The Foreign Jihadist In Iraq - What Really Happened

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Beginning in March, the Arab media published stories of young Arabs traveling to Iraq to carry out Jihad against the U.S. They came from various Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia , Syria , Yemen , Egypt , Lebanon , the Palestinian territories, Algeria , the United Arab Emirates , Libya , and from Afghanistan as well. A report in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar told of 36 Islamists (Lebanese, Palestinians, Egyptians, and Syrians) receiving visas from the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut to volunteer as martyr s.

Syria's Foreign Minister, Farouq Al-Shar' , stated that his country would not stop volunteers going to Iraq via Syria , while the Saudi Minister of Interior Prince Nayef bin Abd Al-Aziz claimed that there was no evidence of Saudis volunteering in droves for Jihad in Iraq.

Religious personalities in the Arab world have given a mixed blessing on allowing Arab youth to travel to fight the U.S. In a recent Fatwa (Islamic religious ruling), the Shariah Court in Qatar banned such travel unless it was with the parents' permission: "It is considered against Islam to travel to another country for Jihad without permission from one's parents." The Court also stated that the permission of "those charged with authority among Muslims" is necessary to initiate Jihad. On the other hand, one of the spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, called for Jihad "to expel foreign troops from Iraq." However, he too qualified his statement, saying that "only governments have the right to organize volunteers for Jihad."

In Baghdad, Sheik Ahmad al-Kubaysi praised the Arab volunteers: "These young men who came here from other Muslim countries to defend Sadaam are very brave. They left their homes and comfortable lives to protect fellow Muslims. That is the most important form of Jihad. These Mujahideen are guaranteed paradise."


The Families of Saudi Martyrs Speak

In eastern Saudi Arabia , the Arabic-language daily Al-Hayatinterviewed the families of two Saudi Jihad fighters killed in Iraq . In Al-Damam, the father of Suheil Al-Sahili, 28, known as Yassin Al-Bahhar, who was killed in northern Iraq, told the paper: "I thank Allah that [our son] attained what he sought. For 14 years he sought [martyrdom]. He always pointed to his head and wished that a rifle bullet would split his forehead, and we have been told that that is what happened, we are so happy."

Al-Sahali's brother added: "He went to Afghanistan in 1992, and from there to Tajikistan , where he joined a group under the command of the famous martyr Khattab. After that, he went to Bosnia , where he remained for several years before returning to Saudi Arabia for a brief time, until he went to Chechnya and again joined Khattab for a few years."

"After Chechnya , he returned to Saudi Arabia … and then we didn't hear from him. We got a phone call from him finally, in which he said he was going to the Jihad in Iraq together with volunteers at the northern front. We were informed that he commanded a group of Arab Jihad warriors who had volunteered to defend Sadaam. We would get news of him from Internet forums… We always felt that he was a prisoner in this world while his heart was in the next world…"

In the city of Al-Quteif, the brother of Abd Al-Hadi Al-Shehri, 28, also known as Abu Muhammad Al-Asadi, told the paper: "From a young age he wanted Jihad... after fulfilling this commandment of pilgrimage to Mecca , there was no contact with him until news of his martyrdom reached us."


An Egyptian Historian on Egyptian Jihad Fighters

In two articles described as 'comments of a historian,' Dr. 'Abd Al-Adheem Ramadhan, an Egyptian historian, bemoaned the fate of thousands of young Egyptians who went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a holy war, only to find their death because they were manipulated by Jihad slogans and miscalculated the realities of modern-day warfare. Following are experts from the articles which appeared in the Egyptian daily Al-Gumhuriya:

"The Islamic nation still holds the meaning of Jihad as it had been in the past when the Mujahid carried his sword and rode his horse into the battle field… This interpretation persisted despite the developments that occurred in weaponry and training… and [despite] the emergence of tanks, airplanes, airplane carriers, and explosives. As soon as the Islamic nation gets involved in a war, young religious Muslims throughout the Islamic world rush to scream the Jihad battle-cry and to go to war… Obviously, the Islamic countries cannot resist these noble feelings… so they open the door to volunteerism, and open their borders to religious youngsters to head to the battle fields. And there, to their surprise, they find out that war is not what they expected, it is not [fought] with swords and spears. It is a war of tanks, planes, air strikes and the like."

"This is how thousands of Muslim youngsters die without accomplishing anything except Shahada [martyrdom]. But, as we know, Shahada in itself does not mean victory. Allah Himself gave Muslims the choice between victory and Shahada! What kind of victory do these noble Mujahideen expect to accomplish when they sacrifice themselves in battle without having any knowledge of modern warfare. When the Afghan war started, tens of thousands of Arab, Egyptian, Pakistani and other Muslims volunteered and went to Afghanistan seeking either victory or Shahada. No one heard of them since… They did not bring victory, but achieved only Shahada. "

"And when the American-British war on Iraq started, thousands of young religious Egyptian Muslims were seized with enthusiasm and demanded to go to Iraq for Jihad. Naturally, the Egyptian government was unable to prevent them from going to Iraq, lest it would be accused of opposition to Jihad and failure to fight. At the same time, Islamic elements in labor unions and others encouraged youngsters to volunteer for Jihad. It was a propaganda ploy, no more, no less! They knew perfectly well that if those youngsters go to Iraq they would fall into the same hell-fire that the Taliban faced in Afghanistan… So, we witnessed thousands of young Egyptians who left their country and their relatives who needed them…"

"…The Iraqi regime opened its doors for them without providing them with necessary protection, and without enlisting them in its own army. We found out from satellite TV services that they fought in remote areas, away from the Iraqi army… and when Baghdad fell they did not know that, and continued to fight courageously… They did not even hear about the disgraceful disappearance of the Iraqi leadership, of Saddam Hussein and his men who abandoned their army and their people… They did not know that the Iraqi regime let them down and that [the Iraqi regime] was not fighting to defend Iraq, but fighting a lost battle to defend only itself..."

"I do not know whether it was possible to save the lives of these youngsters… And who were those who embroiled them in such battles?... Was there a way to save them from the hands of wheelers-dealers who manipulated the name of the Iraqi people?..."

Iraqi Civilians Turn on the Jihad Fighters

Many articles in the Arab press have focused on the ill treatment of the Jihad fighters by the Iraqi people who welcomed American and British troops and betrayed their fellow Muslims.

