chicot

There was indeed high hopes for the new government. However, a lot of that has turned to disillusionment for many Iraqis since it has spent the last three months arguing the toss and doing virtually nothing. It's also worth remembering that one of the major policies of the Shiite alliance that won the majority of the seats was the establishment of a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.

Al-Jazeera routinely directly quotes US claims about foreign fighters. It is left up to the reader whether or not they choose to believe them. Yes, most Iraqis don't want the foreign insurgents in their country. They are widely believed to have been behind a disproportionate amount of the worst attacks on Iraqi civilians, which seems fairly plausible to me at least. However, do you believe that if you could wave a magic wand and cause all the foreign insurgents to disappear today that the insurgency would cease? I doubt it.

Doesn't matter? I'm no expert in US law but are national newspapers in the habit of manufacturing data and then passing it off as coming from the department of defense?

I've already been to bed thanks. So I'm part of the problem? Yeah right, if it wasn't for me there would be no violence in Iraq Of course I defend myself when you make personal accusations against me. No doubt if I chose to ignore them you would label me "vauge and elusive". As you said, your participation in the threads don't really contribute to the overall discussion. Why is that? If your case is so strong, why don't you actually try to argue it (as others are doing) rather than relying on insinuations of a personal nature?

Actually I answered your questions openly and honestly, but because my answers didn't fit with your preconceived notions you chose to ignore them.

It explains why you're so astonished by opinions that don't mesh easily with your own that you have to invent outlandish theories as to why people hold these opinions. You're so close-minded that you can't even bother to listen to other arguments.

The fact that you have your suspicions just shows how much of a cocoon you are living in. You seem to be completely unable to conceive that any Iraqi could disagree with the US presence in Iraq and not be a gun-runner or Baathist.My opinions are my own. In actual fact, some of my relatives get on very well with the US troops and may well agree more with you than with me. No doubt you won't believe me. How could anyone not agree with the US presence in Iraq and not be a gun-runner or a Baathist? You might want to check out the blog in the link below, it's quite well-known and has just been published as a book. It might give you a different perspective (but then again, it probably won't since you'll automatically assume her family was somehow connected with Saddam). Baghdad Burning

"Lefthook.org. I didnt even open it up." Which explains quite a lot.

Hey, it's 1.30 am here! When I get the chance, I'll try to dig up the original NYT article.

"First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. " And how on Earth can you be so sure of that? Actually it's not me that says that, it's the US defence department (of course it's from a lefty website so they could have just made it up). Graph of attacks in Iraq Full article

I never said that collateral damage was permissible, I stated the obvious fact that, assuming you are going to wage a guerilla war against the US presence in Iraq, you are inevitably going to come into conflict with Iraqi security forces if they are conducting joint operations together. I would be interested how, logically, you could explain that this doesn't have to be the case. The coalition forces may not be "enemy combatants" by your definition, but they certainly are to plenty of Iraqis. Wouldn't you say that the coalition forces were "enemy combatants" when the war started? When did the war end? It doesn't end just because Bush prances around in a flightsuit on an aircraft carrier (Flightsuit! Halliburton!). I said before the war started that occupied Iraq would be "like Northern Ireland x 10" (I was probably being a bit conservative in that estimate) and that there would always be resistance as long as there was a US presence in Iraq, and nothing that has happened since would lead me to believe otherwise. Your statement that "the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters" is just plain inaccurate. Though the politicians like to play up the contribution of foreign fighters, time and again this is undermined by the soldiers in the field. Yes, there are foreign fighters in Iraq (the coalition forces aren't exactly Iraqi either) but they are a small fraction of the insurgency. The Mehdi Army has, for the most part, laid down its arms for the moment (though I would not be at all suprised if they had something to do with the recent attack on British forces in Amarah) but they certainly were not all of the "Iraqi portion of it". The Sunni insurgency has always been the main component and it rages on as strongly as ever.

That assumes that the US actually wants to leave. As far as I am aware, the current US administration has consistently refused to rule out the possibility of permanent US bases in Iraq. As for the attacks on Iraqi security forces, I certainly do not agree with attacking police stations and blowing up people in queues. Having said that, it would be more or less impossible to fight the US forces in Iraq and avoid conflict entirely with Iraqi forces when they are conducting joint operations, patrolling together ...etc Let me make it clear - I am not saying that all Iraqi fighters are brave, noble freedom fighters. I'm simply pointing out that not all of them are evil, civilian-killing terrorists either. My definition of terrorism is simple: Anyone who intentionally targets non-combatants is a terrorist. I would not call an Iraqi fighter who attacks the US military a terrorist anymore than I would call a US soldier who shoots an Iraqi fighter a terrorist. Both are engaging enemy combatants. Some on this board seem to have an alternative definition that seems to be that anyone, anywhere, who for whatever reason, opposes the US is a terrorist. To my mind, that is absurd.

