Ramadi

by redjade Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:03

The US military has been carrying out raids in the western Iraqi province of Anbar in a crackdown on insurgents.

[....]

Night-time curfews have been imposed and a cordon of checkpoints surrounds the town, which is home to 400,000.

The offensive has been dubbed Operation River Blitz and is targeting rebels in towns along the Euphrates river.

Iraqi security forces are also taking part in the operation.

They say a prominent tribal leader and more than 10 of his relatives are among those detained.

[....]

The US military says Operation River Blitz is designed to defeat insurgents in Anbar province.

More Americans have been killed in Anbar than anywhere else in the country.

Only 2% of the province's population voted in last month's elections.

by redjade Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:06

In the world of the Iraqi insurgent, Abu Othman – not his real name – is something of a celebrity. Known to all as The Sniper, he is acclaimed for the consistency with which he dispatches victims from ranges of 1,000 metres or more.

The tale of how a humble calligrapher became a renowned marksman by teaching himself from websites, honing his skills with computer games and studying Hollywood films such as The Deer Hunter is the stuff of legend in the Sunni triangle of militant towns to the north and west of Baghdad.

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=123751

by devil dog Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:23

I wonder what the reaction would be from Redjade & co if I posted a story about a Marine sniper in Iraq who listened to the bible while waiting in a hide and who thanked God for his talents?

by Joe Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:48

But DD those sort of storiers appear in the US media all the time.

And even in the Guardian, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1302698,00.html

"Killing from long distance is 'weird', says Wilks, who joined the army after six years as a poorly paid waiter. 'It's not like in a firefight, when it is really scary and you don't think about it. When you are looking down the scope and no one knows you are there, it gives you a sense of power. You get an adrenalin rush, though I'm not sure if it is in a good way.'"

Maybe they'll do a modern day sequel of 'Enemy at the Gate'

Some of the US stuff is if anything more tasteless

"A Catholic university in Milwaukee, Wisconsin has blocked an attempt by Republican students to raise money for a group called "Adopt a Sniper" that raises money for U.S. sharp-shooters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The students were selling bracelets bearing the motto "1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide"."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/life.sniper.reut/

That is the nature of war - de humanise the other side as much as possible and leave the soldiers to pick up the pieces when its all over.

by Joe Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:53

Everythings online these days. There is a bulletin board where you can read US snipers discussing how many they have killed in Iraq at http://americansnipers.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11

by redjade Tue Feb 22, 2005 16:01

'I wonder what the reaction would be from Redjade & co if I posted a story....'

my response:

if it's news, blog it.

All sides in this World War are tragic and awful - but we also know who the agressor and occupier is, no?

by Fu Tue Feb 22, 2005 19:32

'My enemy's enemy is my friend' eh Redjade? From your last comment I would take it that you are against the war but do you not think that you should be putting your energies into supporting the peaceful efforts aimed at ending the occupation instead of promoting ideas that make violence acceptable in the first place. It is in that type of a climate where wars such as the one in Iraq are allowed to happen

by redjade Tue Feb 22, 2005 19:49

Your statment is a bit nonsensical, but I'll try to respond.

'you are against the war but do you not think that you should be putting your energies into supporting the peaceful efforts aimed at ending the occupation'

of course I do - best thing that can be done from afar is stop allowing Ireland to be used as an aircraft carrier. Ireland should not be a launching point into Iraq, not into Iran.

the other thing people can do is support those who have peacefull put their asses on the line to stand against the war - see http://warontrial.com for more info

'instead of promoting ideas that make violence acceptable in the first place.'

Please point out when I promoted violence?

Since when was this an equal playing field between the occupiers and the occupied?

This is an illegal war, it is an immoral war, it is an unjustifiable war.

Now the US ia about to go into either Iran or Syria.

Irish politics has yet to even consider what this means for so-called neutrality. The Irish State is morally neutral with its head in the sand.

It is the Bush Admin that has sided with those who would crush freedom and kill any possibility of peace.

