NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1295847.htm

Iraqi villagers kill 5 insurgents

By Middle East correspondent Mark Willacy

The residents of a small Iraqi village have killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting in last weekend's national elections.

Several other insurgents were also wounded.

The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.

The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.

The insurgents' cars were then set alight.

Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.

That's a great story, honestly, but let's focus for a minute on what a crappy correspondent this Mark Willacy guy is. This could be a huge deal, and that's the best thing he could write about it?

Thats great!

Most insurgents are border crossers anyway coming across to fight americans.

bump.

Good story.

There was more of that back when Al Sadr's thugs were occupying Najaf, apparently some of the locals banded together and started hunting them at night. You'd hear gunbattles where both sides used Kalashnikovs.

Let's also remember the two Iraqis (one policeman, one civilian) who rushed and tackled suicide bombers on election day, giving their lives to save a large number of people.

Fighting off the bad guys :D

Killing them :(

your dam right they are

This could be a huge deal, and that's the best thing he could write about it?

Yeah, how dare he spin it so poorly!

Sweet. The people are standing up for themselves. The thing that worries me is the risk of civil war...

Most insurgents are border crossers anyway coming across to fight americans.

Unfortunately they aren't, I think it's probably 80% local/20% foreign. However if you say that the *worst* insurgents are foreign, that is certainly true (i.e. the ones who car-bomb mosques and so forth). Also all the money comes from abroad, and a lot of the locals do work for the insurgency mostly for the money. I think there's a real chance to split the locals from the foreigners.

there are many insurgents, usually fighting amongst themselves!

al qaeda = mostly saudis and kuwaitis = radical extremists, everyone hates them, including the iraqis

baathist = some support amongst the sunnis

sunni's rebels = hate americans, don't support the baathists, don't trust the sunnis

feydeyn sunnis = traditional tribes men, poorly armed, harrassing convey lines, loose alliance with the baathists and sunni rebel units

mahdi sunnis = al sadrs cadre's some alliances with iran, conservative, support amongst about 10 to 15% of the sunnis,

sistani forces = shiites religious administration of about 50% of the sunni's not aligned with US, want the US out, but see the path to getting the US out by controlling the election process, will win the majority of seats in a fair election, unfortunately also very conservative and aligned with conservative forces in iran politically, want a theocratic islamic republic

allawis forces = some support amongst shiites and sunnis, was aligned with the baathists until crossed saddam, very hard man, potential dictator, backed by US billions

iranian irregulars = small numbers, compliance and alliance with sistanis forces, harrying US forces with out open conflict, the US knows they are there but can't openly move into conflict with Iran.

hammas and hezbollah, small numbers moving through, think a blood nose for america will improve their chances in palastine, probably less than a 100 each.

small irregular units funded by baathists, sistani, sadre, even al qaeda performing minor work of attacking supply lines, ensuring non compliance etc, similar to belgian/dutch etc resistance.

most significant force in iraq ATM is sistani who wants to control Iraq and free them from US occupation from the 'legitimacy' of having a sponsored or owned president and parliament, most likely to control the situation, keeping al sadre at bay, while allowing small acts of anti americanism (ie no open warfare).

most evil force, al qaeda and their terror networks.

the place in iraq is a mess, with the insurgents so busy fighting each other, they can't get their cake together to attack the americans, a bit like the anti fascist forces in Spain, the communists were fighting the socialists, who were fighting the liberal democrats etc.

That's a great story, honestly, but let's focus for a minute on what a crappy correspondent this Mark Willacy guy is. This could be a huge deal, and that's the best thing he could write about it?

quoting a genetic fallacy

Let's set it straight.
The insurgents who were killed were killed because they threatened to attack those who voted. Those who voted were iraqis.
The insurgents in question were not foreigners opposed to americans, they were locals wanting the power.
I'm not sure the population would have killed insurgents who try to drive the americans out, they would have helped instead.

Let's set it straight.
The insurgents who were killed were killed because they threatened to attack those who voted. Those who voted were iraqis.
The insurgents in question were not foreigners opposed to americans, they were locals wanting the power.
I'm not sure the population would have killed insurgents who try to drive the americans out, they would have helped instead.

The article doesn't say either way, so you're just making all this up.

The article doesn't say either way, so you're just making all this up.
I'm just using my brain.

I'm just using my brain.