I'm fine, thanks. What about yourself?

And the Mehdi Army? How do you account for them? Didn't they fight battles with the US in Najaf and Sadr City? Are they or are they not Shia muslims?

I would only use the term "terrorist" to describe those attacking civilians, but I wouldn't deny that most of the resistance is coming from Sunnis, though there is still trouble in Amarah (a UK soldier was killed there last week) and that is a Shiite town. I agree with you that those who are killing civilians need to be dealt with, but my whole point is that you cannot automatically assume that everyone who is opposing the occupation falls into that category.

Consider yourself pardoned There was a recent US report breaking down the percentage of attacks in Iraq (I'll see if I can dig it up). It found that 75% of attacks were against the US military, only 4% targetted civilians (the remainder being attacks against Iraqi security forces). The difference in casualties is explained by the simple fact that if you plant a bomb in a market place you're likely to kill a hell of a lot more people than if you attack a heavily fortified US base.

No, I don't think I'll be complaining about Al-Jazeera's coverage. Why is it so difficult for people like you to comprehend that the armed resistance is not a single body? There are umpteen different groups each with their own aims and methods, some do indeed kill civilians in "droves" and I have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists, some do not particularly care whether civilians die or not, and some go to some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Some may have had relatives killed or tortured by the US and this may have drove them to fight back against the US. Can you truly say you would not do the same and would you be a "terrorist" if you did so?

He gets re-elected because the opposition is totally useless and also because of the blatantly unfair electoral system (Labour got only 36% of the vote yet ended up with a majority of 60-70 seats). The tories ran an extremely negative campaign that appealed to hardly anyone outside of their core support and the Liberal Democrats were starting from so far back that they had no chance of forming the next government (though they did substantially increase their number of seats).

The parents certainly have a lot to answer for. The prime example being the mother who initially refused to let her son sleep in the same bed as Jacko but then changed her mind when he started crying?! (Jacko, not the kid)

I'm not too sure about how this trial is going to go. On the one hand, he is almost certainly a child molester - I can't believe that every single one of the multitude of prosecution witnesses is willing to perjure themselves for the sake of a grudge, money, etc... On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much evidence on the specific charge that he is being accussed of and the witnesses to do with this charge have had their credibility very badly damaged (e.g. the boy telling his teacher that Jacko hadn't done anything to him).

That statement was Exiled's, not mine. I was not aware of where Daffy Duck stood on the Iraq war issue but I'll take your word that his views are as you have stated (Do you know what Bugs Bunny has to say on the issue?). I'm not too bothered about what "liberal icons" are saying about my conclusions, I like to make up my own mind. In any event, whatever the views of these liberal icons of which you speak, it seems that most Americans have moved in the opposite direction. Is it not the case that a majority of Americans now regard the Iraq war as a mistake? BTW I'm not an American. I live in the UK and would describe myself as Anglo-Iraqi (English mother, Iraqi father).

Huh? And that's it. End of debate. Point proved. The fact that the Iraqis held an election justifys everything? Problem is that that has nothing whatsoever to do with his point that the pre-war debate was based on faulty information (those fabled WMDs, since you seem to have forgotten). Still, I suppose changing the subject is always a good tactic if you are struggling for a reply.

Saw a documentary on it a few weeks ago. Basically, most of it is nonsense. However, the idea that Mary Magdalene was a far more important figure than has hitherto been realised has more or less been proved to be true by some (fairly) recently discovered manuscripts (I think someone found them in Egypt and was using them to burn on the fire before their importance was realised!). Basically, the church covered up her role (and made her a prostitute).

Er, Iran is actually some distance from Angola - to make it to Iran it would have to travel virtually the length of Africa and then through the middle east.

Criticizing some drunken fool who shoots his mouth off in a bar is one thing, it is quite another to try to pin the blame for his behaviour on the entire antiwar movement, most of which would almost certainly disagree with the actions of your hypothetical friend.