Iraqi Bloggers Roundup

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Uncle Snidley

Uncle Sam? No, Snidley Whiplash!

As if she were planning to prove my point about rumours, Riverbend decided to spread a couple with her latest post Samarra Burning.

First her post has the usual complaints that the U.S. military never kills terrorists or thugs, only completely unarmed and innocent civilians. And they do it just for fun! No reason at all!

--To top it off, we have to watch American military spokespersons and our new Iraqi politicians justify the attacks and talk about 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' like they actually believe what they are saying... like hundreds of civilians aren't being massacred on a daily basis by the worlds most advanced military technology.

Samarra was a no-go area controlled by Salafi/Wahabbi fanatics. Numerous violent attacks against the MNF, the IP and the ING occurred there. If there were no terrorists there, River, who was carrying out the attacks? Gremlins? Jinn? Mossad?

Of course civilians were killed, many of them, which is why it's called "urban combat" and not "a tea party." Nobody likes it. Some decent guys like AYS and some sweet kids like Aunt Najma got killed in Samarra this week, and it makes me sick. But what was the alternative? Leave the Association of Muslim Scholars and their fanatic murdering thugs in charge of the city? That's not an option. It makes me angry though. Urban combat is a horrible thing and should be avoided if possible. This shouldn't have happened at all, because You Know Who should have put enough men with rifles into Iraq in the first place to secure the country. Whole cities should not have fallen into the hands of the Sunni extremist murderers. No one can tell me we had plenty of soldiers there when a city like Samarra becomes their possession for months. Many good citizens would now be alive if these murderers had not taken control of this city in the first place. It should never have happened. We were responsible, collectively, for their safety and we blew it. There is no excuse.

Back to Riverbend. She makes a deceptive complaint about precision attacks, deliberately confusing the targeted air attacks in Fallujah with the house-to-house fighting in Samarra and Sadr City:

--As if Allawi's gloating and Bush's inane debates aren't enough, we have to listen to people like Powell and Rumsfeld talk about "precision attacks". What exactly are precision attacks?! How can you be precise in a city like Samarra or in the slums of Sadir City on the outskirts of Baghdad? Many of the areas under attack are small, heavily populated, with shabby homes several decades old. In Sadir City, many of the houses are close together and the streets are narrow. Just how precise can you be with missiles and tanks? We got a first-hand view of America's "smart weapons". They were smart enough to kill over 10,000 Iraqis in the first few months of the occupation

Then Riverbend goes completely nuts. She's admitted in the past that she doesn't get out much and she watches and believes al-Jazeera. First she sagely comments on the murder of 35 Iraqi children who were at a party to get candy:

--I don't know who to be more angry with- the idiots and PR people who thought it would be a good idea to have children running around during a celebration involving troops or the parents for letting their children attend. I the people who arranged the explosions burn within the far-reaches of hell.

Isn't that nice? she blames the parents for taking the kids to a party. Now who thought a party like that would be targeted? Perhaps she'd like to tell that crying father in the photo at Hammorabi that he's stupid to try to let his kid have a little fun.

Next, Uncle Sam is Snidley Whiplash:

--One wonders who is behind the explosions and the car bombs. Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Possibly... but it's just too easy. It's too perfect. Bin Laden hit the WTC and Afghanistan was attacked. Iraq was occupied. At first, any explosion or attack on troops was quickly blamed on "loyalists" and "Baathists" and EVERYTHING was being coordinated by Saddam. As soon as he was caught, it became the work of "Islamic extremists" and Al-Qaida and Zarqawi suddenly made his debut. One wonders who it will be after it is discovered that Zarqawi has been dead for several months or that he never even existed. Whoever it is, you can bet his name will three syllables or less because that is Bush's limit.

So whoever planted those bombs should burn in hell, but we know who they are! It's Uncle Sam! It's CIA/Mossad! The same people who invented Al Qaeda, and UBL, and put Saddam in power, invented Zarqawi and planted those bombs! It's obvious!

What's obvious is that Riverbend has descended into the hallucinatory land of the conspiracy theorist, where nothing is what it seems and everything happens according to Uncle Snidley's plans. Anything that appears to be American incompetence or stupidity or misfortune is really part of a nefarious plot.

Lastly she drops this rumour:

--A week ago, four men were caught by Iraqi security in the area of A'adhamiya in Baghdad. No one covered this on television or on the internet, as far as I know- we heard it from a friend involved in the whole thing. The four men were caught trying to set up some explosives in a residential area by some of the residents themselves. One of the four men got away, one of them was killed on the spot and two were detained and interrogated. They turned out to be a part of Badir's Brigade (Faylaq Badir), the militia belonging to the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Should the culprits never have been caught, and should the explosives have gone off, would Zarqawi have been blamed? Of course.

Notice that she "heard it from a friend involved in the whole thing." Conveniently, it wasn't in the news anywhere. Does the friend have any proof other than his big mouth? Probably not. But this is what I talked about in the post about rumours: if Iraqis hear it through their grapevine, it MUST be true. Now I don't like SCIRI either and maybe they do plant bombs. I don't know this neighborhood A'adhamiya. Is it Sunni? If it is, how likely is a rumour about a Shi'ite political party to be true?

Lastly, let's explain to Riverbend:

--Why is it 'terrorism' when foreigners set off bombs in London or Washington or New York and it's a 'liberation' or 'operation' when foreigners bomb whole cities in Iraq? Are we that much less important?

Terrorism is when they deliberately kill civilians to sow fear, exact revenge, or satisfy hatred. Liberation is when bombs are dropped and men with rifles fight to drive terrorist thugs from their holes, like in Samarra. I hope that city will be free now. By the way apparently the ING
did great in Samarra. Look for that city to return to the rule of law, thanks to the IP, the ING and the Big Red One.

-littlewhy