Are Iraqi women better off today?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0222-08.htm

The best way to end the occupation and end the war and wars to come is to withdraw participation in it.

by redjade Wed Feb 23, 2005 13:17

Americans and Rebels Begin Talks on Timetable for Withdrawal from Iraq
February 22, 2005 by Independent/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0222-03.htm

American officials are talking to negotiators from the anti-US resistance in Iraq, whom they have denounced in the past as foreign fighters and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Insurgent leaders and Pentagon officials have confirmed to Time magazine that talks have taken place for the first time in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.

The Sunni guerrillas want a timetable for a US withdrawal, first from Iraqi cities and then from the country as a whole. American officials aim to see if they can drive a wedge between nationalist guerrillas and fanatical Islamist groups.

Abu Marwan, a resistance commander, is quoted as saying that the insurgents want to "fight and negotiate". They are modelling their strategy on that of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. This means creating a united political organisation with a programme opposed to the US occupation.

by Mannann Wed Feb 23, 2005 17:02

ah the old divide and conquer tactic! an implicit admission they can't defeat the resistance by military means alone. This should make it easier to catch the Elvis of Iraq.
Although, this man has so far proved to be elusive despite a myriad of special forces units, coupled with sophisticated technology and humanit intelligence, provided by captured lieutenants and local spies, assigned to track him down.
How in light of all this has he evaded capture?
There can be only one logical conclusion: He must communicate with his fellow Jihadists' via ESP. Is it possible there is another more plausible explanation?

by Fu Wed Feb 23, 2005 17:39

Redjade, by blogging on about this insurgent sniper and how skilful he is you seem to be glorifying his work. By stating that he is the underdog you are justifying what he does. Let's be clear about what it is he does, he kills people. By saying that it is ok for one person (an Iraqi insurgent for example) to kill another you then find yourself sounding hollow when you say that another person (let's say an American soldier) is wrong to kill. This is how an environment where violence is accepted comes into existence and it is in this environment that the work of those peacefully opposing the war is made far harder. Do you not think that the many hypocrisies of the U.S. led occupation would be far more evident to the rest of the world if they could not justify the fact that they kill many thousands of Iraqis by pointing to the insurgency of which your sniper friend is a celebrity member? I agree that the Irish government needs to take a far different stand starting with the closure of Shannon and all Irish airspace to foreign military aircraft but surely wars would become less frequent if there was not an acceptance of violence from any side.

by redjade Wed Feb 23, 2005 17:59

'you seem to be glorifying his work.'

ummm, only to you. 'seem' is the operative word here - all in your mind.

'By stating that he is the underdog you are justifying what he does.'

The greatest military in the history of the world invades a much smaller country and is not able to pacify it - yeah, I'd say he's the 'underdog' - that doesn't mean I give him my unswaying loyalty and devotion does it?

I think you mistake understanding and explaining with condoning and allying.

'but surely wars would become less frequent if there was not an acceptance of violence from any side.'

No doubt. I assume you are leading the effort to train Iraqis in Gandhian Non-Violent Resistance right now from your bunker in somewhere near Ramadi, right?

Look, if you're pissed at the Left for glorifying 'The Iraqi Resistance' (like the Irish SWP is fond of phrasing) I'm with ya, more than you would probably know - I don't know if you're on the island or not.

I blogged that story because it was interesting and it shows that 'their side' has its human face too - just a kid defending his country in a way that he knows how (plus I thought the video game thing was fascinating)

Perhaps you do not like seeing that 'the enemy' is human? As was pointed out above there loads of crap on the net everyday about how war and violence is condoned and celebrated by supporters of the American military. What is unique about this story is that you could take the phrase 'iraqi sniper' and put in 'american sniper' and essentially have a rewrite of any number of similar articles.

