarqawi? Six. Six headline-grabbing, TV-dominating, stomach-churning moments.

Just as Iraq's 25 million people were reduced, in the public's mind, to the threat from weapons of mass destruction, ready to be unleashed within 45 minutes, the resistance is now being reduced to a single hoodlum.

--snip--

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1316154,00.html

:toast:

IMO.

propaganda coming from the left is just as repugnant as that coming from the right, especially today when 35 children were killed by an insurgent's bomb. I condemn the bombing of Iraqi cities by U.S. forces. I condemn equally the car bombings being carried out against Iraqis by the insurgents. They're not just beheading a few westerners. They're killing hundreds each week as well.

of a mindless retort. Bravo.

Maybe if you were the UN or something, you'd need to condemn bombings. Otherwhise, who cares? I mean, its a given that such things are awful.

"Propaganda coming from the left"? This is a Manchester Guardian article, not a Worker's Vanguard article.

Bush is responsible for every bit of blood spilled by the resistance. The problem isn't that our weapons sometimes kill civilians; the problem is, WE INVADED A FUCKING COUNTRY and its people don't want us there.

Oh yeah, great idea, let's start bashing the Iraqis to prove what great Amurkins we are.

:boring:

I don't agree. And whatever I'm doing it's not bashing Iraqis. They have my deepest sympaties. I opposed this war in every way I could, including marching twice in D.C. What I've really come to despise is the rigid ideology of both the right and the left. Of course, Bush's hands are stained with blook. When you state that "Bush is responsible for every bit of blood spilled by the resistance." Do you mean that the people that placed the bombs, that executed the 12 Nepalese workers, and yes that sawed off the heads of kidnap victims, are not responsible for their actions?

Bush is a great big person and they are little tiny people. I hate it when people imagine political relationships as personal. Bush put the people there for them to kill and gave them a reason to kill.

If America gets invaded, and a bomb I place to destroy the invaders kills my fellow Americans, I will feel terrible--probably almost to the point of suicide. Will that stop me from placing another bomb, and another, and another, until all of the invaders are gone? No.

(an expression of disgust) First of all a great many of the bombs being detonated are aimed at killing Iraqis. And might I suggest (albeit snarkily) that should the scenario you describe come to pass, you give in to your suicidal impulses.

See you in line at the police recruiting center.

and perhaps you remember me. I used to post as clar. Got off the board around a year ago. So, no I didn't make a wrong turn anywhere. I just don't buy my ideas wholesale. I've been a liberal thinker and voter- emphasis on thinker- throughout my adult life. I've supported liberals and progressives in every election. I take it you're supporting JK- and his positions are a hell of a lot further to the right than mine are. I still have a hard time swallowing his vote to authorize the war- oops I mean his vote to authorize the President to enforce the UN resolutions. We don't all need to walk in lockstep, so just chill.

children (Zarqawi) and the regular resistance.

thin vail

There wouldnt be insurgents if we hadnt invaded.

We need to get the fuck out of Iraq, YESTERDAY.

So, they backed the occupation until "the Iraqi governnment asks us to leave.."

Not the Iraqi people, mind you, but the installed puppet government.

This is an excellent analysis of The US strategy and its adjustments and their Terrorist bombing of Fallujans into submission...


http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI29Ak01.html


<snip>
Immediately after the collapse of the non-negotiations, the US initiated almost daily bombing of various neighborhoods in Fallujah. The cover story has been that they are bombing "safe houses" used by terrorists associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and that no other people are present during the attacks. But hospitals report daily that the vast majority of the casualties are civilians. It is clear to everyone but the US public that the attacks are designed to persuade the people of Fallujah to abandon their support of the rebellion. To add a further element of threat to the equation, the US has repeatedly announced that it would soon reinvade the city, and during the second week of September even announced on loudspeakers that the residents of certain areas should evacuate because of a pending attack. This was a bluff. US military officials admitted to American reporters that they are waiting until after the November elections in the United States.

We can expect that the bombing will continue until November, followed by a full-scale assault on the city, one that might be far more brutal than the previous attacks on Fallujah and Najaf - unless, of course, the strategy changes again. In the meantime, there are ongoing overtures for new negotiations, but without either side changing its position.

W and his gang decided three times not to try to assasinate Zarqawi. This was (before) the US invasion. Zarqawi was a useful tool then and is now. Much death and destruction blamed on Zarqawi can be shifted right back to the US Neo Fascists. Having one villan is useful.