Yes, but for what?

there are many insurgents, usually fighting amongst themselves!

al qaeda = mostly saudis and kuwaitis = radical extremists, everyone hates them, including the iraqis

baathist = some support amongst the sunnis

sunni's rebels = hate americans, don't support the baathists, don't trust the sunnis

feydeyn sunnis = traditional tribes men, poorly armed, harrassing convey lines, loose alliance with the baathists and sunni rebel units

mahdi sunnis = al sadrs cadre's some alliances with iran, conservative, support amongst about 10 to 15% of the sunnis,

sistani forces = shiites religious administration of about 50% of the sunni's not aligned with US, want the US out, but see the path to getting the US out by controlling the election process, will win the majority of seats in a fair election, unfortunately also very conservative and aligned with conservative forces in iran politically, want a theocratic islamic republic

allawis forces = some support amongst shiites and sunnis, was aligned with the baathists until crossed saddam, very hard man, potential dictator, backed by US billions

iranian irregulars = small numbers, compliance and alliance with sistanis forces, harrying US forces with out open conflict, the US knows they are there but can't openly move into conflict with Iran.

hammas and hezbollah, small numbers moving through, think a blood nose for america will improve their chances in palastine, probably less than a 100 each.

small irregular units funded by baathists, sistani, sadre, even al qaeda performing minor work of attacking supply lines, ensuring non compliance etc, similar to belgian/dutch etc resistance.

most significant force in iraq ATM is sistani who wants to control Iraq and free them from US occupation from the 'legitimacy' of having a sponsored or owned president and parliament, most likely to control the situation, keeping al sadre at bay, while allowing small acts of anti americanism (ie no open warfare).

most evil force, al qaeda and their terror networks.

the place in iraq is a mess, with the insurgents so busy fighting each other, they can't get their cake together to attack the americans, a bit like the anti fascist forces in Spain, the communists were fighting the socialists, who were fighting the liberal democrats etc.
Man, the Mid-East is really complicated.

Yes, but for what?
Why would insurgents who want to fight americans waste time resources and lives threatening people who voted instead of fighting americans? Especially considering that by doing this they put the iraqi population against them on top of the UK and US troups.
I used my brain and concluded that those who attacked the voting iraqis were just trying to stop the iraqis from voting instead of trying to drive americans out by killing iraqis.

Why would insurgents who want to fight americans waste time resources and lives threatening people who voted instead of fighting americans? Especially considering that by doing this they put the iraqi population against them on top of the UK and US troups.
I used my brain and concluded that those who attacked the voting iraqis were just trying to stop the iraqis from voting instead of trying to drive americans out by killing iraqis.

That only works if you think that the insurgents just want to kick Americans out of Iraq. This is demonstrably untrue.

Your conclusions do not fit the facts, and thus are invalid.

Man, the Mid-East is really complicated.
thats just Iraq!

next there is the palastine/israel issue (another mess left by the brits), iran (another mess left by the brits) , saudi (with a royal family and their tribe controlling the resources backed by US guns and bribes to terror networks - ever wondered why such a rich nation doesn't train its own engineers instead hires merc forces and brit/us/german engineers, they don't trust their own people), kuwait (as above) afghanistan, lebanon etc.

the ME is a frikken mess, caused by the brits, with a little help from the soviets, french, germans and most recently the Americans...

thats just Iraq!

next there is the palastine/israel issue (another mess left by the brits), iran (another mess left by the brits) , saudi (with a royal family and their tribe controlling the resources backed by US guns and bribes to terror networks - ever wondered why such a rich nation doesn't train its own engineers instead hires merc forces and brit/us/german engineers, they don't trust their own people), kuwait (as above) afghanistan, lebanon etc.

the ME is a frikken mess, caused by the brits, with a little help from the soviets, french, germans and most recently the Americans...

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

That only works if you think that the insurgents just want to kick Americans out of Iraq. This is demonstrably untrue.

Your conclusions do not fit the facts, and thus are invalid.
I used this quote :
Originally Posted by Greedy Pig
Most insurgents are border crossers anyway coming across to fight americans.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
my previous post was discussing who the insurgents were, someone else posted the mE is complicated or something like that, and this reply was that iraq was just one country in the ME area and the whole ME has other issues to deal with.

as for the source article, It is hard to specifically say based on the article 'which insurgency' group was responsible.

US govt sources suggested a few weeks ago that there could be as many as 200,000 fighters plus support crew, that an every poll has shown that the iraqi population want the US out, allawi being the prime exception.

so while I am not disputing the validity of the article, I question what the reporter was specifically seeing.

Ie was it al qaeda terror agents, in which case everyone including iraqi's want them out, was it a localised power struggle between Sadr and sistani? etc. etc.

Man, the Mid-East is really complicated.

No more complicated than trying to figure out the various forms of, and intricacies to, being "Baptist". Just a matter of what you're used to, I suppose.

As for the article at hand, okie dokie. Now what is going to be done about it? In every civilized, democractic Western nation, that kind of vigilantiism is answered with a murder trial. If we are truly attempting to bring Western style ethics to the Iraqi people, will we pressure the Iraqi government to put these villagers on trial?