A Lebanese volunteer who returned from Iraq said that the Iraqi officials isolated the volunteers and the Iraqis themselves "hunted them whenever they could."

Another Lebanese volunteer returning from Iraq added: "During the war I was exposed to more Iraqi fire than American fire. The Iraqi people refused to accept the volunteers among them and betrayed them by leaving them exposed or killing them themselves."

One report stated that ten Arab nationals, mostly Syrians who volunteered to fight for Saddam's regime, were executed publicly in Baghdad during the war because they refused to fight behind Iraqi civillians in residential areas.

Another report mentioned that the "Iraqi Shi'a in the Iraqi capital considered the Arab volunteers to be supporters of Osama Bin Laden who they said had nothing to do with us…but were working to help Saddam"

Four Arab volunteers who returned home from Baghdad to Damascus and Cairo stated that the Iraqi citizens were directing American forces to the hideouts of the Arab volunteers. They said that the American forces viewed the volunteers as one of the most important targets because they could carry out martyrdom (suicide) operations against groups of American soldiers.


Interviews with Jihad Fighters on Iraqi TV

Before Saddam's Iraqi TV was taken off the air by coalition forces, Jihad fighters were shown on it marching in formation and chanting "Allah Akbar." The Egyptian "Jihad fighter" Muhammad Ridha, whose nickname is Abu Abd Al-Rahman, said: "Thanks to Allah, I arrived in June to volunteer in Saddam's 'Jerusalem Army.' I returned [to Egypt], but Allah decreed that I return [to Iraq], and I thank Him for that… I returned to fight the Jihad, and left behind in Egypt four daughters and a son… I came to fight [the war of] Jihad and I take an oath in front of the leader Saddam Hussein that I will die as a martyr and that I do not want to return to Egypt. I say to all the Arabs and Muslims that Jihad is our duty…"

Abd Al-Karim Abd Al-'Azzam,a fighter from Aleppo, Syria said: "I want to send a message to our Muslim brethren throughout the world… Brothers, we are not defending Saddam only, but all the Muslim countries. It started in Iraq, but Syria, Lebanon, and other Muslim countries will follow. How long will we keep silent, how long will we wait? America and the Jews may decide next to bomb Mecca and Al-Madina, what are we waiting for? Are we waiting for them to enter Al-Madina?"

Abdallah from Algeria, added: "I call upon the entire Muslim nation to stand as one and defend the Muslim nation… truth is ours… The suicide volunteer Abd Al-'Aziz Mahmoud Hawwash from Syria added: "We are here, and we left our wives and children in order to defend the Arab and Muslim nation… We came as Shuhada [martyrs] and we pray that Allah accepts our martyrdom for His sake…" Another volunteer suicide-fighter from Syria said: "I came from Syria to fight along with our Iraqi brothers because this land is the land of the prophets and is the natural treasure of the Arabs… The Americans, Zionists, and the British want to control the oil and the natural resources of the Arab world. They say that Iraq has arms, but it is a lie. They want the oil and they want a crusade, but we will be the drawn swords in the hand of the Jihad fighter Saddam Hussein."

Another volunteer, who did not mention his home-country, stated: "…I send a message to the blood-shedding criminal Bush, and to his servant Tony Blair, and his new servant the Spanish P.M., you want a crusade and we are ready for that, with the help of Allah… Oh [Muslim] nation, [which] is a billion and four hundred million strong, don't you see what is happening in Palestine? What happened to the boiling Arab blood in your veins? We hope that you will come to the training camps in Iraq…"

"Listen Oh Bush, and listen America," stated another fighter from Syria, "we are not the aggressors, you crossed the ocean and came here to slaughter our children and our women, and the most important thing that they came for is this religion… We came to seek martyrdom and to raise the chant: Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar."

In addition, a few dozen of the volunteers were seen training, boarding a plane, parachuting or descending from a helicopter by ropes, riding motorcycles in pairs, stopping and firing shoulder rockets, running away, and then firing again.

Interviews with Jihad Fighters in the Arab Media

As the U.S. carried out operations in Iraq, the Arab media interviewed many of the Arab Jihad fighters, asking them why they came, where they came from, and about their experiences. H. 'A., from Yemen , who returned to San'aa from Iraq via Damascus , told the Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat: "Baghdad didn't fall, it was handed over to the invading forces in an astonishing operation by the Iraqi people themselves. While we were fighting in groups in the neighborhoods of Baghdad , the Iraqis demanded us to leave the trenches, throw down our arms, and go back to where we came from. Our task became survival in hopes of returning to our homeland after we felt that our remaining in Iraq had become a heavy burden to the Iraqis who were welcoming the invading forces."

Volunteer S. A. 'A., said: "The air bombing and the missiles on Baghdad were heavy. We couldn't have imagined such intensity and such destruction. Four days before the fall of Baghdad, we began noticing that the Iraqi cannon, Katyusha launchers, SAMs, and even the tanks positioned beneath the trees and at the entrances to the residential neighborhoods on the bank of the Tigris, were firing very slowly and ineffectively. Some of the residents began to tell us not to shoot so that the invaders would not respond and damage their homes. There was an atmosphere of destruction and bombing all around us. We fruitlessly attempted to fight off the invaders with our light weapons."

Yemeni volunteer S. M. N. said: "I was attached to a group of Arab volunteers in a residential neighborhood in western Baghdad a few days before its fall. When the American forces entered Saddam Airport we were transferred willingly near there and there found Iraqi forces belonging to the Republican Guard and infantry forces, which perhaps belonged to the Fedayeen, fighting ferocious battles several hundred meters from our position."

"The Iraqi Republican Guards fought fiercely in the battle on the airport, and the Americans moved under an aerial umbrella of fighter planes, helicopters, and heavy bombing with missiles and giant bombs. It was a sight from hell, and hundreds of Iraqis and Arab volunteers were martyred. Afterwards, hundreds were taken captive when their ammunition ran out and the American tanks closed in on them. The sharpshooters were firing on any Iraqi who hesitated to take his clothes off and not obey, word for word, the surrender instructions given in English."

