Guerilla Actions in Irak

Imperialist, your analysis would have been more sober and less prone to subjectivity issues if your reports would not have been supplemented with tendentious comments like:

"Its total chaos out there"

"Is it only a question of time until the shiites join the insurgency in full force?"

"After Fallujah they said they "broke the back" of the insurgency..."

"And this month looks to be one of the bloodiest, if things continue like this for the Americans in the Anbar province"

The bloodiest since when? At least give some reference points. Maybe this document will assist you: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total-by-month.pdf

So its not, right? How on earth can this comment be "tendentious".

This comment is tendentious?! But Sid's questions in his first message were not!!!

Tendentious? Do you want me to post the article where they said that? In did not make it up.

This could be judged as an incomplete statement, but certainly nobody asked more. Tendentious?

Thanx for the link, but I did have my month by month casualty list.

Bottomline, I think its a big stretch for you to call these tendentious...
Also for those interested I did post in the first message of the thread the need to follow the insurgents assassinations, attacks and terrorist actions... Terrorist actions. One sided? Cover-up? On the side of the "freedom fighters" only? Hardly.

So please, lets not hunt wiches out here...

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 15, 2005 07:03 pm

Sid, unfortunately you have long passed the line from stating your case to continually attacking me personally.

I am sorry that I have misread your questions on your first message on this thread. However, I dont understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you not answering to my follow-up question, which offered you a fair chance to clearly state your position, contributed in a similar measure to what followed? Am I guilty for that?
If you came one month later and clarified, then very well, the previous post has been abrogated. I said FINE, I will not deny your right. Dont attack me retroactively for what at the time was left unrefuted by you! Can you understand the principle of non-retroactivity? You cannot seek my execution for what at the time was true even if by forfeit/absence only.

I also dont understand why you refuse to see that your first message was disproportionate to the "crimes" I did on this thread, which were nothing but giving links and a short 1-4 line comment on the side (not always).
Though I had the right to be very mad whrn I read your message, I did not stalk you and overwhelm you with messages like you do now. I gave you a 5 day period of saying whatever you wished, then I put my case, well documented.
Compare that 5 day period with what you;re doing now by persistently attacking me for saying something that hurt YOU. Why are you entitled to be this upset, but the others should not squirm when you target them with your unfair comments.

And you ask me to withdraw my comment about the "history", or further substantiate it.
I have a FINAL thing to say:

1. If I choose to further substantiate it, I will do it in my own time. Your case has been put. Its there for posterity, why are you continuing to go beserk? Have patience, like I had. Its my right to take my time, stop harassing. You took your time.

2. I will withdraw my comment with the "history" only when and if you change your attitude. Which I perceive to be arrogant, self-sufficient, with an aggressiveness embedded in a polite form, but still there. "Do this, do that, you are this, you are that..."
I will certainly not withdraw it under pressure from this type of attitude.

I hope you are mature enough to understand this.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

I have, indeed, attacked you personally. I have questioned your integrity, your sense of honour and your personal pride. This is harsh stuff, but as long as you refuse to either substantiate your case or withdraw it I feel under no obligation to withdraw any of these. The ball is in your court on this one.

You ask "I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you not answering to my follow-up question, which offered you a fair chance to clearly state your position, contributed in a similar measure to what followed......"

Firstly, I would refer you to my post of JUL 14 2005, 04:23PM, in which I wrote, "I apologise for missing your question intended to clarify my meaning. It was not done deliberately and had the unintended consequence of dropping you in a bit of a hole......."

Secondly, I think my English in my original question is perfectly clear and doesn't require clarification. Had I noticed your question I would have clarified it out of courtesy to you as presumably a non-native English speaker, not because it was vague.

Thirdly, I do not accept that I "contributed in a similar measure to what followed". My only contribution was to remain silent. You could have repeated the question, but apparently didn't. In view of lack of feedback from me, you could have made no interpretation at all and let the matter rest, but you didn't. Instead, you chose to make your own interpretation. You had alternatives and made your choice amonst them with no input from me.

All proactive contributions on this particular subject came from you and I therefore do not feel that I "contributed in a similar measure to what followed". However, although I do not feel that I "contributed in a similar measure to what followed", as my post of JUL 14 2005, 04:23PM indicates, I recognise that my unintended failure to reply to your question was a contributory factor to what followed. To that limited extent I have already apologised and happily do so again.

I do not at all recognise your proposed principle of non-retroactivity as you are trying to apply it here. If something was incorrect a month ago it remains incorrect today. If it merited correction a month ago, it still merits correction today. The mere passage of time doesn't turn something that was wrong into something that is right. If I proposed a month ago that 2+2=5, it wouldn't become automatically unquestionable with the passage of time and you would be perfectly at liberty to question it now, next year or at any time into the infinite future.

Personally, I am not "hurt" by what you alleged, as it is patently innaccurate. That is why I have never asked for an apology. However, I am offended on grounds of wider principle concerning natural justice. It is inherently wrong to make an allegation and then refuse to either substantiate or withdraw it.