'your sniper friend'

I have no sniper friends - none that i know of anyway. Ireland's an odd place that way.

by Fu Thu Feb 24, 2005 20:32

First of all I'm not sure who my 'ememy' is but I try my best to relate to everybody as a human being and not some sort of monster if they disagree with my views.
Secondly by positioning this sniper as the worthy underdog it is apparent that you feel that his work is more acceptable than that of the opressor. This, in my mind, is the start of a slippery slope which I descibed earlier.
Obviously we are going to disagree on these points ad nauseum and perhaps I am dabbling a little in semantics but I still feel my point stands.
As regards the SWP and their views on the subject I'm with you. The Ghandian non-violence bunker in Ramadi is on the way though, subject to government funding.

by redjade Tue Mar 01, 2005 21:38

As two soldiers with rifles stood by, [Sgt. 1st Class Glenn] Aldrich yelled into the man's face and whacked the ground with a metal baton that the Americans called a "haji-be-good stick."

"If I'm out here, and I get shot at, I'm shooting every house near me!" Aldrich, 35, yelled in his booming former drill sergeant's voice. "Because you aren't helping me catch the bad guys, and if you're not helping me, you are the bad guy."

The man stared back blankly, and Aldrich let him walk back into his house. The Americans stormed into four other homes on the block, with similar results.

[....]

After nearly 11 months in Iraq, the soldiers of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, still couldn't tell friend from foe. Frustrated by a culture they didn't understand, and tired of having friends blown up, they often felt compelled to play bad cop, even though they knew that harsh measures risked creating more enemies.

"Every time we kill one of them, we breed more that want to fight us," Aldrich said. "We end up turning neutral people against us. It's not really our fault, though, because I have to defend myself."

[....]

The next morning, soldiers arrived to find several female members of a family dead - and one little girl alive, clinging to her dead mother. Some of the men broke down in tears, the soldiers said.

"I will never forget that girl raising her head up," said Staff Sgt. Victor Gutierrez of Los Angeles.

The girl was flown to a hospital, where doctors saved her life.

Aldrich recounted the story matter-of-factly. Asked if the unintentional killing of innocent civilians bothered him, he replied:

"The one thing you learn over here is that there are no innocent civilians, except the kids. And even them - the ones that are all, `Hey mister, mister, chocolate?' - I'll be killing them someday."

by sr mary Thu Mar 03, 2005 20:08

dd, u forget the US snipers shouldnt be there in the first place, they illegally invaded another country. the iraqis have the right to shoot as many of them as they can.

by Devil Dog Thu Mar 03, 2005 22:11

How, exactly? And please don't tell me "international law", as I'm sure the snipers are like GW, they forgot to call their lawyers.

by kintama Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:17

Well the Dog should know by now that the reasons his old mates in the USA gave for the invasion of Iraq have been proven to be based on lies. The snipers attacking occupying forces have the right and the support for their campaign to end the occupation. What recent events have shown is that the good ol boys don't like it up them they much prefer the type of turkey shoot which took place on the road to Basra.
The good news for the Dog is that due to a shortage of volunteers he would no doubt be welcomed back into his beloved army of occupation. The even better news is that he can still shoot any Iraqi that moves including wounded ones in Mosques. God bless America.t

by Devil Dog Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:26

"Well the Dog should know by now that the reasons his old mates in the USA gave for the invasion of Iraq have been proven to be based on lies. The snipers attacking occupying forces have the right and the support for their campaign to end the occupation. What recent events have shown is that the good ol boys don't like it up them they much prefer the type of turkey shoot which took place on the road to Basra.
The good news for the Dog is that due to a shortage of volunteers he would no doubt be welcomed back into his beloved army of occupation. The even better news is that he can still shoot any Iraqi that moves including wounded ones in Mosques. God bless America."

The main reason was regime change - mission accomplished. As for WMD, maybe, horror of horrrs, they just got it wrong - either way, Iraq is free and will build on the recent elections to show the rest of the ME that they can have a democracy too.

"don't like it up 'em?" - That's right Cpl Jones - the headhackers of Fallujah didn't like 1st Marine Division sending a shitload of them to paradise either...or maybe they did, who knows?

I think you mean "forces of liberation", not "army of occupation", but that's ok, I'm sure you're distressed with all the bad vibes your buds in the Provos have been getting recently.

