MSNBC: US Commander In Iraq Says Attacks Are From Iraqi Citizens Angered At US.

[MacBeth]

U.S. worried about revenge attacks

Commander tells newspaper angry Iraqis, not just insurgents,
may strike GIs

NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 17 — The commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq said in an interview published Wednesday that U.S. forces, already under pressure from a guerrilla-style resistance, now face revenge attacks from ordinary Iraqis angered by the occupation.

NORTH OF BAGHDAD, there were at least three separate attacks on U.S. forces with roadside bombs in less than 1½ hours Wednesday morning. Witnesses reported injured soldiers, but details were unclear. The attacks hit U.S. Humvees about 12 miles north of Baghdad near al-Taji.

While U.S. forces increasingly patrol Iraqi hotspots with American-trained local militiamen, citizens have voiced growing anger over tactics that are seen as heavy-handed and insensitive to Iraqi social and religious customs.

“We have seen that when we have an incident in the conduct of our operations, when we killed an innocent civilian, based on their ethic, their values, their culture, they would seek revenge,” Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was quoted as telling The Times newspaper in London.

Coalition forces were seeking “to ensure that when a mistake has been made and when we have inadvertently wound up killing someone that we go and do the right thing culturally to take care of those families.” The Times’ report did not elaborate on those steps.

Sanchez’s remarks came after the friendly fire killing late last week of eight Iraqi policemen by American soldiers near Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad. The military and the U.S. administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, have apologized.

SYRIA IMPLICATED IN IRAQ ATTACKS
In addition to the attacks on American forces by Iraqis, a senior Bush administration official said Tuesday that Syria is allowing militants to cross its border into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers.
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a House hearing in Washington that Syria “permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war and is still doing so.”
Syria’s foreign minister, Farouk al-Shaara, rejected the claims and said in Damascus that Syria was willing to meet “reasonable” demands within the framework of international legitimacy.

“What Powell said about Syria’s cooperation, I ask: Who is cooperating with America as America wants?” al-Shaara said at a news conference. “America has too many demands. If they are reasonable and realistic Syria is ready to cooperate.”

U.S.: GUERRILLAS NOT U.S. CITIZENS

Meanwhile, eight suspected guerrillas jailed in Iraq who claimed to be American and British citizens were found to be lying, a U.S. general told NBC News on Tuesday.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who is in charge of coalition detention centers in Iraq, said the men’s claims quickly unraveled under investigation. She said the coalition forces are holding 241 non-Iraqis from 22 countries, but added that none of the prisoners are Westerners.
The Associated Press reported earlier on Tuesday that six men claiming to be Americans and two claiming British citizenship had been held 12 miles west of Baghdad at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, where Saddam Hussein imprisoned many political opponents.
The U.S. death toll rose Monday when an Army soldier died after an attack in Baghdad — the 156th American to die in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat May 1.

The men were arrested on suspicions of participating in attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.
In Tikrit, U.S. troops from the 4th Infantry Division killed two Iraqis and wounded two in a battle outside an ammunition dump. One man was captured and two others fled in the apparent attempt to loot the depot, spokeswoman Maj. Josslyn Aberle said.
The U.S. death toll rose on Monday when an Army soldier died of wounds he suffered in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in central Baghdad. He was the 156th American to die in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1. In heavy fighting before then, 138 soldiers were killed.
A guerrilla threw a grenade at Albanian soldiers in northern Iraq, injuring at least one Albanian and 13 Iraqis, the U.S.-led occupation authority said Tuesday. That attack took place Monday outside a local authority building in the city of Mosul, spokeswoman Lt. Tate Noble said.
Details of the incident were sketchy, but the injured Iraqis were apparently bystanders, Reuters reported.





The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[GreenVegan76]

Geez, this just keeps getting uglier and uglier.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
Geez, this just keeps getting uglier and uglier.


Also, as pointed out on MSNBC, contradicts the standard administration line that the attacks are all from former Saddam goons, or terrorists. As was asked on Countdonw, are we going to call everyone who disagrees with us a 'terrorist'?

[Trader_Jorge]

What is the point in posting this? Honestly. Does anyone here think that there doesn't exist pockets of Iraqi citizens that hate the US? To think otherwise is ludicrous. They have listened to Saddam's brainwashing all their lives. Of course pockets of them they hate us. This is so obvious.

If this is yet another attempt by the liberals to achieve some kind of 'partisan point' from this, then it is utterly despicable.

[MadMax]

i agree with TJ...does this honestly surprise anyone?? isn't this actually what we were hearing would happen, but on a far larger scale, during the war, itself?

[Maynard]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
What is the point in posting this? Honestly. Does anyone here think that there doesn't exist pockets of Iraqi citizens that hate the US? To think otherwise is ludicrous. They have listened to Saddam's brainwashing all their lives. Of course pockets of them they hate us. This is so obvious.