Although on grounds of natural justice you would be absolutely wrong to delay, you are entirely at liberty to take as long as you want to either substantiate your case or withdraw it. But remember this, it is not my integrity that is at stake here. It is yours. My reputation is not in any way damaged by your delay. Yours is.

I am therefore quite content to leave you dangling in the wind. After all, I can then return to the subject at any time and crucify you all over again.

Whenever you are ready........

Cheers,

Sid.

Thats all you've been trying to do since you came on this thread, not to say on this forum. You spend a huge amount of energy on this kind of activity.
Find a member, bash its posts on lack of references, incomplete references, subjective references, intent, agenda; issue demands - more references, more data, more backup; sit back and comment on the new provided references - they are biased, they are incomplete, they are one-sided; demand more... Obviously you can keep this going on and on, and on. Spice it up with some attacks on record, reputation, credibility and an arrogant attitude etc., and you boil yourself nice pots of hot but pointless argument wherever you go on this forum.
I'm sorry kid, I dont have time for this, nor do I find this to be in any way constructive. This is on the border-edge of troll activity. Just border-edge...

FINE. Made your point for the upteenth time already. I still dont get why are you so worried about my reputation, its not your concern, is it?

Now, can you ever stop from your rant and stop the off-topic messages? The erroneous impression could be that you are persistently trying to close this topic!

THANK YOU!

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 16, 2005 05:44 am

Hi Imperilist,

Actually, I am more interested in the establishment of facts, their ballanced presentation and their accurate analysis. Long ago I posted that I have no particular arguments with the accuracy of what you initially posted on this thread. My questions were about ballanced presentation and accurate analysis, both of which I felt were lacking.

I may be wrong, and doubtless you will correct me with details of the posts concerned, but I don't recall questioining your references on this thread.

On the other hand you have expressed some misgivings about the Chrenkoff link I offered. You are right. It is a blog, with all the limitations that implies. On the other hand, it does contain the only Iraqi poll of Iraqi opinion on the occupation yet offered on this thread. Until something better comes along it remains the most authoritative sounding of real Iraqi public attitudes. It indicates that Iraqi opposition to the occupation is not as militant or widespread as you imply by referring to an "Iraqi" resistance and focusing entirely on its actions. The reality seems to be that most Iraqis apparently don't want the occupation forces out yet (I emphasise "yet") and much of the country is passive.

Compassionate and caring human being though I am, I am not the least "worried" about your reputation. That is entirely in your hands. However, I do care about ballanced reportage and natural justice. If only you demonstrated similar concerns your reputation would not be at issue.

You are so right! It would, indeed, be an "erroneous impression" that I was "persistently trying to close this topic".

On that happy note of agreement, I sign off.

Cheers,

Sid, Border-Edge Troll.

Hi Guys,

If you type "New York Times Iraq Casualties" into Google you will find some Iraqi casualty figures for civilians. There is also a provincial map showing fatalities per 100,000 of population.

The direct link (if it works) is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/internat...ualties.html?hp

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Guys,

Oh well, it looks as though for free access you will have to go into that link via Google.

Happy hunting.

Sid.

I did not claim what you wrote is entirely false, I said your analysis is tendentious (advancing a definite point of view) because besides presenting the bare facts of reports as acknowledged in your first post, you criticize the American failures and political declarations. That's all.

OK, Dragos, I understand.

But the only thing I advanced was my point of view. And if you browse back at the start of the topic, you'll see Jeff, Udar, Iama and Florin came with their own opinions. And I did not rebuke or attack any of them for their opinions.
If I were to be tendentious and over-critical for anything americans do in Iraq or say on the forum, I should have "attacked" Jeff for example for saying there is a decreasing trend of attacks on the US forces, or something like that. I did not.
And my anti-american "agenda" before Sid came up on the thread, and for which he questioned me/complained, was that I did not present the american operations too.
The thread was not about that but he could have done it himself, I wouldnt have had any problem with it. Or he could have started his own thread about it.

That happened after Sid and I started arguing about semantical or political details.
And whats wrong in criticising American failures and political declarations?

1. Right now the Prime Minister of Iraq is visiting Iran accompanied by 10 ministers from his Cabinet. (The Iraq's Prime Minister lived 10 years in exile in Iran in the days of Saddam Hussein.) Not quite what the White House expected when they planned regime change in Iraq and elections...

2. Little is mentioned in mass-media about the continuous looting occurring in the archeology sites of Iraq. About 140 ancient cities, some 5000 years old, were plundered since the American invasion. Obviously, the plundering is done by the locals, but they take advantage of the chaos going on in the country, which did not happen before the American invasion of March-May 2003. These ancient objects are sold on the black markets of New York and London.

As a reminder, the ancient people living on the territory of today's Iraq invented for the first time the writing and the wheel. Because of them we use today the division of time in multiples of 6: 360 days, 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds.
About 2600 years ago they invented the metal plating using electrolysis, technology unfortunately forgotten to be re-discovered in the early 1800's.

