You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq-Jordan
Internal strife hits militants in Iraq
2004-07-11
By Ian Fisher and Edward Wong
The New York Times
July 11th, 2004

Tension appears to be rising between the homegrown Iraqi resistance and the foreign Islamic fighters who have entered the country to destroy the U.S. military here. This is one reason, experts speculate, that Iraq has not had the kind of spectacular attack meant to spread terror and defy the U.S. agenda for a long two weeks, even during the transfer of formal sovereignty back to the Iraqis. Evidence has emerged in sniping between groups on Arabic television and Web sites, and in interviews with Iraqi and U.S. officials, as well as members of the resistance and people with close ties to it. All speak of rising friction between nationalistic fighters and foreign-led Islamists concerning goals and tactics, with some Iraqi insurgents indicating a revulsion over the car bombs and suicide attacks in cities that have caused hundreds of civilian deaths.

But such friction does not mean there is a "submission by the resistance," said Dhary Rasheed, a professor at the University of Baghdad who lives in Samarra, a center for the resistance. "It is a phase of reconstruction and re-evaluation in order to push the operations out of the cities," so as "not to have innocent people killed." Large car-bombings -- thought to be carried out more often by foreigners, who make up a small percentage of the insurgents -- have "disgraced the reputation of the resistance," Rasheed said. "And the resistance has worked just like the government has been trying to, to curtail the influence of the foreigners."
Posted by:Mark Espinola

#3  "...between the homegrown Iraqi resistance and the foreign Islamic fighters who have entered the country to destroy the U.S. military here."

Been having good luck with that plan have ya, dimwits?
Posted by: mojo   2004-07-11 4:48:08 PM  

#2  The NYT at its b.s.-addicted worst. "Routine violence continues at high levels across much of Iraq". High levels? Much of Iraq? Criminal activity, perhaps. But coordinated violence of a political nature?

Nearly half-way into July, there have have been 20 hostile-fire coalition KIA, of which only 3 occurred outside the Sunni Triangle. (data: http://icasualties.org/oif/) Funny, if the "resistance" is about US troops, and it's all over Iraq, why aren't US troops being effectively attacked .... almost anywhwere outside the Triangle?

You'd almost feel sorry for these NYT types (it's nearly universal among media folks), if they didn't have their pernicious platform. For example, the "experts" are wondering why there's been "no spectacular attack meant to spread terror and defy the U.S. agenda." WTF is "defy the US agenda" supposed to mean? Oh -- right. The US attempt to foster a representative, elective, civilized government at peace with its neighbors and using the country's vast resources for development, not exotic unconventional weaponry. The NYT can literally not bring itself to describe the change in Iraq accurately and objectively -- it just substitutes "US agenda". Hilarious!!

And there's more, this more in the category of Outright Distortion. "U.S. officials continue to hold sway". Oh, really? US officials are running the central bank (good job, boys, a stable currency, sure sign of underlying optimism and economic activity)? Or are they making decisions on emergency laws? Or allocating oil revenues? Or running education, health, public works, or the foreign ministry? Oh -- right. They're not. Iraqis are doing that.

I wonder if the NYT would be willing to expand that little astounding sentence for our edification? I'm aware there's close security coordination -- duh, there's an organized campaign of violence against public order -- but do US officials "hold sway" in any normal sense of the term?

These little distortions and lies are often not material to the topic at hand, but they give great insight into the analytical integrity and bizarre perspective of these "news" organizations.
Posted by: Verlaine   2004-07-11 10:09:36 AM  

#1  as Instapundit would say,

heh-heh
Posted by: mhw   2004-07-11 9:03:15 AM  

00:00