If this is yet another attempt by the liberals to achieve some kind of 'partisan point' from this, then it is utterly despicable.

Is there ANY news that you can't chaulk up to partisan polictics?

you are the one that is brain washed!

Did it ever occur to you that some Iraqis might not like the US based on their own opinon or views? Iraqis are intelligent people, and to blame any and all anti-US sentiment on Saddam's Influence is ignorant.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
What is the point in posting this? Honestly. Does anyone here think that there doesn't exist pockets of Iraqi citizens that hate the US? To think otherwise is ludicrous. They have listened to Saddam's brainwashing all their lives. Of course pockets of them they hate us. This is so obvious.

If this is yet another attempt by the liberals to achieve some kind of 'partisan point' from this, then it is utterly despicable.


Well, let's see....



*It was the second leading story on MSNBC last night.

*As they said on that 'liberal' station, it completely contradicts what the administration is saying.

*It is, as the article itself says, a very troubling issue in termf of what it means for US support in Iraq.

*As the commander of US forces himself says, it is a very serious concern, and not limited to 'pockets'...and has a huge strategic impact in that it limits the effectivensess of the current strategy of heavy patrolling in certain areas deemed high in concentration of old Saddam supporters/terrorists. If "ordinary Iraqis" are getting into this, that strategy goes out the window, and our already stretched resources will be further spread out/vulnerable to attack.


Seems to me that if the US commander himself, and 'liberal' media sources like MSNBC think that this is big news, than to say it isnt is the view here being effected by partisanship, not reporting the facts.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by MadMax
i agree with TJ...does this honestly surprise anyone?? isn't this actually what we were hearing would happen, but on a far larger scale, during the war, itself?



Huh?


Max...I was under the impression that we were told that we would be greeted with open arms. In fact the administration itself has admitted that we have encountered more opposition than we expected, and that was before this latest revelation.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Huh?


Max...I was under the impression that we were told that we would be greeted with open arms. In fact the administration itself has admitted that we have encountered more opposition than we expected, and that was before this latest revelation.

We weren't told that every single Iraqi would be happy.

[Timing]

Originally posted by Mr. Clutch
We weren't told that every single Iraqi would be happy.


There's a difference between being unhappy and being pissed off enough to go kill people.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by Timing
There's a difference between being happy and being pissed off enough to strap a suicide belt on to go blow up some Marines.

No kidding!

[MadMax]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Huh?


Max...I was under the impression that we were told that we would be greeted with open arms. In fact the administration itself has admitted that we have encountered more opposition than we expected, and that was before this latest revelation.

macbeth, that's simply not true. we were told to expect nasty firefights in the city of Baghdad itself...and they talked about the citizens joining that fight against us, perhaps. that didn't happen...or if it did, it didn't happen in large measure. we rolled through Baghdad and there were happy faces. i'm not saying we haven't worn out our welcome...but it's simply false to say that we were told we'd march through baghdad trouble-free. that's just not the case.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Mr. Clutch
We weren't told that every single Iraqi would be happy.

We were told that the ordinary Iraqi would see us a 'liberators' not invaders. We were told that we would be celebrated. This general is attributing these attacks,not to pockets of resistence...not to Saddam supporters...not to terrorists...but to " ordinary Iraqis."


Question: How long before Sanchez is recalled?

[Timing]

Originally posted by Mr. Clutch
No kidding!


Yes, no kidding so not being told that every single Iraqi would be happy doesn't really mean anything to the impression we were given. Yet another lie in the book of lies from these people.

[bigtexxx]

Again this appears to be a case of the liberals being joyous that the situation in Iraq is not going along PERFECTLY. Seems like you guys are awfully quick to post each bit of bad news that crops up in the liberal media. Almost like you're.....HAPPY about it.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by MadMax
macbeth, that's simply not true. we were told to expect nasty firefights in the city of Baghdad itself...and they talked about the citizens joining that fight against us, perhaps. that didn't happen...or if it did, it didn't happen in large measure. we rolled through Baghdad and there were happy faces. i'm not saying we haven't worn out our welcome...but it's simply false to say that we were told we'd march through baghdad trouble-free. that's just not the case.

We were told that Saddam's likely strategy would be to fight us in the cities, yes. But I never , ever heard the administration say that the citizens would join in. I can find quotes where we were told we would be seen as "Liberators not invaders."...even Powell, who I respect, said this.


Do you have any quotes where we said that the Iraqi citizens would rise up in these firefights? Honestly, if it was said, I missed it.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Again this appears to be a case of the liberals being joyous that the situation in Iraq is not going along PERFECTLY. Seems like you guys are awfully quick to post each bit of bad news that crops up in the liberal media. Almost like you're.....HAPPY about it.


