Anti-US resistance spreads through Iraq

[nolabels]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG30Ak02.html

Anti-US resistance spreads through Iraq
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

SULAIMANIYA, northern Iraq - As attacks against US targets in central Iraq increase, many factors in the north and south are combining to add to the woes of the US occupiers, the US-appointed administration, and their supporters.

Intelligence sources in the northern city of Sulaimaniya say that those resisting the US presence are on a steep learning curve and that their attacks will become more organized and ruthless.

According to the local sources, a terror network in northern cities, including Kirkuk and Mosul, is set to begin operations against US troops and those Iraqis who support them. News of the northern network emerged during meetings earlier this week between local intelligence officials of Iraqi Kurdistan and US intelligence.

At the same time, the sources say that several members of the Pakistan-based Ansarul Islam militant group have been arrested in Sulaimaniya and Irbil, where they were been holed up along with foreign comrades. Most of the group's members have now moved to Mosul and Kirkuk.
(snip)

[qb]

1. As attacks increase???

Funny how this corresponds to a DECREASE in news coverage.

[patdem]

2. Anti-US Resistance...sounds like Antidisestablishmentarinism?

:shrug:

[expatriot]

3. any attacks in the last 48 hours?

Seems like nothing has been reported since the rash of attacks and kia's last weekend and monday... either it is a lull or radio silence.

[nolabels]

4. GI Killed, 2 Hurt in Attack at Iraq Base

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2972586,00.html

GI Killed, 2 Hurt in Attack at Iraq Base

Thursday July 31, 2003 8:09 AM


TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) - A U.S. soldier was killed and two were wounded by small-arms fire at their base in northern Iraq, the military said Thursday.

The U.S. Central Command said the soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division came under attack at a forward position 50 miles northeast of Baghdad at 11:45 p.m. Wednesday.

The wounded soldiers, who won't be identified until their families are notified, were taken to a military hospital for treatment, Centcom said in a statement.

The death brought to 50 the number of U.S. troops killed in hostile action since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq. In all, 165 Americans have been killed in combat in Iraq, 18 more than died in the 1991 Gulf War.
(snip)

[kainah]

10. 2 killed today (Thursday)

in two separate attacks. One in Baghdad, a powerful landmine in the road that toppled the vehicle. CNN has shown film footage of the burning vehicle. Not pretty.......

[pinniped]

5. It doesn't matter as long as the precious nectar is secure.

n/t

[jamesinca]

6. And just think, this came out about the same time as

Gen Myers and Wolfowitz saying things are just a "pocket of activity" or "really going well in Iraq". They said these things this week, earlier this week mind you. The media whores put out the Myers and Wolfowitz stories not the other side of it. Will they get significant international help, no. Why because as the Financial Times put it so well it would make a contributing country a war criminal:

Because they rejected a United Nations-supervised administration of post-Hussein Iraq, the US and Britain needlessly shoulder most of the legal responsibility for the success or failure of the administration and reconstruction of Iraq. No wonder other nations and groupings, such as India, Pakistan and Nato, have rejected Washington's appeal for troops. Why risk the liabilities of a military occupation under current conditions, especially when a simple Security Council mandate could trump occupation law, with all its attendant burdens?

In an awkwardly crafted resolution in May, authored by Washington and London, the Security Council designated the two victorious nations as the "occupying powers". This title carries all the responsibilities, constraints and liabilities that arise under occupation law, codified in the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and other instruments. The UN assumed an advisory role but left the legal responsibility squarely with the US and Britain and reminded other nations of their obligations if they deployed troops in Iraq.

In the last half-century no country requiring such radical transformation has been placed under military occupation law instead of a UN mandate or trusteeship. No conquering military power has volunteered formally to embrace occupation law so boldly and with such enormous risk. And never in recent times has an occupation occurred that was so predictable for so long and yet so poorly planned for.

Occupation law was never intended to encourage invasion and occupation for the purpose of transforming a society, however noble that aim. The narrow purpose is to constrain an occupying military power and thus discourage aggression and permanent occupation. The humanitarian needs of the civilian population take priority and usually require the occupying power to act decisively for that purpose.

[drewb]

7. Go figure...

You invade someones country and impose your way of life on them.

They resist and have the audacity to fight back???

Oh my! :eyes:

[newyawker99]

8. Hi drewb!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ouabache]

9. Who's the idiot who called them out ? Who said "Bring 'em on?"

anyway.

:kick:

[0007]

11. We spend 4 billion a month for 1 billion in oil

and that's not counting the blood.

...and it's gonna get worse? Holy fuck, holy shit and holy smoke....