Iraakse jeugd goed betaald om Amerikanen aan te vallen

[Pascal L.]

Uit het volgende artikel blijkt dat men $1000 tot $5000 kan verdienen per aanval op Amerikanen ... Geinteresseerden? Stuur een mailtje naar [email protected]

Another way to support yourself in Iraq - attack Americans

By Zvi Bar'el



The date groves in the town of Duluiyah, north of
Baghdad, last week were changed in a process that
is quite familiar to us. The U.S. Army began what
is known in Israel as an "exposure operation" in
which several thousand date palms were uprooted in
order to establish a "sterile" area between the
main road to Baghdad and the dense cover provided
by the groves.




Duluiyah is one of the places
where there are daily
shooting incidents between
anonymous Iraqi forces and
the American forces. They are
referred to as anonymous
forces because there are
several versions as to who
they might actually be.
Duluiyah residents told Arab

correspondents that they are Ba'ath Party
members, but others claim they are unemployed
people willing to work as mercenaries and
perhaps someone else is paying them for their
work.

According to reports from Iraq, radical Islamic
organizations are actually paying teenagers and
children large sums, "between $1,000 to
$5,000," to carry out attacks.

"This is the best way to earn a living in Iraq
today," explained one Iraqi youth to a
newspaper correspondent from Al-Hayat, which is
published in London. Mention of Islamic
organizations immediately raises the name of
Bin Laden and his organization, Al-Qaida, but
that is not necessarily the force behind the
situation.

In a newspaper interview, Iraqi Foreign Minister
Hoshiar Zibari, a Kurd, said that at least four
radical religious organizations now active in
Iraq are involved, apart from the Shi'ite
militias headed by Muqatada a-Sadr, which
operate in Baghdad as well as in Najaf and
Karbala, and work alongside the remains of the
PKK, the Kurdish Workers Party, who are still
circulating with arms and willing to be
mercenaries for all askers.

The American forces are holding more than 200
detainees suspected of having direct links with
religious organizations. This is in addition to
several thousand suspected of seditious
activity on behalf of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party.

Last week, the leader of one of the Kurdish
factions, Jalal Talabani, accused Syria of
allowing infiltrators into Iraq who are linked
to the anti-American activity there. On the
other hand, the commander of American forces in
northern Iraq clarified that his forces have so
far not identified any infiltrators from Syria.
Kurdish sources close to Massoud Barzani, the
head of the second Kurdish faction, feel that
Talabani's accusation against Syria is
essentially a political one because of
Barazani's close ties to Syria. Syria for years
was a land launching point for Kurds and in the
past agreed to transfer goods to them and
provide them with civilian services after
Turkey shut its gates.

The accusations and counter-accusations,
uncertainty regarding the identity of the enemy
and primarily the lack of precise intelligence
are perhaps the primary operational
characteristic of the current stage of fighting
in Iraq.

Stability first

The American administration points, and rightly
so, to several achievements it has had in Iraq
thus far, especially in all matters related to
restoring schools and health services. The
resumption of Iraqi oil production has also
intensified in recent weeks, but the agenda is
determined by the attacks, which increased last
month, against citizens and foreign aid
organizations. The attacks forced the
International Red Cross to take out most of its
people and the United Nations to reduce its
presence. Not even the committee of donor
countries, which met in Madrid in late October
and garnered larger than expected financial
commitments -

approximately $13 billion in addition to the
American allocation of around $20 billion -
will be able to help rebuild Iraq until the
security situation there stabilizes.

Most of the deliberation now is over how to
achieve this stability. The American
administration announced that it would not add
more soldiers, but would change the structure
of its forces and their methods of operation.
Instead of complex tanks and armored personnel
carriers, the American forces will begin using
smaller and faster vehicles to get around and
will back up the foot patrols. Instead of
regular army forces, the presence in Iraq will
be reinforced by thousands of Marines. In
addition, reservists will replace some of the
regular army soldiers, so that the number of
reservists will increase from 21 percent of all
forces to around 37 percent.