I thought that this kind of " If you disagree with the war you're unpatriotic/enjoy us losing/Saddam loving" crap was passe...

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by MacBeth
We were told that the ordinary Iraqi would see us a 'liberators' not invaders. We were told that we would be celebrated. This general is attributing these attacks,not to pockets of resistence...not to Saddam supporters...not to terrorists...but to " ordinary Iraqis."


Question: How long before Sanchez is recalled?

I think, for the most part, ordinary Iraqis do see us as liberators. There are some polls floating around here that say they support the action and see their lives improving in 5 years.

Sanchez? What are you talking about?

[Trader_Jorge]

In other breaking news, it is discovered that there are some people in Saudi Arabia that don't like the United States! This means our entire strategy in the Middle East is flawed!

Honestly, why don't we just ask the angry Iraqis how we should conduct foreign policy, MacBeth? :rolleyes:

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by Timing
Yes, no kidding so not being told that every single Iraqi would be happy doesn't really mean anything to the impression we were given. Yet another lie in the book of lies from these people.

Well, I agree that Bush did not emphasize enough how difficult this would be. We are talking an area where terrorist tactics are common. I do think they were caught by suprise, otherwise Bush would have never delivered his "major operations are over" speech.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Again this appears to be a case of the liberals being joyous that the situation in Iraq is not going along PERFECTLY. Seems like you guys are awfully quick to post each bit of bad news that crops up in the liberal media. Almost like you're.....HAPPY about it.


No, we're just pissed that we were lied to and that in spite of credible evidence that contradicted the administration's position, Bush and his group did not reevaluate their biases or even consider that things could turn out differently from what they wished. This is not glee, but more like the Greek chorus pointing out what was obvious to all except those blinded by hubris.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Honestly, why don't we just ask the angry Iraqis how we should conduct foreign policy, MacBeth? :rolleyes:



I love that the " We shouldn't ask the UN how to conduct our own self-defense" argument has spun so far out of control that it is now worthy of a roll-eyes to suggest that the Iraqis should be consulted on what the United States does...in Iraq.

Especially given that, what with the WMD and 9-11 arguments out thw window, and this therefore not in any way being an action of defending the US, therefore those supporting the war now say we are doing it to liberate the Iraqis.


But obviously while liberating them it is :rolleyes: to ask those of them who disagree with us their opinion...on us liberating them...in their country.


So tell me, T_J, if we shouldn't consult the people we are liberating, in their own country...of that is laughable...are you basically saying that we should just do whatever we want in anyone else's country and laugh at their anger when we do it? Who do we answer to when invading other nations?

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by MacBeth
We were told that Saddam's likely strategy would be to fight us in the cities, yes. But I never , ever heard the administration say that the citizens would join in. I can find quotes where we were told we would be seen as "Liberators not invaders."...even Powell, who I respect, said this.


Do you have any quotes where we said that the Iraqi citizens would rise up in these firefights? Honestly, if it was said, I missed it.

Macbeth, you are being ridiculous. I'm very, very sorry that the news outlets you chose to watch did not explain to you every single thing that was going to happen after the war. I'm sorry they didn't lay out a future-looking timeline, with exactly what would happen on each day of the week in Iraq for the next 6 months.

We can see right through your act, Macbeth. You are obviously trying to besmirch the name of the administration in power to further your own favored political party. You are extremely quick with your "I told you so" bit and post as much bad news as you can find in the liberal-controlled media and post them up here spewing off how smart you are and how bad our government is. Your act is tired, Macbeth.

:rolleyes:

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by MacBeth
... it is :rolleyes: to ask ...
Wow. I haven't been around that long, but it is not common to use an emoticon as a part of speech. Well done, MacBeth! ... This apart from your actual arguments, of course. :p

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Macbeth, you are being ridiculous. I'm very, very sorry that the news outlets you chose to watch did not explain to you every single thing that was going to happen after the war. I'm sorry they didn't lay out a future-looking timeline, with exactly what would happen on each day of the week in Iraq for the next 6 months.

We can see right through your act, Macbeth. You are obviously trying to besmirch the name of the administration in power to further your own favored political party. You are extremely quick with your "I told you so" bit and post as much bad news as you can find in the liberal-controlled media and post them up here spewing off how smart you are and how bad our government is. Your act is tired, Macbeth.

:rolleyes:


While discussing tired acts, tell me something, texx...in that this is all, as you say, a clearly motivated attempt to support my own favored political party...and thus not an objective analysis of the facts...perhaps you could tell me how pointing out the facts ( worthy of being lead stories, etc.) helps the Republican party?


Now while I have never considered myself a Republican, the fact that I have supported the Republican candidate in 5 of the last Presidentail elections, including Bush over Gore, I can see how to an outsider it could be concluded that I lean towards the Republicans.


