chicot

Surely that should be "homicide terrorist" or "suicide terrorist" since "bomber" is an innocuous and pc term.

"Bombers" is innocuous?!

Good grief! Do you honestly believe that I would object to calling them terrorists? I humbly apologize for my poor choice of words.

I don't really think I was misinterpreting your views. If I was, I apologize. Yes, those who are slaughtering Iraqi civilians do have to come from somewhere (although at least some of them may well be Iraqi), but I don't think killing civilians in Syria, Iran, wherever, will help the situation. As I said, the current theory on the London bombers seems to be that they were British born. If that turns out to be the case, then where exactly do you bomb?

You are misreading my post. My point was that if coalition forces follow Bill's plan then they would be deliberately targetting civilians. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in the original post.

Not really the point. Bill seems to be advocating the carpet bombing of the middle east so in that case we certainly would be targeting civilians and that is what I am getting at. I'm not even sure that civilians were deliberately targeted in Vietnam (though my knowledge about that conflict is sketchy). I think there were some massacres though I believe they were the result of rogue elements in the military rather that actual high-level policy. Any history buffs out there to help out? CTM?

Thanks Bill. I live in Liverpool so I was relatively unaffected by the bombings. The only way I can see that bombing countries can be justified or logical is if there is a direct link between the government of a country and a terrorist act. Otherwise, who do you bomb? What if the London bombers turn out to be North African? Do you bomb Morocco? Tunisia? What if they turn out to be British born (which seems to be the current theory of the police)? Do you bomb the country their father was born in? The country of their grandfather? Do you bomb London? Why not have vigilantes beating up muslims on the streets of London? After all the terrorists came from their community and they didn't do enough to stop them and beating up people is a lot less severe than dropping bombs on their heads. Should we have bombed Dublin during the height of the IRA bombing campaign? There were plenty of the Irish who sympathized with them (in fact, plenty of Americans too). Perhaps Britain should have bombed Noraid fund raisers in the US - there's plenty of evidence that money from them went directly to the IRA. However, there is a more fundamental reason why this policy should be avoided. Targetting civilians is wrong. It is wrong when terrorists do it, it is wrong when we do it. It is wrong no matter what the cause or justification. If we adopt the methods of the terrorists then we are little better than they are. The only excuse we would have is the old playground retort "well, he started it".

Because I wasn't sure what you were getting at with your first attempt at it.

Duh. I think it's fairly obvious it would be Jews.

At the moment, it is happening far more often in Iraq than in Israel.

Muslims are more likely victims - this sort of thing is going on virtually every day in Iraq.

Uk muslim organisations were very quick indeed to condemn what happened yesterday. Perhaps my post (or at least that part of it) shouldn't really have been directed at Bill. I was trying to get across the point that "muslims" are not the problem, muslim terrorists, extremists, whatever, are the problem.

I thought the meaning was pretty obvious. That it is absurd to condemn "muslims" in general for this sort of thing (and I'm not sure that was what Bill was doing) when they are just as likely to be the victims (or more likely) than anyone else.

For all we know the perpertrators may not even have been from the middle east. I think it was north Africans that were responsible for the train bombings in Spain. Also, I would be wary of blanket statements about "Islamics". There is a sizeable muslim population in London and there are bound to be muslims among the dead and injured.

Zarqawi may have overplayed his hand by having a tribal sheik killed. Tribal loyalty is extremely strong in Al-Anbar province - even Saddam was wary when dealing with them. I think the administration is more or less admitting your point about there being two different wars in Iraq, by meeting with leaders of the Iraqi insurgency. They're making a distinction between the homegrown insurgency, with which they can at least negotiate with and the foreign fanatics, with whom no negotiation is possible.

There also seems to have been some sort of battle in Damascus: Syrian troops in battle with ex-Saddam guards

This sort of thing has been going on for quite some time, albeit on a smaller scale. It's not really that suprising - the aims of the nationalist Iraqi fighters are not compatible with those of the foreign maniacs, whose only aim seems to be to turn Iraq into an eternal battleground. Incidentally, you probably haven't heard about this (I think it has only been reported on Arabic language sites) but one of the things mentioned by the newly-formed political front for the Iraqi resistance was that they would "deal with" Zarqawi if an agreement could be reached.

I hope your children are all born with small dicks ..... and that includes the girls!

I'm happy for you.

I do not believe that everything the US states is automatically gospel. Do you? I think I was probably overstating things by saying that Al-Jazeera frames US statements as "claims". The following excerpt is fairly typical: "The US military also said on Monday that its forces had launched an offensive against anti-US fighters in western Iraq near the Syrian border, killing about 75 fighters in the first 24 hours. It said the offensive, being conducted with US air support in al-Anbar province north of the Euphrates River, was targeting a sanctuary for foreign anti-US fighters and an alleged smuggling route." I don't really think that's really such a terrible or biased description. Full article

Well there was a point in there since you got it. Not sure where you got the "HALF" from - the article doesn't speculate on the relatives numbers of "Islamic fanatics" or "Iraqi nationalists".

Well, it didn't invent the NYT article although to see the graphs you have to pay a fee. Could be that Lefthook or NYT manufactured the data but I think that's probably a remote possibility. NYT article I thought the tone of the Lefthook article was a bit much ("white man's burden and all that). However, I thought the following 2 paragraphs made some very good points: Cynical observers would insist that the discrepancy between distribution of attacks and casualties explains that distribution, as if there is some sort of overarching plot by the resistance to focus attacks on the military precisely because less resources are needed to kill civilians. Such a view assumes, first and foremost, a central, unified command structure, and that does not exist. It also assumes that insurgents who are motivated to carry out careful, coordinated attacks in ways specifically designed to minimize their chances of death would gladly blow themselves up in the suicide attacks which have characterized the most deadly assaults on civilians: a ridiculous proposition unless we assume the insurgents are also schizophrenics. Far more likely is that nationalist currents within the resistance confront and attack US forces and other symbols of the occupation whereas fanatical, opportunistic elements on the margins conduct spectacular, sectarian attacks which invariably garner sensationalistic media coverage. Indeed, Patrick Cockburn's recent April 11, 2005 report from Iraq bears out precisely this assessment. He writes: "The split is between Islamic fanatics, willing to kill anybody remotely connected with the government, and Iraqi nationalists who want to concentrate on attacking the 130,000 US troops in Iraq." Noting that "Posters threatening extreme resistance fighters have appeared on walls in Ramadi," Cockburn quotes a Ramadi Sunni imam as saying, "[The fanatics] have tarnished our image and used the jihad to make personal gains." (4) That is more or less the point I have been trying to make all along.

Patience. I'm replying to umpteen people at once (while also attempting to do some work ). I think my reply to RKFast covers what the goals of the armed resistance are.

I think different groups of insurgents have different goals. The foreign jihadis probably don't even want to see the US leave - they would prefer it to mired in Iraq for years, even decades to come, where they can attack it. The Baathists want the US to leave and then stage a coup and reestablish a Baathist regime. The nationalists just want the US to leave (I'm not sure what they envisage next). I don't believe that those fighting to end the US occupation actually believe that the US ever truly intends to leave (and by "leave", I mean leave completely, with no bases left behind so you might actually agree with them in that regard).

I'm not sure that Mogtada Al-Sadr would put it quite like that. Yes, the Mehdi Army are cooperating with the US in the rebuilding of Sadr city, but I doubt that they buy into the US plans for Iraq to quite the extent that you seem to believe.