This structural change is, according to American
experts, meant to enable the forces to face the
day-to-day challenges of fighting inside a
built-up area. Kurdish sources believe the
change will not achieve the desired results.
"The Marines will probably be more aggressive,
the reservists are less well-trained and the
foot patrols will be a convenient target just
like the armored forces," says a Barzani
supporter.

The Iraqi foreign minister believes that
transferring security control to Iraqi hands
can stabilize the security situation, but the
American administration feels that the time is
not ripe for that, because there are not
sufficient quantities of regular trained Iraqi
forces and the only regular force that can be
relied on are the trained Kurdish soldiers.
Sweeping use of Kurdish forces outside the
Kurdish areas may cause violent clashes and
spark an ethnic war within Iraq between
irregular Shi'ite forces and Kurds.

American officials estimate that within a few
months, it will be possible to station around
30,000-40,000 Iraqi soldiers, who are
undergoing training now and are not suspected
of being Ba'ath loyalists. One recently
proposed idea is to redraft several thousand
Iraqi soldiers who served during the Saddam era
and who in any case are now receiving a salary
from the American administration. There has yet
to be a final decision on this proposal.

To date the American administration has not made
any new strategic decisions: "Everyone is being
very careful now not to make proposals," says
an American diplomat. "There is an intense
feeling in the administration of looking for
guilty persons."

He notes although the president appointed
Condoleezza Rice as the administration's
coordinator of activities in Iraq, her office
has not issued any statements. "The only
spokesman on the Iraqi military issue is
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," he says,
"who only relates that difficult times are to
be expected, but does not present new plans
other than presentations on the status of the
schools. When's the last time you saw funerals
of American soldiers on national television
stations?" From that he concludes "events in
the home front, in the United States itself,
are engaging the administration as much as what
is going on in Iraq."

The Turks had regrets

There is also no agreement on the issue of
including additional forces in the running of
Iraq. Thus, for example, the Americans wanted
to include Turkish forces in the effort in
Iraq, and negotiations over that have already
delved into fine details about the size of the
forces and the geographic area the Turks will
be responsible for (the Ramadi region west of
Baghdad). The Turkish government approved the
American request, as did the parliament.
Everything was ready to start deploying the
Turkish forces, but the Americans finally
understood that such a force might cause more
problems than it solved.

The Kurds made it clear to the Americans that
they would not cooperate with the Turkish
force. They warned that a Turkish force that
came to Iraq would stay there "forever," and
that the Turks are not acquainted with the
Iraqi terrain or mentality in that part of the
country. In the meantime, Paul Bremer, the
American civilian administrator in Iraq,
managed to annoy the Turks when he said in a
careless remark that Iraq was for hundreds of
years subject to the control of the Ottoman
Empire. The Turks reacted angrily and suggested
that the Americans look at the big picture.
Apart from Turkey, which agreed to send troops
and then decided not to last Friday, due to the
objections of the Iraq ruling council, the
United States is having trouble enlisting
troops from other countries. The idea of
including Arab countries in the running of Iraq
is also far from materializing, because no Arab
country is willing to send its forces there.

On the other hand, even the Iraqis, who are
seeking direct control, realize that the
withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is no
less dangerous than the actual war. At the
meeting of Arab foreign ministers held in
Damascus last week, the question of an American
withdrawal was only vaguely mentioned. The
decision made there was also rather vague - we
must strive toward transfer of power to Iraq.
Foreign Minister Zibari announced that the
decision is not binding on Iraq, and that his
country does not consider itself bound to any
Arab decision to which Iraq was not a party.

The decision made does not even mention a
timetable for an American withdrawal and does
not ask for such a timetable to be presented.
"The coalition forces are now the finger in the
dam," said a Jordanian administration official.
"Remove the finger and everything will collapse
- Shi'ites against Shi'ites, Shi'ites against
Sunnis, tribal chiefs against urban people,
Kurds against Arabs and a complete settling of
accounts."