But again, if it is so clear what I am doing...if it is so obvious it is tired, perhaps you could explain it to me, texx. I am clearly not as objective or intelligent as you, cause I don't get it.

[Timing]

Originally posted by Mr. Clutch
Well, I agree that Bush did not emphasize enough how difficult this would be. We are talking an area where terrorist tactics are common. I do think they were caught by suprise, otherwise Bush would have never delivered his "major operations are over" speech.

Well that's why people are upset. I don't know that terrorist tactics were common in Iraq prior to us invading their country though. It's our presence that has brought the terrorism we're seeing.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by MacBeth
We were told that Saddam's likely strategy would be to fight us in the cities, yes. But I never , ever heard the administration say that the citizens would join in. I can find quotes where we were told we would be seen as "Liberators not invaders."...even Powell, who I respect, said this.


Do you have any quotes where we said that the Iraqi citizens would rise up in these firefights? Honestly, if it was said, I missed it.

i definitely don't have any quotes and am not even sure where i would look. that was certainly my impression, though.

i agree he said we would be seen as liberators not invaders...and i'd say to most of the iraqis, that's the case.

there's recently been a problem with guys knocking on apartment doors in west houston, entering and robbing/raping the people inside. not all houstonians do that, though. not all think that's prudent. i think the same principle applies here.

[Maynard]

Originally posted by Mr. Clutch
I do think they were caught by suprise, otherwise Bush would have never delivered his "major operations are over" speech.

actually he said

"Major COMBAT operations are over"

only after it became clear that there would be continued fighting did the White House change its tune to just "major operations are over"

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by MadMax
i definitely don't have any quotes and am not even sure where i would look. that was certainly my impression, though.

i agree he said we would be seen as liberators not invaders...and i'd say to most of the iraqis, that's the case.

there's recently been a problem with guys knocking on apartment doors in west houston, entering and robbing/raping the people inside. not all houstonians do that, though. not all think that's prudent. i think the same principle applies here.



1) We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because everything I heard contradicts that impression.

2) I honestly don't know where the line is on who sees us as Liberators and who sees us as invaders lies. But the point is that one thing is clear, the latter is growing, and that in and of itself makes this news worth reporting, aside from the strategic implications. As in Afghanistan, there are some who saw us as liberators, but the longer we stay there, the more we tell them that they can't have certain types of gevernments if they want them, the more we integrate US commercial interests into Iraq before pulling out, the more people there will see us as doing this for our own purposes, not theirs.

3) Again, according to the article, Sanchez, etc. this isn't about isolated pockets of Iraqis equating to criminals in Houston. I doubt that the police chief in Houston would go on record as saying that the guys robbing/raping were the actions of " ordinary Houstonians....(or is it Houstonites)"

The entire point of the article, and Sanchez's statement is that this is significant for precisely the opposite reason; because this is 'ordinary Iraqis" reacting to US actions in their country.

[GreenVegan76]

Guys, when you invade and occupy a sovereign foreign nation that has been your avowed enemy the last 15 years, there is going to be violence. LOTS of violence.

We strangled foreign aid for ten years (killing hundreds of thousands of children), bombed their country into the ground twice in 12 years, killed tens of thousands of civilians, invade and occupy their country, take their oil and pipe it back to our shores -- and we expect to be seen as liberators?! We expect them to like it?

It's easy for us to see ourselves as noble and righteous. But if we saw what average Iraqis saw, I bet we'd be pissed too. It's very dangerous for us to assume what other countries want.

NOTE: Dismissing those who disagree with you as "partisan" makes it easy for others greet your ideas likewise. Those who cry "Partisan! Partisan!" are the ones who cling to it most desperately.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by MacBeth

2) I honestly don't know where the line is on who sees us as Liberators and who sees us as invaders lies. But the point is that one thing is clear, the latter is growing, and that in and of itself makes this news worth reporting, aside from the strategic implications. As in Afghanistan, there are some who saw us as liberators, but the longer we stay there, the more we tell them that they can't have certain types of gevernments if they want them, the more we integrate US commercial interests into Iraq before pulling out, the more people there will see us as doing this for our own purposes, not theirs.


I really dont' see the evidence that "the latter is growing." And I do believe the Iraqis want us to stay, rather than to leave and let violence and instability (worse than the present) rule Iraq.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Mr. Clutch
I really dont' see the evidence that "the latter is growing." And I do believe the Iraqis want us to stay, rather than to leave and let violence and instability (worse than the present) rule Iraq.



"BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 17 — The commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq said in an interview published Wednesday that U.S. forces, already under pressure from a guerrilla-style resistance, now face revenge attacks from ordinary Iraqis angered by the occupation. "


"While U.S. forces increasingly patrol Iraqi hotspots with American-trained local militiamen, citizens have voiced growing anger over tactics that are seen as heavy-handed and insensitive to Iraqi social and religious customs."