Another Yemeni volunteer, N.A., said: "On Tuesday morning [April 8], I was together with a group of Arab volunteers in the Al-A'zamiya neighborhood. There were five of us, and there was heavy American bombing around us and close to us. None of the Iraqi coordinators came to us. We were visited by people in civilian dress who told us: 'We advise you to leave here and not return, because the Americans are coming.' We felt that we were alone in the battle and that those [who should be] involved [i.e. the Iraqis] had abandoned us."

- More >

Abdullah, a Saudi fighter, and Majdi, a Syrian fighter, were also interviewed. Both said they came to Iraq out of religious obligation to join a Jihad against "American aggression." Abdullah explained, "I came here because it is the duty of every Arab and every Muslim to defend Iraq from foreign invaders." Like Majdi, he spoke on the condition that only his first name be published. "When I left Saudi Arabia, I was ready to become a martyr. That was the path I had chosen."

The Story of a Palestinian Mujahid - Sheikh Shu'fat

The Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsatinterviewed Islamic activist Sheikh Muhammad Shu'fat, a Palestinian from Jordan who went to Iraq on April 4 and returned to Jordan . Sheikh Shu'fat, like most of the volunteers, reached Iraq via Damascus . He related that when he arrived in Baghdad , "the Iraqi official asked about what was happening at the scene of the battle, because contact had been cut off. I felt my heart beat with the hope of achieving victory or martyrdom… I did not first go to defend the Ba'ath regime, but the persecuted Iraqi people who said they were suffering from injustice. I defended the Arab and Islamic land under occupation and aggression in advance of the takeover of the [entire Islamic] nation."

Asked how he explained the Iraqis' joy at Saddam's fall, Sheikh Shu'fat replied: "This is a message to the Arab rulers that they must make peace with their people and give them more freedom, so the people will unite with the armies in resistance to colonialist aggression… I do not feel sorrow for any Arab ruler who is brought down."


Asked about the fall of Baghdad , Sheikh Shu'fat said: "We have no explanation for this. Suddenly, the Iraqi resistance disappeared… On the evening of April 9, we were in the camp. Morale was high, and resistance was fierce. When we woke for morning prayers, we found only the Arab volunteers in the camp. Not a single Iraqi officer or soldier. Everyone had disappeared without our noticing… We were confused because something we did not understand had happened. Our hope was to achieve victory or martyrdom. They [the Iraqi soldiers] went back home and turned into ordinary citizens. They left their weapons in the camps and streets, which were filled with tanks and various weapons. I am happy that I waged Jihad for the sake of Allah. I suggested to them that they carry out martyrdom operations, but they said they were now free…"

The Story of the Palestinian Mujahid - Abu Khaled
Al-Ahram's reporter Rasha Sa'ad interviewed a Palestinian fighter when he returned home. The following are excerpts from the interview:

"'I cannot believe that I am alive. I was in hell and Allah brought me back,' said Abu Khaled, who joined other Arab volunteers in the battle at Baghdad's airport in early April. Abu Khaled's - not his real name - story begins one month earlier. It was back in March that Abu Khaled, a Palestinian, was deported from Jordan. Unable to immediately return to the West Bank, he had to travel to a third country. Since Iraq was the only Arab country that would allow Palestinians to enter, Abu Khaled found himself in Baghdad nine days before the Anglo-American war in Iraq."

"'I arrived in Baghdad and felt lost. I did not know anyone there or even what to do or where to sleep. I was later assisted by a kind Iraqi who paid my $100 visa fee, helped me find a room in a hotel and even paid for my stay.' As the ultimatum for war approached, Abu Khaled decided to join the Iraqi resistance along with hundreds of other Arab volunteers. They were trained in Al-Sadeer district in Baghdad along with members of the Jerusalem Army and the Fedayeen Saddam militias. 'My group was composed of a couple hundred Arab volunteers with the majority Palestinian and Syrians of Palestinian origin. The rest were Sudanese and Yemenis. We were assigned to defend the [ Baghdad ] airport.'"

"Asked whether he found the training adequate for such a task, Abu Khaled said that he and all the Arab volunteers had training prior to joining the resistance. 'We were all trained in military tactics. We were better trained than Fedayeen Saddam.' Even though Abu Khaled was unable to determine whether the order came from Saddam Hussein or some other military leaders, he is positive that 'there clearly was corruption and collusion to lose the war.' According to him, logistics were inefficient and nearly half of the military hardware did not function. While these facts were indicative of corruption and inefficiency in the Iraqi military, it was only later that Abu Khaled found cause for serious alarm."

"At the beginning of the war, Abu Khaled says he was shocked at the sense of panic that seemed to pervade among the Iraqi troops. 'The Iraqi soldiers were scared to death, with some even fainting. I did not understand their attitude then.' Now, Abu Khaled believes that the soldiers must have sensed there was a conspiracy. 'It seems that they knew better than us that they were going to be sacrificed. The Iraqi leadership has indeed betrayed and killed them,' he contends…"

"The feeling that something was not right intensified as the volunteers moved to the airport. Abu Khaled believes that there was no military strategy to defend the airport. 'I knew one of Saddam's Republican Guards who told me that the orders he and his division were given was to take their positions in the airport and hold their positions, even if they were fired at. This man was the only one in the division that got out alive…'"

"Abu Khaled and his Arab companions, however, rebelled against their deployment orders. They were moved to the airport hours before the first military strike, where Iraqi troops were already amassed. 'We were the last to arrive at the airport and were ordered to take front-line positions, which would have left us completely exposed. We refused the order and accused the Iraqi military commanders of placing us in unnecessary danger. We asked them to let us choose the positions that we find appropriate. To avoid a confrontation, the military commanders agreed we could take a position within the trees surrounding the airport.'"

"The first strike on the airport by the coalition forces left thousands of soldiers dead. 'I went to the site where my friend Ziad was stationed and found it full of corpses.' At this point Abu Khaled's eyes filled with tears, 'this is his watch,' he said as he waved his hand towards me, while wearing Ziad's black sports watch."

"Abu Khaled also explained that there were some losses on the U.S. side. 'We were able to destroy some jeeps and carriers. The weapons we had were not appropriate to destroy a tank.' The second strike was even more devastating, according to Abu Khaled. 'There was a division 50 metres away from me, after the strike I saw nothing - they were erased.' Abu Khaled decided, at that moment, to desert the battlefield. 'I told myself I would not die in this way. I was then convinced that treachery was afoot, and thought it unacceptable to sacrifice my life for nothing.' As he fled from the airport area, Abu Khaled could find no trace of the tens of thousands of troops that were positioned around Baghdad - now all that could be seen were crushed and deformed corpses."