The increasing uncertainty in Iraq seems to
indicate that the coalition forces will be
settling in for the long-term, especially the
American forces. This is the obvious
conclusion, not only according to Pentagon
statements, whereby the American soldiers
should prepare for tours of duty of one year in
Iraq and Afghanistan, but also based on the
large-scale repairs now being conducted in
Saddam's palaces housing the American command.


A survey conducted in Iraq by the State
Department in recent weeks among aver 1,400
interviewees from seven Iraqi cities, shows
that most of the population does not accept the
Iraqi leadership appointed by the Americans,
and that there are deep disagreements over what
kind of regime is desirable in Iraq. As for
desirable leadership, most interviewees in
Shi'ite cities and in the Shi'ite areas of
Baghdad favored installing religious leaders in
Iraq and making it into a religious state,
whereas other interviewees were ready for "a
certain degree" of democracy alongside a
religious state. This breakdown of responses
will make it hard to install a consensus
government acceptable to most of the
population, and that is all the more so true
when such a regime must be formed under
American occupation.

In his speech last week, President Bush made it
clear that only a democracy would prevent a
tragedy in Iraq and maintained, rightly so,
that the success with which Iraq moves from the
occupation stage to the self-rule stage is what
will determine the chances of success in the
fight against terrorism.

In the meantime, however, it seems that Iraq is
becoming a sophisticated training ground for
terror organizations, who can find whatever
they need there, from shoulder-launched
missiles and arms in abundance to a supportive
population that sees no political or economic
horizons beyond its present troubles.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/359731.html

[Mustapha]

Amerikanen krijgen kloppen op hun smoel door eigen wapens, nl GELD!

Er is mij iets opgevallen:
De laatste dagen vallen er niet meer 1 of 2 doden per dag maar al tussen de 5 en 15 man!!!
Conclusie: Opstand begint op grote schaal georganiseerd te geraken.

Zou Saddam dan toch een magitrale strateeg zijn?
Jarenlang met de kloten van de VN gespeeld en nu met de klote spelen met zijn vijand nummer 1 (vs) op eigen bodem?

VS soldaten worden radeloos, moedeloos, eenzaam, .... ze beginnen zelfs op burgers te schieten, goed bezig lekker nog meer haat kweken.

[Seba]

Amerikanen krijgen kloppen op hun smoel door eigen wapens, nl GELD!

Er is mij iets opgevallen:
De laatste dagen vallen er niet meer 1 of 2 doden per dag maar al tussen de 5 en 15 man!!!
Conclusie: Opstand begint op grote schaal georganiseerd te geraken.

Zou Saddam dan toch een magitrale strateeg zijn?
Jarenlang met de kloten van de VN gespeeld en nu met de klote spelen met zijn vijand nummer 1 (vs) op eigen bodem?

VS soldaten worden radeloos, moedeloos, eenzaam, .... ze beginnen zelfs op burgers te schieten, goed bezig lekker nog meer haat kweken.

Ik vraag mij eigenljk af wat jij wil Mustapha. Wil jij dat alle Amerikanen gedood worden of hoop jij dat die aanslagen van terroristen (dit zijn geen burgers) stopgezet worden zodat de Iraqis van hun vrijheid kunnen genieten?

[Darwin]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Seba

Ik vraag mij eigenljk af wat jij wil Mustapha. Wil jij dat alle Amerikanen gedood worden of hoop jij dat die aanslagen van terroristen (dit zijn geen burgers) stopgezet worden zodat de Iraqis van hun vrijheid kunnen genieten?

Mustapha wil wat de meeste moslims willen.

Dat een buitenstander hen snel en met harde hand van hun klotegodsdienst komt verlossen. Want zelf zijn ze er niet toe in staat.

ALLE acties van moslimterorristen hebben maar EEN resultaat: dat het einde van de Islam dichterbij komt.