Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Is the “Resistance” Legitimate? - Part III

In a sick show of hatred, the bodies of civilian security contract workers are abused in Fallujah, 2004.

Parts I & II of this series concluded that the insurgency desires to reinstate an Arab/Sunni dictatorship and is aroused by religious bigotry. This post will tie up the loose ends and focus on the many atrocities committed by the insurgents.

Militarily the insurgency is completely frustrated by the resolve and efficiency of the US military. They never really had much of a chance against the American’s superior firepower, but they have made some spectacular attacks on unarmed civilians. Therefore, they don’t need to be militarily effective to make the nightly news. As a matter of fact, their complete incompetence doesn’t even matter. The insurgency has primarily focused on attacking Iraqis not US troops. It makes sense, why focus on attacking soldiers with guns when killing innocents will spark more outrage against your enemies than yourself? This is why they attack the coalition from afar while concentrating on killing as many civilians as possible.

In the month of March the US military suffered 31 deaths while Iraqi civilians have suffered 901, the overwhelming majority of these civilians were deliberately targeted by the insurgents. These numbers come from the iCasualties website compiled by the bloodthirsty activist, Pat Kneisler, who has a morbid fondness of casualty counts like many other moonbat activists. Clearly the insurgents are killing many more Iraqis than US soldiers. While the numbers can be disputed, even if they were off by over 50% they would still prove the point that this insurgency is not geared towards fighting foreign oppression. They are fighting for political dominance over their fellow Iraqis. I have no problem with the term Civil War, but it is nothing new. These attacks have been occurring since the beginning of the insurgency.

One of the first large scale terrorist bombings in this conflict was the attack on the Baghdad UN headquarters on August 19, 2003 . Almost all of the victims were civilians who were involved in humanitarian projects. This attack set the agenda for the Iraqi insurgency. It was to focus on destroying the civilian infrastructure and eliciting anger from Western society against the coalition. A second attack on the UN led to a drastic withdrawal from Iraq and the end of many of their humanitarian efforts. In the minds of the terrorists this was a stunning victory. For Iraqi civilians it was an ominous sign of the insurgency’s intentions to destroy the country and make it as uninhabitable as possible.

To further such goals the insurgency has attacked charities that are involved primarily for humanitarian efforts. On October 27, 2003 a bomb went off in front of the Baghdad Red Cross offices killing 12 innocents. The bombing had been preceded by a campaign of assassinations targeting Red Cross staff members and this attack was enough to convince the organization to move its Iraqi headquarters to the safety of the Kurdish north and Jordan.

The most high profile attack on a neutral humanitarian aid organization was the abduction and killing of Margaret Hassan, the Iraqi director of the relief agency CARE. She was actually a British woman who had married an Iraqi in the 70s and became an Arabic speaking citizen of the country. While the international community was outraged over her killing, it wasn’t an isolated incident.

In the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a humanitarian worker named Muhammad Hushiar of the relief and development organization, World Vision, was gunned down in cold blood in September of 2004. He had been warned by insurgents to quit his position with World Vision, but he refused. Two months later the charity shut down all of its humanitarian projects in Iraq.

On November 3, 2004, Ala Andraus, an employee of Caritas Iraq (a Roman Catholic organization helping underprivileged families) was shot and killed in the charity center where he worked. Due to the attack and a number of threats against it, the center was closed and their efforts to treat malnourished children were discontinued.

These and other attacks on humanitarian agencies are clearly aimed at destroying the quality of life for Iraqi civilians. The suffering that results from these actions has no direct effect on the occupation forces led by the US. If all occupation forces were to leave Iraq it is not likely that such attacks will stop until the insurgents get the upper-hand in this conflict.

Unfortunately, Iraq has never had a government that was representative of its people. Throughout its history it has been ruled by Caliphs, Ottomans, Monarchs and dictators. It is only natural that free elections were a threat to the legitimacy of the insurgency and so they made some miserable attempts to stop them. In August of 2004 about 30 insurgents attacked a car carrying Iraqi election workers. Three of the workers were dragged out of the car, forced to kneel down and were brutally executed (two managed to escape). Such assassinations and many more threats of violence led the entire 13-member electoral commission of the Anbar province to resign and go into hiding in January of 2005. Despite all of the insurgents attempts to deny the Iraqis their right of self-determination, two internationally supervised legislative elections have taken place, as well as a referendum to ratify a new constitution.