"Abu Khaled's problems were far from over, however. He had to walk 20 kilometres to reach Baghdad . 'Exhausted, tense and with almost no food or drink for several days, I reached a house where I thought I could finally find shelter.' An Iraqi man opened the door and asked Abu Khaled about his identity. The Palestinian fighter answered proudly that he is an Arab volunteer. 'The man slapped the door in my face and said 'go away we do not want you in our country.' Not only did he refuse to let me into his house, he wouldn't even offer me a glass of water.'"

"It was then that Abu Khaled realised that the Iraqi people had a different agenda. To his astonishment, he was later told that the Iraqis wanted to get rid of the dictatorship and oppression of Saddam Hussein at any cost - and in this context the Arab volunteers were regarded by them as supporters of the regime, who are cashing dollars, only to prolong the Iraqi people's suffering. 'I do not defend Saddam's regime. I joined the resistance to defend the Iraqi people, but they don't want to be defended. They wanted to be invaded by the Americans.' I wanted to take part in the war against our brethren in Iraq . I came to defend the dignity of the Arab nation,' said a shocked and bewildered Abu Khaled."

"The realisation that the Iraqi civilians did not want to see further resistance to the invasion forces struck Abu Khaled staggeringly. 'While we were defending ourselves from the coalition strikes, I saw an Iraqi in a nearby building shooting at us. I had to protect myself and my people so I fired an RPG missile at his house. While he was not killed, the second floor of the house was destroyed.'"

"After the U.S. captured the centre of Baghdad on 9 April, Abu Khaled decided to return to his hotel. He discovered, however, that he was no longer welcome. 'They welcomed me as a Palestinian before the war because they feared Saddam Hussein; now that he is gone they do not see any reason to give me shelter. They told me that they needed the room because they have other people who offered more for the room.'"

"Abu Khaled is now without shelter and is dependent on the generosity of others 'for food, tea or coffee.' I left him as he prepared to head home, leaving the country which now had no space for him. 'I avoid being alone or recalling what happened to me, because whenever I remember what happened at the airport, how I was abandoned – I feel betrayed and devastated.'"



******

For all the charges made against America for our "illegal and unjust war" - the reports from the Arab press itself bears-out the gladness the Iraqi people themselves had for the American operation.

Let's see - the Iraqi people were HAPPY about our actions to remove Sadaam, the UN and the EU and the Left is not happy we removed Sadaam.

I guess we know whose side they were on.

Yes, the Iraqis didn't welcome the volunteers, and they probably killed more of them than the allied soldiers, but this is old news now.. talk to any Iraqi now and see what he/she has to say.

The allied forces were welcomed by "some" of those people in Iraq, but they are not anymore.

One of my uncle's friends knows a guy who went there to fight, and he said they were not welcomed at all.. but they're saying that things are way different now, unfortunately, many people believe that the Saddam regime was more just than the American regime now.

I see them on TV day in and day out, i read the news every day and more and more people are opposing it in Iraq, more than ever.. they're saying that when Saddam was there they had water and electricity, but it's not the case anymore.. nothing is stable and you never know when the forces will barge into your house, humiliate you and your family, just to say it was a flase alarm.. it even gets better when you read about soldiers killing protesters..

The article is flawed, it says they were there to protect Saddam, everybody knows that they were not there for Saddam, they were there for the Iraqis, and they were betrayed.. The Iraqis now are asking for the support of those very same guys they kicked out, but the Iraqis are not trusted anymore..

Did you say that the Iraqis are welcoming the allied forces?, then why do we see soldiers dying everyday?

-Rage

errata corrige:
"As a former marine fed up with" ->
"Since you're a former marine fed with..."

The question has never been whether or not some Iraqis wanted Saddam out of power.... a great many did.

The question has never been whether or not some Iraqis are still loyal to Saddam... a great many are.

Iraq has a much more diverse populous than many think, and if you look for it you can find people on both sides of this issue.

For every example of people welcoming USA/UK soldiers there is another of them protesting.

Amongst Iraqis there is no clear consensus on this.

I go back to one of my OLD comments on Iraqi perspective....

Saddam was a thug.... but he was their thug.

Do you recall the saying.... better the devil you know than the devil you don't? I think that is why so many are still attacking and killing USA soldiers. These people {arabs/middle east} have been conquered before.... they have a history of small insurrections and guerrilla tactics when the invading army is to strong to fight directly. And when they think it has shrunk enough... they have historically swept in out of the desert and overrun their enemies. With today's technology... I agree this is less likely.... but NOT impossible.

You really should be concerned..... think ahead a few years with me.

Say 5 - 10 years from now. The USA/UK have installed a democratic pro-west Gov. This Gov is well recieved by the western media.... everyone is "happy" ... so the USA/UK forces begin to dwindle until they are more of a token presence. Do you think it unlikely that desert fighters, having to hide for years would not choose this time to attack and overrun what forces are left... regardless of tech advantage? And is this an outcome you think is unimportant to consider?

Yes, the Iraqis didn't welcome the volunteers, and they probably killed more of them than the allied soldiers, but this is old news now.. talk to any Iraqi now and see what he/she has to say.

According to some U.S. forces in Baghdad who wrote home, most Iraqi people are glad of and tolerate the Americans there. The one's complaining are mostly 'volunteers' or Sadaam loyalists hunting for cameras from the BBC or CNN who show these people daily as evidence that Bush's war was unwelcome.

The allied forces were welcomed by "some" of those people in Iraq, but they are not anymore.

Like I said, in most cases the Fedayeen and the Sadaam loyalists who melted into the population when the Americans arrived are doing most of the complaining.

many people believe that the Saddam regime was more just than the American regime now.

This is often said by 'volunteers' pretending to be Iraqis on TV that hunt out the press corps. according to those troops stationed in Baghdad. Why is it such comments aren't made about the British in Basra? Would it be because the Fedayeen and Volunteer jihadists have blended into the Baghdad population to wage a guerilla war and sow contention?