No shortage of vols at all - the Marines continue to meet recruiting mission, although I believe they didn't for one month a while back?

What the hell does the fact that the insurgent was A) in a mosque and B) wounded have to do with anything? The Marine thought he was a threat and acted accordingly.

by jsr Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:33

"How, exactly? And please don't tell me "international law". "
Why not refer to international law? Its called law for a reason. Cant just ignore the laws you don't like, or if you do you should expect to get done for breaking 'em.

by Devil Dog Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:37

in the sense you refer to it is a fiction - who's going to do the enforcement? The UN, with it's child molesting officials, corrupt leaders and a mindset which equated New Zealand & Denmark with Syria & North Korea?

by jsr Fri Mar 04, 2005 00:29

International law is a farce, but only cos the powerful wont play fair(US vs. international criminal court).
It would of course be too much to ask 'em to play fair as that would never happen.
Reality sucks.
I dont mind one nation going to war with another if they have a good reason, and not just one they made up from lies and a cut and paste thesis. This is not a good fight and should be condemned on all sides,even by the flacid UN and international law.

by kintama Fri Mar 04, 2005 00:29

DD Eamon is another mythical sniper.
You are of course correct about enforcement it can't be left to namby pamby peaceniks affiliated to the UN who might ridiculously want to adhere to the terms of the Geneva Convention. This type of thing is best left to those who shoot any Iraqi who moves including women and children and then refuse to allow respected medical agencies into Fallujah to inspect their bloody slaughter.
You know you want to be there, life in civvy street must be hard when total control over life and death can be had in occupied Iraq. Attack through Indymedia just does'nt give the same buzz as the enemy never die they just get bored and go to bed.
The US forces may well have killed many resistance fighters in Fallujah along with all the civilians but their mates are still kicking the shit out of the occupiers any time they venture out from the Green Zone. The hundreds of amputees kicking their heels back in redneck country demonstrate the effectiveness of the resistance.
You mention democracy! evidence will soon emerge that the US have tampered with the votes to ensure that the % vote of the majority grouping did not exceed 51%. It may just also be the case that a free market adventurer might be eased in as Prime Minister.

by redjade Fri Mar 04, 2005 00:30

Q: 'who's going to do the enforcement?'

A: The Pit Stop Ploughshares

;-) see ya in the courts

by jsr Fri Mar 04, 2005 00:34

Q: 'who's going to do the enforcement?'

A: The Pit Stop Ploughshares.

Ohh I like it!
Do we have line of the night here folks?!

by zippo Fri Mar 04, 2005 00:39

axes and hammers are effective
expecially when gardai are not doing their job

by Devil Dog Fri Mar 04, 2005 01:06

The Ba'athist & Islamofascist insurgency ("resistance" has those undertones of the French against the Nazis, doesn't it?) is fading off, attacks against US forces are way down so they're attacking the security forces of the fledgling Iraqi democracy.

US election tampering? C'mom, a bit more imagination than that, please!

Your pop amateur psychological profile is amusing but innacurate although I'm intrigued about yon Eamon.

by kintama Fri Mar 04, 2005 01:20

Locally recruited forces bearing the brunt of fatalities inflicted by insurgents while forces of occupation hide behind reinforced walls. I can't quite put my finger on it but there is something familiar about it all.
Accuracy like beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder.
Falling attacks ! In that case the rednecks should have no problem lining up outside their bases to get paid. With a bit of luck Donald R might show up to dish out the dosh himself.
Onward Christian Soldiers limping out of war.

by Devil Dog Fri Mar 04, 2005 01:44

You're obviously a budding Groucho Marx...but let's face it, if you want to talk about snipers in Iraq then the Marines are yer only men... The barrett made quite an impression on the Fallujah headhackers...not much left afterwards though.

by kintama Tue Mar 08, 2005 00:57

Mmm! Don't want to be accused of amateur psychology again but your fixation with macho hardware does cause some concern.
Could it be that your admiration for those who used Barretts, to what you believe to be such good effect in Iraq, could be transferred to those who used them to very good effect in other conflicts.