Somehow ... I doubt it ... but here's where we get to see the hypocricy inheret in the system.

my previous post was discussing who the insurgents were, someone else posted the mE is complicated or something like that, and this reply was that iraq was just one country in the ME area and the whole ME has other issues to deal with.

as for the source article, It is hard to specifically say based on the article 'which insurgency' group was responsible.

US govt sources suggested a few weeks ago that there could be as many as 200,000 fighters plus support crew, that an every poll has shown that the iraqi population want the US out, allawi being the prime exception.

so while I am not disputing the validity of the article, I question what the reporter was specifically seeing.

Ie was it al qaeda terror agents, in which case everyone including iraqi's want them out, was it a localised power struggle between Sadr and sistani? etc. etc.

There are some "foreign fighters". There are a lot of local insurgents. The insurgents probably don't all belong to the same groups - and will have differing agendas.

I would bet that if you're a group of local insurgents who are Sunnis, and you wander up into a Kurdish held area, you'll be lucky not to be flayed alive when they find you. So the motivation for killing insurgents by locals is not easy to discern, either.

Yes, the majority want the US to leave. You don't need a poll, or even an insurgency, to know that. Would you want another country to occupy yours? The question that might be asked is why. Some groups are probably wanting the US out so that they can lord it over the others now that the political tables have turned. They might not engage in insurgency because they already have a good hand of cards. Others want their power back, and have nothing to lose by killing people. Others just want to be left alone - and don't want the US in their backyard.

So there's not "one single reason" or "one single group" or "one single motivation" for a lot of this.

Arabs and Muslims, like everyone else in history, have a long tradition of killing each other. Just why the villagers killed those insurgents is probably not something you can figure out without talking to them. And even then, they might not tell you.

No more complicated than trying to figure out the various forms of, and intricacies to, being "Baptist". Just a matter of what you're used to, I suppose.

As for the article at hand, okie dokie. Now what is going to be done about it? In every civilized, democractic Western nation, that kind of vigilantiism is answered with a murder trial. If we are truly attempting to bring Western style ethics to the Iraqi people, will we pressure the Iraqi government to put these villagers on trial?

Somehow ... I doubt it ... but here's where we get to see the hypocricy inheret in the system.

Last I checked, it's legal to kill people trying to kill you in Iraq.

Last I checked, it's legal to kill people trying to kill you in Iraq.

It's legal in the United States, also. It's not quite clear in the UK, though.

It's legal in the United States, also.

Only after a trial to determine whether or not the homicide was justifiable ... even in Texas.

Only after a trial to determine whether or not the homicide was justifiable ... even in Texas.

Yes. But there are definitely conditions under which it's legal (and you would walk at trial).

There are some "foreign fighters". There are a lot of local insurgents. The insurgents probably don't all belong to the same groups - and will have differing agendas.

I would bet that if you're a group of local insurgents who are Sunnis, and you wander up into a Kurdish held area, you'll be lucky not to be flayed alive when they find you. So the motivation for killing insurgents by locals is not easy to discern, either.

Yes, the majority want the US to leave. You don't need a poll, or even an insurgency, to know that. Would you want another country to occupy yours? The question that might be asked is why. Some groups are probably wanting the US out so that they can lord it over the others now that the political tables have turned. They might not engage in insurgency because they already have a good hand of cards. Others want their power back, and have nothing to lose by killing people. Others just want to be left alone - and don't want the US in their backyard.

So there's not "one single reason" or "one single group" or "one single motivation" for a lot of this.

Arabs and Muslims, like everyone else in history, have a long tradition of killing each other. Just why the villagers killed those insurgents is probably not something you can figure out without talking to them. And even then, they might not tell you.

actually just as a byline, not all iraqi's are arabs, many of the southern shi'ites are persians.

also about 2% of the nation is christian. (just to add to the complexity :rolleyes: )

many of the problems in iraq derive from the arbitrary divisions created in the ME by the various powers WW2 in carving up that region.

the story goes in it was carved up based on mineral surveys and resource allocation, which really is stupid.

so you have a tiny little country like kuwait with a huge resource of oil, a bigger country with a massive resource of oil, and you get iran, which a big country with a 60 million person population and about 1/4 of the oil resources of tiny neighbour iraq with a population of about 20 million, mixed in randomly in iraq are kurds, turks, persians, arabs...

the continued divisions are based on rac PLUS religion PLUS political support (ie the iranians supported the shi'ites, Saddam the sunnis, at various stages they all bashed the kurds, and the turks helped there, but when suitable the kurds were supported by the US, but not hte turkish kurds who are still terrorists :rolleyes: )

IIRC, it was the British who drew the lines and initially decided which family was in power where.