I doubt those Iraqi people who survived and lost loved ones in Sadaam's torture chambers and purges would even compare such absudity for a moment.

I see them on TV day in and day out, i read the news every day and more and more people are opposing it in Iraq

It must be understood that the Iraqi people are by-in-large Shiite or Sunni Muslim, and while they are now Liberated - their religious doctrine of living among 'infidels' begins to take hold and the desire that Americans leave quickly has to be understood. Whether or not it has become as widespread as you and the presscorp suggest is now become a matter of perspective and ideological persuasion. I read conflicitng reports and news clips on TV daily, it just depends on the source of the report.

Of course impatience in the short-sightedness of desiring Americans to leave quickly neglects to understand the need for the U.S. to remain until a new government is established and strengthened, one that isn't aborted as soon as it's born by the Loyalists and Volunteers of the Sadaam regime.

Noting the desire by Muslims in Iraq for 'infidel' Americans to leave now, doesn't bode well for Iraqi Christians there does it?,

more than ever.. they're saying that when Saddam was there they had water and electricity, but it's not the case anymore.

As was reported, the 'volunteers' and Baathists are busy cutting the lines often. Use your mind please....do you think for one moment that Americans are content to allow the Iraqis remain in the dark and without water? You think that is going to win hearts and minds? You think that is going to garner political support?

What better way for the guerillas to make the Iraqi people miserable than to continuously cut their lifelines to power and water and blame it on Americans? It's brilliant warfare strategy.

you never know when the forces will barge into your house, humiliate you and your family, just to say it was a flase alarm.

The reality of the Baathists and loyalists having melted into the population when the Americans arrived is par-for-the-course in terms of weeding them out.

it even gets better when you read about soldiers killing protesters..

Some of those protesters are nothing more than Fedayeen or Loyalists stirring up trouble, but then - as I said - it's all a matter of perspective. If America was truly pissing off all the Baghdad residents, I imagine the over 2 million residents could overpower the ground forces stationed there quite easily if they had a mind to do so.

The article is flawed, it says they were there to protect Saddam, everybody knows that they were not there for Saddam, they were there for the Iraqis

Hey...I didn't do the interviews or the reporting, the ARAB PRESS DID. THESE WERE EXCERPTS FROM PRO-SADAAM/IRAQ ARAB MEDIA.

Did you say that the Iraqis are welcoming the allied forces?, then why do we see soldiers dying everyday?

It's called a guerilla war chap. Jihad warriors hiding among civillians are able to take pot shots at American troops every day. This is the reason for those raids you mentioned with distaste.

As with the build-up to the war in Iraq, there are two camps of thought - one that hunts and finds each and every example and story supporting the Anti-American position that America is oppressing and conquering, and those that see and find examples supporting the American operation.

Never the two are going to reconcile, because there is on top of all of this, a political agenda being waged.

Rowdy,

Your suggestion to "look a few years ahead' is MOST DEFINITELY an accurate prophecy of what the loyalists intend and what will happen.

The only two ways to prevent that inevitability is to A.) wipe out and annihilate completely the Baathists and loyalists. B.) Give Iraqi's a real taste of freedom and free-market prosperity via their natural resources under a government that maintains law and order without oppressing minorities.

Americans are hoping for the latter - but then, as I've said before, our fatal flaw is assuming that the rest of the world has the same values we do. We cannot fathom tossing away a chance at freedom and prosperity to instill a hard-line religious faith.

You crack me up!

You people would have us believe that America requires those we want to install in power fill out an application and check the box marked: 'Were you ever, or aspire to become a genocidal dictator?' in order to become a candidate for American support.

But as always you people claim we installed Sadaam into power - this is a proven, blatant falsehood being perpetrated to give credence to your Agenda's bogus claims.

Sadaam got into power all on his lonesome just like a Mob boss would rise to take over a Mafia family.

I think, for whatever reason, the media can no longer be trusted.

I have no idea howthe world can hope to get an accurate view of what is going on in conflicts like this.

There are opposing ideologies and agendas at work. Some media will paint the coalition as shining knights. Other media outlets will describe them stormtroopers.

From one viewpoint this enterprise was a heroic liberation.

From the other a villainous conquering war machine.

All any of us can do is sift through the contradictory reports and try to judge with our consciences which is right and which is wrong.

There is ZERO chance we are going to change each other's minds on this .... since once we ourselves have decided... there are enough reports {whichever way we go} slanted in that direction to support our position.

QUESTION:

Whatever happened to MEDIA and the PUBLIC TRUST?

Well said ickle.

It often amuses me to read the "factual" information on these sites from people who don't know or can't handle the truth. the truth to each of us is what we want it to be. if we can't find it, we'll look for it where ever we can. once we find our "truth" we then proclaim it to all others. the truth to one is a lie to another. So what is really happening in Iraq? go there yourself, find your truth, then proclaim it. But then, is it the truth or just your justification for your pre-conceived belief? who know? but one thing is for sure, the American soldiers on the ground there just want to get home, but until they can, they just do their job as best they can. if they screw up, they do get punished for it. there are really only 2 military operations in the world where the soldier is actually held responsible for his or her actions- Israeli and American. can you please explain just what an American soldier gains by being cruel or by killing some one without justification? get real people- none of us know what it is like on the ground there and until we do, we should just shut up!!!!

grets, i totally agree!

Very well said grets, too many armchair quarterbacks.

We have to understand that journalists, editors, producers, managers - every single person who works in media is same like us. Before you start judging them, let's remember that it's us who read, watch, listen, etc. This is free economy, if there is no demand there is no offer. If you think there is too much spin in media, it's you who is different from others, who like reading spinned-up news more than honest, factual information. Quality of media shows cultural state of the society as a whole. You want to try changing it? Also as far as i know news channels, papers, etc. report news fast and - to me - reliably accurate. What exactly makes you think that quality of media is guided by somebodies interests? Except for commercials, ad. articles, etc.

First of all, it was some kind of self-defense. Second it's his right to decide whether to say "Saddam killed 5000 in defense" or "Saddam killed 5000 because he is a butcher", but if he reports that "Saddam never killed kurds" - that is lie.
I dont know the names of owners of US mass media.

Originally posted by DaveDom

So gassing the Kurds was once-upon-a-time only "some kind of self-defense". That makes all the difference.