Meanwhile, in its commitment to violate every single right that the Iraqi people deserve to enjoy, the insurgents have waged a sinister campaign of violence against the freedom of press. They have attempted to dictate the content of all news stories that come out of Iraq, even for foreign press agencies. The worst of their attacks against the press was the bombing of the Al Arabiya television in October 2004 that killed seven Iraqis.

While US critics have accused the Americans of intentionally targeting the press, the Committee to Protect Journalists (an organization very hostile to the US military) stated, “CPJ has not found evidence to conclude that U.S. troops targeted journalists in these cases. While the cases are classified as crossfire, CPJ continues to investigate”. The same organization has found that Iraqi insurgents have intentionally murdered 34 journalists and kidnapped at least 39. These violations of the freedom of the press are just more nails in the coffin of the insurgency’s legitimacy.

This illustrates that the control of information is so important to the insurgency that they do not hesitate to use violence in such efforts. If you follow the trail of blood you will discover an article on ABC News entitled, “Academics become casualties of Iraq War”. It states that 182 university professors and academics have been killed during the insurgency and 85 have been kidnapped or survived assassination attempts. While a large amount of the kidnappings were criminal enterprises strictly for profit, many of the assassinations were for political reasons. Unfortunately, under this insurgency your political views can make you a target for murder.

In this bloody environment the Shiites have been a primary target and Sunni terrorists have been emboldened by the success of their recent attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra. However, attacks on the Shia are nothing new. In the same month as the first UN bombing there was an attack on a Shiite mosque in Najaf. The Imam Ali Mosque bombing on August 29, 2003 resulted in the murder of between 85 to 125 Shiite worshippers. This was the first of a long string of attacks by Sunni insurgents against the Shia and they are a testament to the religious bigotry of these thugs.

Many have argued that US support for an Iraqi government led by Shiites (some with ties to Iran) alienates the Sunni and drives them to the insurgency. Although this is an oversimplification, there is some truth to the accusation. However, there can be no long term peace in Iraq without justice for the Shia and fair representation of all Iraqi ethnic groups.

If you believe that the insurgency continues because the US occupation is unjust you should examine a different angle. The insurgency continues because it has hope. Even while wallowing in prison Saddam Hussein dreams of victory. This hope is derived from the belief that terrorism can defeat a militarily superior foe. They believe that Western peace activists will erode America’s will to fight, even while our troops win in the field. It happened in Vietnam and they are banking on the same thing happening once again. Terrorism is not emboldened by the oppression of its enemy, but by its own success. The 9/11 attacks made a folk hero out of Osama bin Laden, not his military defeat in Afghanistan. Terrorism will continue to be a problem as long as Islamists think that it is an effective tactic.

In Iraq Al Qaeda and the Baathists didn’t win any victory by getting evicted from Fallujah. Their major victories came from Congressman Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, the NY Times, movies like “V is for Vendetta” and countless protest marches. Although terrorism has had no success against US troops and only limited success preventing Iraqis from cooperating with the US occupation, they still have one hope that still sustains them. It is the “anti-war” movement that causes terrorism, without them terrorists would have no means of victory.


Iran Watch said...

I agree with the fact that it is much easier and just as effective to make headlines showing civilians being killed instead of US soldiers. The insurgents are making the country look much more unstable then it is. The press, especially the American, home in like bees to honey on any story showing carnage and disruption. Excellent post

nanc said...

your obsession with green is beginning to concern me, fern.

Freedomnow said...


There is no doubt that Iraq has problems but there is a huge whitewash that doesnt address how badly off Iraq was under Saddam's regime and the Baathist's attempts to sabatoge the reconstruction gets more publicity than the reconstruction itself. Despite the good work that is going on, it still isnt very surprising.


You iz green with envy! I was gonna say you have a green thumb, but that doesnt really apply to this situation, does it?

nanc said...

you need an avatar as much as i do and i think i have just the one...i'll go present it to warren the avatar man ;}

Mad Zionist said...

Love the "Sharpton 2oo4" photo you slipped in there.