The modern roots of the problem were laid largely by the British, who gave us Israel, and most of the Persian Gulf state boundaries and initial rulers.

Yes. But there are definitely conditions under which it's legal (and you would walk at trial).

Yes, but the point is, you still have to deal with the whole due process thing. You would get arrested and would have to go to court. I know this because I knee-capped a guy who broke into my house a few years back. Didn't kill him and all charges were dropped, but there were four things that came out of that experience:

1] I have an arrest for "Assault with a deadly weapon" on my record. Results of the trial aside, the arrest record is still there and cops treat me accordingly when pulled over for a traffic violation.

2] I had to spend 8 days in county jail awaiting trial because I could not afford bail. While in jail, I was treated as though I were a criminal whose guilt had already been determined.

3] I got sued by the guy who broke in to my house because he'll never be able to work again. Yes ... that's right ... you heard me ... sued because the guy who broke into my house while my family was sleeping so he could steal my stuff in order to sell them for his own financial gain would never be able to work again because I let him live. The case was dismissed, but I still incurred $2000.00 in lawyer fees (remember, I couldn't even afford bail).

4] A diminished sense of personal security and an even deeper hatred of the government.

Now ... will we hold the Iraqi people to our same standards?

Now ... will we hold the Iraqi people to our same standards?

I would expect that as soon as the Iraqis possess the necessary infrastructure to investigate and prosecute such matter, Yes.

I get the impression, though, that such an ability is spotty at best.

3] I got sued by the guy who broke in to my house because he'll never be able to work again. Yes ... that's right ... you heard me ... sued because the guy who broke into my house while my family was sleeping so he could steal my stuff in order to sell them for his own financial gain would never be able to work again because I let him live. The case was dismissed, but I still incurred $2000.00 in lawyer fees (remember, I couldn't even afford bail).


You should have killed him. That's legal in Texas.

For a comparable situation, I would encourage you to read the book Wyatt Earp, by Casey Tefertiller. It is considered to be the seminal work on the whole Tombstone story and its aftermath, and is a window into a similar level of law/lawlessness in American history.

the story goes in it was carved up based on mineral surveys and resource allocation, which really is stupid.

so you have a tiny little country like kuwait with a huge resource of oil, a bigger country with a massive resource of oil, and you get iran, which a big country with a 60 million person population and about 1/4 of the oil resources of tiny neighbour iraq with a population of about 20 million, mixed in randomly in iraq are kurds, turks, persians, arabs...
It's based on western self interests. It is easier to control a small country of 4 million people that a big country of 60 million. This is why Iraqi invasion of Koweit was unacceptable from western viewpoint. The Iran/Iraq war on the other hand was good for business.

Yes, but the point is, you still have to deal with the whole due process thing. You would get arrested and would have to go to court. I know this because I knee-capped a guy who broke into my house a few years back. Didn't kill him and all charges were dropped, but there were four things that came out of that experience:

1] I have an arrest for "Assault with a deadly weapon" on my record. Results of the trial aside, the arrest record is still there and cops treat me accordingly when pulled over for a traffic violation.

2] I had to spend 8 days in county jail awaiting trial because I could not afford bail. While in jail, I was treated as though I were a criminal whose guilt had already been determined.

3] I got sued by the guy who broke in to my house because he'll never be able to work again. Yes ... that's right ... you heard me ... sued because the guy who broke into my house while my family was sleeping so he could steal my stuff in order to sell them for his own financial gain would never be able to work again because I let him live. The case was dismissed, but I still incurred $2000.00 in lawyer fees (remember, I couldn't even afford bail).

4] A diminished sense of personal security and an even deeper hatred of the government.

Now ... will we hold the Iraqi people to our same standards?


You must live in England.

You must live in England.

No ..... I live in Texas.

You should have killed him. That's legal in Texas.

Still would have had to go through the same ... only the lawsuit would have been enacted by the family of the deceased. Happens all the time.

Still would have had to go through the same ... only the lawsuit would have been enacted by the family of the deceased. Happens all the time.

Move to Virginia. Nice laws passed last July.
We already had liberalized concealed carry.
Now we have open carry with no permit.
We also have substantial protections against civil suits for people who use firearms. The recent reforms are similar to "good samaritan" laws. You can be wrong - you could have made a mistake - and someone has to prove that you weren't acting in good faith.

In every civilized, democractic Western nation, that kind of vigilantiism is answered with a murder trial.

LOL not in the USA.

(most states anyway)

I'm just using my brain.

It would work better if you freed it from prejudicial notions and taught it logic.