But who cares about all these in the U.S., a country with 200 years of history? However, from the Britons and from the United Kingdom I had (but I do not still have) higher expectations.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 17, 2005 04:02 am

Hi Florin,

I share your concern for Iraq's arhaeological sites.

However, I would contend that it is the Western countries that have done most to demonstrate a concern for the Middle east's pre-Islamic remains. Until Western countries with their museums, archaeology and analytical techniques re-established the central historical importance of Middle Eastern cultures to our common heritage, Islamic countries had ignored it.

Fundamentalist Islam is a major obstacle to archaeological research and preservation in many areas. At the extreme end, look what happened to the massive Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan - blown apart by Taliban tank shells in an effort to extinguish evidence of Afghanistan's pre-Islamic high cultures.

Even in the West there is mainstream Islamic pressure not to undertake too close an analysis of Islamic history. For a century or more Western scholars have used a variety of techniques of textual analysis to establish how many different sources contributed to the Bible, what their religious slants were and how they relate to the archaeology. However, as the Koran is believed by almost all Muslims to be the unadulterated received word of Allah, almost all Muslims are against similar techniques being applied to the Koran. When an academic book attempting to do so was published in the West, pressure was brought to bear through threats of withdrawal of funding by Saudi interests so that no second edition could be published. You cannot get it today outside major libraries.

I have a friend writing a book on pre-Islamic Nabatean civilisation (Petra etc.). They cannot even get access to Saudi Arabia to visit Nabataean sites, let alone conduct archaeology because the Saudi authorities, who are fairly fundamentalist Wahhabists, are worried that a greater understanding of how Islam emerged from older religions and cultures will undermine its god-given uniqueness, and their authority with it.

I agree that more ought to be done by the West to stamp out the rape of pre-Islamic Iraqi archaeology, but I don't think that nobody cares about it in either the US or UK. The problem is that, compared with the mass car and suicide bombings of today's Iraqi civilians, preservation of the past looks like a low priority at present.

As a matter of interest, have any important objects appeared in Western art markets whose provenance is probably illegal looting of Iraqi archaeological sites?

Cheers,

Sid.

Actually it was worse. The Taliban forced local men to descend hanged on ropes, from the cliff above, and to attach loads of explosives on the huge statues.
So the Taliban had no excuse like a combat fight involving tank shells. They were already the rulers, and it was "peace".

The Taliban wanted to burn most of the paintings of the gallery in the National Art Museum in Kabul, so some daring men painted over many scenes, to hide controversial aspects in paintings. But the ancient statues exposed in the museum in Kabul were not so lucky, and many were decapitated.

This would be funny if it wouldn't be sad. Mohammed (the Holy Man) accepted most of the Christian and Jewish holy men, including Jesus Christ. In the old Muslim kingdoms of the old times, the Jews and the Christians were subjected to less tax than other non-Muslims, because their religion was accepted as closer to Islam.

In my post I insisted that the looting has been done by locals, who have a lot of shame to bear. (When Bucharest, Timisoara and other Romanian cities underwent a short but bloody revolution in December 1989, people did not use the event to loot the Romanian museums.)
However, you have to accept that these lootings did not occur in the days of Saddam Hussein, and the greedy locals took and take advantage of the chaos created by the U.S. led invasion.
When power was transferred from the American team to the pre-election Iraqi government, one of the first measures, in the first days, taken by this Iraqi government was to deploy 1400 armed people as guards to the ancient cities.
I guess you agree that the Coalition could do the same before.

The news about archeological black markets in New York and London was from BBC International, so I have no details.
Sometimes they catch at airports American soldiers returning from Iraq with ancient cuneiform table or other objects. When the officials succeed to catch them, they confiscate the items. Usually the soldiers say that they bought them in bazaars / street markets, and they did not know how important the items were. The excuse is accepted.

After the Taliban were put on the run and forced out of Kabul, the layer of fake paint was easily removed, and the paintings were restored to original.

The reader should now that what was sacrilege in the eyes of the Taliban was every human (with clothes on him / her) in the paintings - it was not about nudes, but about regular people with clothes on them.

Fortunately for us, due to some heroic Afghans working at the Central Bank of Kabul, and at the national historic museum in Kabul, the Taliban could not discover the huge treasure of 20,000 pieces of gold, each of them at least 2000 years old, if not more.

However, the looting of ancient sites occurs in Afghanistan in the same ways as in Iraq, with the difference that in Iraq this occurred in the last 2 years, while in Afghanistan this occurred in the last 25 years.

In this morning i heard at radio in taxi about a new "kamikaze" eveniment in Irak. They sey about 71 victims and a big vechicle with gas/fuel...

Is this no. 1 incident of this type, at victims nombers?

Iama

Hi Iamandi,

According to the British press, it is the worst bombing since the new Iraqi government was formed, which presumably means that there was at least one worse bombing before. Fatalities are now in the high 90s.

Cheers,

Sid.