Like I've said from the beginning: the war is being faught strategically wrong. Before there can be elections, before there can be a new coalition government, before there can be progress in establishing social services and an army of there own, the moslem vermin need to be completely defeated.

The country must be ravaged. We need to obliterate all the islamic resistance, force all the Shiite and Sunni Imams and Shieks to literally bow at Americas feet, unconditionally surrender, and beg for our mercy.

Insurgancies must be met with devastating mass destruction by the full force of the American military. Any mosques or Shrines that are used by the vermin to attack American troops need to be blasted to rubble.

In order to achieve peace the Iraqis must have no greater fear than that of the American soldier. Until the country is crushed, conquered and left wasted in total surrender, this entire effort is pure bullshit.

Freedomnow said...

I see you are in one of your moods today MZ.

My approach is much different than yours because I still look for allies like the Kurds or Kuwatis in the Middle East.

However, the only way to stop armed killers is by killing them. This isnt a "lets talk this over" type of situation.

The bottom part of the photo is from a protest in DC. Thats how terrorists get a say in our government.

Mad Zionist said...

I agree with you about the Kurds. In fact, I would have already given them Kurdistan to have for themselves by now.

But, as for Iraq proper goes, that's a whole 'nuther story. I would be roasting clerics on a spit over an open fire by now.

beakerkin said...

The truth is all of these countries are contrived anyway. Let the Kurds have their own state and let the Kurish rebels in Syria take uo arms.

American Crusader said...

"Many have argued that US support for an Iraqi government led by Shiites (some with ties to Iran) alienates the Sunni and drives them to the insurgency."

Personally I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. But I also think that many Sunnis have forced the issue.

Freedomnow said...


You are a shrewd one. That is exactly what the Sunnis are trying to do.

You will note that Saddam and many Sunnis accuse the US of trying to split up Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish countries.

However, it is Sunni aggression that is pushing events in this direction (at least in appearance).

The Kurds have drastically altered their stance on independence and concede Iraqi citizenship as a concession to the US (despite what MZ and Beak said above). At the same time, the Shiite have made concessions not to FULLY implement Sharia law. Everyone except for the Sunni has made some concessions to the union.

They don’t feel that they need to make any concessions because they have traditionally been the ruling class, despite the fact that they are a minority. Their disgust at only having as much power as they can achieve democratically and the fact that the Sunni insurgency brings bloodshed to their homes, leads them to suffer from delusions of persecution.

Saddam’s regime was engrossed by the constant threat of Shiite and Kurdish rebellion and this was the main catalyst for its oppression. The Sunnis have spent years living in fear of the discontent of the Iraqi majority against them. They have used that fear to motivate their rank and file and that dynamic can still be seen today.

We come to Iraq with a new concept for Iraq, the idea that no ethnic group should be unfairly favored over another. This is the most important contribution that anyone could ever make for the Iraqi people.

Always On Watch said...

Freedom Now,
there can be no long term peace in Iraq without justice for the Shia and fair representation of all Iraqi ethnic groups.

The tradition of tribal warfare goes back for centuries. I'm not sure that the various factions CAN settle down to the business of government. MTP was able to unify the tribes, but the minute he died, the tribes went right back to waging tribal warfare, at the time over the issue of succession to MTP.

nanc said...

O.T. - um, fern? i've commissioned a grand surprise for you:


especially for you!

Freedomnow said...


Muhammed slaughtered anyone that opposed him. The US isnt going to do that.

The Shia have tasted freedom and they arent going to give it up. That is one of the reasons why the insurgents are attacking the Shia so bitterly (even more bitterly than terrorists have attacked the Israelis or Americans)...

Freedomnow said...


You will not get away with this injustice...

nanc said...

i already have...you missed it by two days - i win!

nanc said...

p.s. you CAN get even, but i WILL surpass - i have time on my side...and the willpower of an ant - "just what makes that little old ant, want to climb that rubber tree plant - everyone knows an ant can't climb a rubber tree plant, but she had high hopes, she had highighigh hopes..." you know the rest of the song - don't make me sing it to you! do you give? i won't tell ANYBODY...

Freedomnow said...

Your cruelty knows no bounds...

nanc said...

sure it does - it just hasn't realized it yet!