Each and every man judges things the different way. Once Murdoch said it was self-defense, after he said it was mass murder... Fact remains: Saddam did kill kurds, and YOU, the reader should understand it how you want to, not how Murdoch wants it.

Nice of you to defend and stand up for murdoch's right to peddly utter trash. MrJukovette, you are without doubt a true ally to the powers that be and the elites of this world.

I dont defend neither stand up for Murdoch, however he does have the right to say whatever he wants to say. Freedom of speech remember? Also, i am not an ally of any powers or elites.

btw, and I'm sure you already knew, murdoch owns fox television (sadly the most popular channel in the US during the Iraq war). Do you think he told it straight? Of course not! But who do you blame for this - not murdoch, no, you blame the American people that watched it.

Ofcourse media should be free, bringing news and information without spin-up that's supposed to benefit the government(s). But you can not control it. Government's supervision would lead to full control of the media... What do you suppose to do? I would make media - TV, newspapers, magazines, etc. to be free from their owners ruling. In another words, president of a TV channel should have no word in deciding what to show on TV. But again, how can you achieve this?

Originally posted by DaveDom

Murdoch judged the reporting of the deaths of the Kurds on a purely commercial self-interested basis. America was pro-Saddam at the time he gassed the Kurds - him being "our" friendly Middle Eastern tyrant - so Murdoch reported the story as "self-defense". This suited Bush snr's regime.

You noted before that Murdoch said it in 1998 - long time after Bush was gone.

This illusion kept the America puplic happy and allowed Bush snr's crew to carry on business as usual with the mass murderer. Murdoch was most likely rewarding very nicely for his efforts. He is SCUM!

America didnt have any business with Saddam after 1992... unlike some other countries. You totally messed up dates and events.

You, more than virtually anyone else on this forum, support and believe the ruling classes and elites over everyone else. You seem to have a loathing for the poor and oppressed of this world, and the deluded belief that all they have to do is try harder.

Ofcourse GBush is the ruling class - you cant do anything about it. Yes i believe that poor are poor because they are not able to achieve anything better - at least in a western society like NAmerica and Western Europe. When america tries to help millions of poor who can not live better due to dictatorship, you, so called 'democrats', protest against it for some reason. That shows double standards of your beliefs.
America moves in peace keepers to Lyberia - some members of this forum critised it too: why Lyberia, when there is Iraq? BECAUSE!

I agree, the government should not control what is presented but we can and do control how much is owned by one company or person. Thankfully murdoch is not allowed to buy everything, although he's ownes the rights to our football, rugby, serveral papers, and a satalite channel. SCUM!

There is anti-monopoly legislation, but you can't disallow one man to own more than some government-set limit. I think there should be a law that prohibits owners of mass media from owning anything except for 1 channel - that way media would be free. But that violates the right of private property.

This is where I have a huge problem with these two concepts:

1. Freedom of the press.

2. Unfetterred pure capitalism.

1....... Freedom of the press is a complete joke, and doesn't actually exist..... Nor come to think of it should it.

There is a degree of freedom to the press in western society, but ONLY providing that the media's interests are similar to that of the State's. When issues arise that challenge this.... a judge demanding a reporter's source in a trial.... the military and government heavily criticizing reporter's who are not embedded and accusing them of treason..... it becomes quite clear that freedom of the press only extends as far as the State ALLOWS it.

On the other hand, when the press sensationalize a crime and distract the masses with pre-trial public opinion convictions... the interests of the State... to have a placated masses and convictions against accused... are in sync and thus the media is encouraged... leaks are even propagated to ensure public distrust of the accused and blur the objectivity of any potential jury pools.

The disgusting manner in which the media destroy reputations of individuals who are supposed to be considered INNOCENT untile PROVEN guilty.... demonstrates why the Gov's limit their freedom so strictly on security matters.

Perhaps the whole system needs to be scrapped!

The rights of privacy of individuals needs to be protected... and the need for transparency by our leaders, military, and gov need to be watchdogged. The exact opposite of today's situation.

2.......... In our western desire to unleash the force of capitalism we are constantly running into these quanderies. Should we allow one individual/corporation to CONTROL the media.... or any other sector? But what about the "right" of free enterprise. Well to put it BLUNTLY it isn't really "free enterprise" if the rights of the public are not protected. Small businesses would be destroyed uttterly if large corporations are allowed to swallow them. Not to mention the State has a vested interest in certain areas { health, education, energy, natural resources} and cannot responsibly allow private interests limitless access to these areas.{ ie) environmental standards, hiring standards etc. etc.}

Once we realize that these two issues are incompatible and have always been so.... we can on with the practical application of limits that society deems necessary. This does not necessitate the Canadian approach...{social democracy} nor the American one {republican capitalism}... this merely recognizes that under both limits ARE applied and STANDARDS are not a violation of freedom, at least not the kind of freedom we have developed in western society. In fact these limits and standards PROTECT these freedoms from the abuse of greedy and powerful.

Rowdy,

Do you ACTUALLY have a problem with the 'concept' of a free press and Capitalism, or is it just the abuse and mismanagement of both concepts from what they should be?


There is a degree of freedom to the press in western society, but ONLY providing that the media's interests are similar to that of the State's.

The amount of Anti-Bush press from most mainstream news outlets is gargantuan - your point is almost absurd. What is unique is that these same mainstream outlets were more-or-less spokesmen for the Clinton Administration.

This is about politics, not free press.

This was of course never the intent of the American Founding Fathers - who essentially ESTABLISHED the entire concept of a free press.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution had intended a Free Press that was of itself hostile and distrustful of central government. The Founders had intended Americans to always remain distrustful and vigilant of Government usurping power for itself as they knew it would. As History set the example - the Founders knew that a Free and unhindered Press was crucial in keeping the People Informed of Government's actions so as to aid their duty to remain vigilant of their liberty.

This has become lost as the Press has become the defacto 4th branch of government - with political and ideological bias as it's motivation while still claiming to be 'independant'. Until the internet revolution, the mainstream press had a lock on the news it would release, and ensured much of it fit within it's own ideological bias. This is still true with the mainstream outlets but the internet provides a ready landscape of diverse and even ridiculous 'news' info.

When issues arise that challenge this.... a judge demanding a reporter's source in a trial.... the military and government heavily criticizing reporter's who are not embedded and accusing them of treason..... it becomes quite clear that freedom of the press only extends as far as the State ALLOWS it.

Well, this is where free press and treason collide with ideology. Per the American Constitution's definition of what treason is; - if the press engages in providing aid and comfort to an enemy, or ENDANGERS our forces in a time of war and conflict - then they become a tool for the enemy to utilize against the people of the nation. As such, per the Constitution of the U.S., it's treason.

Having no loyalty to the nation and People that provided the concept of freedom of the press, and denouncing said nation and people while coddling an enemy, and/or witholding threatening information under the guise of 'protected sources' is repugnant and aiding and comforting enemies we are engaged.

...when the press sensationalize a crime and distract the masses with pre-trial public opinion convictions... leaks are even propagated to ensure public distrust of the accused and blur the objectivity of any potential jury pools.

Jury Nullification. Sure. Happens when people are not looking for 'Truth', but looking for sensationalism, or promoting an ideological agenda tied to the case. Symptom of our debased culture when 'Truth' has become 'relative' or only within the confines of an ideology.

The disgusting manner in which the media destroy reputations of individuals who are supposed to be considered INNOCENT untile PROVEN guilty.... demonstrates why the Gov's limit their freedom so strictly on security matters.

Security matters should be restricted, lest they be easily exploited by enemies. As to 'Innocent until proven guilty' - that particular right is reverved for American citizens alone when litigated in our courts, and not enemy combatants, foreigners, illegals or enemy regimes. Of course when a political ideology needs to be served by showcasing a Defendant in a particularly nasty light - (ala the Branch Davidians) - the Press is quite eager to play Tar and Feather.

Perhaps the whole system needs to be scrapped!

No, the System as intended works fine, and has until clever men seeking power found ways to circumvent the process and the People became content to be spoonfed and oblivious to anything but their own pursuits.

The rights of privacy of individuals needs to be protected... and the need for transparency by our leaders, military, and gov need to be watchdogged. The exact opposite of today's situation.

This is what the Press was supposed to have safeguarded. Instead they have become political weapons under the guise of 'truth and objectivity' - which of course is nonsense.

Should we allow one individual/corporation to CONTROL the media.... or any other sector? But what about the "right" of free enterprise.

We don't have 'free enterprise' as intended. We have mountains of regulations and restrictions to free enterprise by government legislation, we have licenses and fees and payola Unions and demands from both government and special interest lobbyists that restrict free enterprise. Those corporations that become large and powerful become political lobbying engines to ensure their own monopolistic control of a market, and government is all-too-willing to play the arbiter and regulator of those markets.

Small businesses would be destroyed uttterly if large corporations are allowed to swallow them.

Small business does not contribute enough money politically for the politicians to ensure anti-trust and monopoly practices do not smother competition. Coupled with regulations that favor big-business, the taxes crush and cripple any incentive for a small business to succeed and grow without subsidy. If it weren't for the passion small business owners had for their businesses, the effects of total corporate controle would have taken root long ago.

Not to mention the State has a vested interest in certain areas { health, education, energy, natural resources} and cannot responsibly allow private interests limitless access to these areas.{ ie) environmental standards, hiring standards etc. etc.}

Pure horsepuckey! It is proven that private interests handle such issues with better success than a government bureauracracy. Our public Schools are a perfect example of the government's utter failure in managing such vested interests that were intended to be the responsibility of the citizens.

Once we realize that these two issues are incompatible and have always been so....

They are NOT INCOMPATIBLE! Only by accepting Socialism and the People surrendering their responsibilities, their liberties and judgements to government make your claim sound legitimate. The intents of the American Founders have proven that both Capitalism and the Press could work hand-in-hand provided the People were united in the common goals set forth for this Republic.

we can on with the practical application of limits that society deems necessary.

And WHO will decide such limits? government? Mob rule? Minority rule?

this merely recognizes that under both limits ARE applied and STANDARDS are not a violation of freedom, at least not the kind of freedom we have developed in western society.

According to our Constitution, such so-called 'standards' are in-fact violations of freedom. Perhaps you are content with living under the government's leave, but as history has shown and our Founders warned; tyranny is always begun with good intentions.

In fact these limits and standards PROTECT these freedoms from the abuse of greedy and powerful.

No WRONG, such limits and 'standards' are the machinations of abuse and manipulation by government. The reason the TV press has become so lack in their Constitutional duty is PRECISELY because of government standards and regulations put in place to 'protect' us. As such, FCC rules, standards and limits, LIMIT the ability of average people to have a voice or provide competent competition to a regulated entity.

Because government grants such rights to liberty - government can decide whom it will grant such liberty, and then take away at it's whim.

Your solutions are where we are headed anyway, a pure form of Social Fascism - where the State will regulate, run and manage the affairs of press and business so as to maintain 'fairness and equality'.

Originally posted by rowdyrjp

1....... Freedom of the press is a complete joke, and doesn't actually exist..... Nor come to think of it should it.

Well depends on how you understand the meaning of 'free press'.

There is a degree of freedom to the press in western society, but ONLY providing that the media's interests are similar to that of the State's.

No! Media's interests are in most cases plainly simple: make good money, selling time for commercials. And to be demanded, channel/paper/station tries to gain as much popularity as possible. None of the above relates to quality of news reported to us. Government oppressing free media to support it - proven fact of oppression - is a crime against freedom of press. It's not something you can easily do, at least here in North America.

When issues arise that challenge this.... a judge demanding a reporter's source in a trial.... the military and government heavily criticizing reporter's who are not embedded and accusing them of treason..... it becomes quite clear that freedom of the press only extends as far as the State ALLOWS it.

There are certain borders defining treason. State cannot allow or disallow a reporter to say things. Just wondering: which western country experiences such terrible problems?

On the other hand, when the press sensationalize a crime and distract the masses with pre-trial public opinion convictions... the interests of the State... to have a placated masses and convictions against accused... are in sync and thus the media is encouraged... leaks are even propagated to ensure public distrust of the accused and blur the objectivity of any potential jury pools.

That i have never heard about. Government usually does not care about some particular crime/court. Why should it encourage press to spread 'leaks' and mistrust-leading info?

The disgusting manner in which the media destroy reputations of individuals who are supposed to be considered INNOCENT untile PROVEN guilty.... demonstrates why the Gov's limit their freedom so strictly on security matters.

So???? Since media uses it's right to call things the way they want, often innocent people are viewed as criminals by the public - thanks to the media. Not only that - but private lives of ordinary citizens is made open to public without any doubt. Since the media is free, we can not disallow them to.

Perhaps the whole system needs to be scrapped!

Not the whole system - some parts of it, not scrapped - but brought up to date.

The rights of privacy of individuals needs to be protected... and the need for transparency by our leaders, military, and gov need to be watchdogged. The exact opposite of today's situation.

Exactly. That's however not the lack of freedom for media, but one of the issues today's society has ran in.

2.......... In our western desire to unleash the force of capitalism we are constantly running into these quanderies. Should we allow one individual/corporation to CONTROL the media.... or any other sector? But what about the "right" of free enterprise. Well to put it BLUNTLY it isn't really "free enterprise" if the rights of the public are not protected. Small businesses would be destroyed uttterly if large corporations are allowed to swallow them. Not to mention the State has a vested interest in certain areas { health, education, energy, natural resources} and cannot responsibly allow private interests limitless access to these areas.{ ie) environmental standards, hiring standards etc. etc.}

Ofcourse there have to be some rules to prohibit monopolies that control prices, to control health and education, energy and natural resources. Gov't always has to find a balance between the right of big companies to expand their business and the ability of small business to develop while competing with an old wolf. Especially media - industry that brings a lot of money and at the same time can 'control' the masses. Other side of all this is that tight government control leads to corruption and even more violations than before.

Once we realize that these two issues are incompatible and have always been so.... we can on with the practical application of limits that society deems necessary. This does not necessitate the Canadian approach...{social democracy} nor the American one {republican capitalism}... this merely recognizes that under both limits ARE applied and STANDARDS are not a violation of freedom, at least not the kind of freedom we have developed in western society. In fact these limits and standards PROTECT these freedoms from the abuse of greedy and powerful.

To some degree yes, but some rules/ regulations/laws restrict out personal freedoms, as well as corporate business freedom.

Bottom line is our friend does not accept the fact that life is not perfect, and that its imperfections are not the result of a global conspiracy.

A "Free" media does not necessarily imply a "high quality" media, and "low quality" media is not necessarily related to "state controlled" media.

Its just news. And news has become entertainment. To advance your career as a journalist you need to write/present stories that your editors will like because they believe their consumers will buy it. There are publications in niche markets that try to present the facts, but in general the media is an industry of mass consumption. Businesses will continue to produce goods and services that consumers will buy. If someone comes along with a better product or service that people like more, then they will be successful and their competitors will follow suit to stay in business.

I think the media is in a state of crisis - at least relative to the ideals of journalistic ethics. They report flashy news to get us to tune in but don't cover/investigate/report stories that don't correspond to the pernicious fetishes and attention span of the average joe/jane.

But it is certainly not an evil state sponsored conspiracy. The press can report on whatever it wants.

The alternative would be to use government funds to sponsor the media so that it is not dependent upon consumer whims. In the end, this would be far worse.

The BBC is government sponcered and is extremely biased.
One thing I learned about the media. Don't take what is said as gospel. Wait about an hour and the story will change and get closer to the truth (as they see it), whatever that is.

I guess the real problem with today's media.... and society in general.... has been the shift away from our traditional values and morals.

So many of the institutions that we depend upon were founded upon certain principles. When those principles are not being adhered to these institutions become warped and/or corrupt.

Many of the positions in these institutions {health, education, journalism, government} were once considered vocations.... NOT occupations. Perhaps, as a society we are to jaded to believe in vocations anymore.

Health Care workers contributing to fraudulent billing.
Teacher's constantly striking.
Tabloid jounalism.
Government abuse of power.... and scandal.

Perhaps .... things were always like this and we just didn't recognize it so much? I would like to think not.

Were these institutions VOCATIONS?

Or, has the public's perceptions just become more acute?

If you had 50 pounds of equipment and a flack vest on in the 120 degree heat, not to mention the snipers, you'ld want to come home too. That's not too hard to figure out is it? It goes with the territory.
I spend 12 months in Vietnam and hated it as soon at I got off the plane. But you know what? I did my job as I was told and I made it home. Unfortunatley, it was a medivac.
I met plenty of people in Vietnam who are still my friends and they were glad we were there. I was also aware of the sappers who smiled at you by day and hunted you by night.
There are many you signed up for the wrong reasons, some of those payed with their lives and some lived to come home to protest.
Until you've lived it, you will never know.
One of our posters, scottc, has no clue as to what it's like but, seems to know the real view of all all veterans.

Originally posted by rowdyrjp

I guess the real problem with today's media.... and society in general.... has been the shift away from our traditional values and morals.

Yes!

So many of the institutions that we depend upon were founded upon certain principles. When those principles are not being adhered to these institutions become warped and/or corrupt.

See, the thing is our principles, together with values and morals, are very weak nowadays. It refers to clothing, music, cinema, media, sex, relations between family members and friends, etc. Father sueing daughter, son calling police on his mom, men and women dressing cheap - not because they are poor but because they dont care how they look, music and movies carrying much less artistic value than before - simply being a way for producers and artists to make money, media liing to us, - list goes on and on.

Many of the positions in these institutions {health, education, journalism, government} were once considered vocations.... NOT occupations. Perhaps, as a society we are to jaded to believe in vocations anymore.

Health Care workers contributing to fraudulent billing.
Teacher's constantly striking.
Tabloid jounalism.
Government abuse of power.... and scandal.

Desire for money made people sick - that's all.

Perhaps .... things were always like this and we just didn't recognize it so much? I would like to think not.

We had other problems before. Once you solve problem of poverty - other issues arise, amongst which are corruption of society and loss of morals.
NAmerica's society is completely different from others around the world. People here base their action on law and not on their personal beliefs - that's where problem is.

I bet that if it was not against the law to beat up women, men wouldnt make them wait for too long. Why shouldnt they do it, if it's just legal and not against the law? Government imposes laws to control people - who dont understand simplest things themselves. Ofcourse they won't - with this level of education...