Iraq: Death Squads And Diplomacy

Countless atrocities, too, have been perpetrated by Sunni gangs and by terrorists associated with Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. But the killings by the Shiite militias are far more chilling because they have an entirely different quality: They are carried out by gunmen tied to the U.S.-supported regime in Baghdad. They don’t draw criticism from U.S. officials, and most American media reports continue to portray the Shiites as victims and the Sunnis as aggressors.

Last week, I reported on the fear of Shiite militias and death squads as reported by Aiham Al Sammarae, an Iraqi oppositionist and former minister under the interim government in 2004 who is trying to broker a deal with the Iraqi resistance. Since then, other reports have surfaced concerning the extensive violence carried out by paramilitary forces tied to SCIRI and to Al Dawa, SCIRI’s partner in the Shiite religious bloc in Iraq. By now it is clear that if Tony Soprano lived in Iraq, he’d be a member of the Shiite militia. Consider the following report from CBS News:


CBS News correspondent Lara Logan reports there is a secret, ruthless cleansing of the country's towns and cities. Bodies—blindfolded, bound and executed—just appear, like the rotting corpses of 36 Sunni men that turned up in a dry riverbed south of Baghdad.

CBS News traced 16 of those men to a single street in a Baghdad suburb, where family members showed CBS News how the killers forced their way into their homes in the middle of the night and dragged away their sons and fathers.

"My uncles were tortured, they even poured acid on them," a young boy told CBS News.

Clutching photographs of the murdered men, the women and children left behind came together to grieve.

One woman said as her husband was marched away she sent her son after him with his slippers, but his abductor sent the child back with a chilling message: No need for slippers—he will come back dead.

They were targeted for one reason alone: all were Sunnis.


Still, it is the ferocity of the Shiite fanaticism governing Iraq today, and the ruling circle’s ever-closer ties to Iran, that prompted Prince Saud to warn of a regional civil war sparked by the Shiites. He brought that message to Washington last week, talking to senators and to the Washington press corps.

Source:
TomPaine.com

How come that these Acts of Terrorism are not Mentioned in any of the USA Media?

How come that these Iraq Death Squads that Operate under the Umbrella of US Army do not Qualify as Terrorism?

These Actions do not draw and critisism among the US Officials and basicly the Sunni's can not be the Victims in "Their" Scenario.

Still - the Iraqi Civil War looks Unavoidable and the Shia "Death Squads" are not Helping to Avoid it.

Originally posted by Souljah
How come that these Acts of Terrorism are not Mentioned in any of the USA Media?

They were reported in the US media, had they not been your source could not have quoted them

www.cbsnews.com...



[edit on 10/6/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
They were reported in the US media, had they not been your source could not have quoted them

www.cbsnews.com...

CBS and Chicage Tribune is Mentioned.

Where are all the Rest that daily report about Suicide Bombs going off in Baghdad? They ignore this kind of News and act like it never happened at all.

Originally posted by Souljah
CBS and Chicage Tribune is Mentioned.

Where are all the Rest that daily report about Suicide Bombs going off in Baghdad? They ignore this kind of News and act like it never happened at all.

chek some more news sources. i seen dozens and dozens of American news articles as well as on tv about atrocities against the innocent Shiite civilians. not to mention its starting to get boring now which i mean its too common that the attacks on Shiites its not big news now. but there are still American news media that reports that attacks.

Originally posted by deltaboy
.......... not to mention its starting to get boring now which i mean its too common that the attacks on Shiites its not big news now.......

Makes me wonder....

Do we personally give a damn because we feel the need to.

Or

We give a damn because the media makes us feel the need to.

Originally posted by deltaboy
chek some more news sources. i seen dozens and dozens of American news articles as well as on tv about atrocities against the innocent Shiite civilians. not to mention its starting to get boring now which i mean its too common that the attacks on Shiites its not big news now. but there are still American news media that reports that attacks.

Exactly!

I think you confuzed a little bit the Shia and the Sunni.

All the US Media does is Portray the Shiite as Victims and Sunni's as the Rebels, the Insurgents, the Terrorists, the Aggressors. When in FACT Militias from all 3 sides are Ruling Iraq. Problem is that Shia Militia get US support and can get away with it (Kurdish also) - but Sunni's not.

Originally posted by Souljah

Where are all the Rest that daily report about Suicide Bombs going off in Baghdad? They ignore this kind of News and act like it never happened at all.

At the time the 38 were found several sources carried the story. I saw them. Times Washington Post and AP all carried it. So they did not ignore them as you claim. One can only assume you missed them which is not the medias fault. by now most have archived the stories and Google can no longer access those portions of the sites since the media blocks the bots from searching archives.

They are carried out by gunmen tied to the U.S.-supported regime in Baghdad.

Can you prove the above alegations from mainstream media sources? Sorry Aljezzzzeeeera and others that support Islamic fanatics do not count.
Surly if this were true the media as a whole would be all over it just like Abu Grab (sp)

look, the actions of militias on both sides are just wrong. purposely targeting innocent civilians is wrong. having said that, i have to admit that if i were shia, i'd be about sick and darn tired of watching innocent children blown to bits by sunnis, and i'd be doing something about it. but like i said, it doesnt make either side right.

I wonder if they went ahead with the 'Salvador Option' after all.
Here's an article from back in January 2005:

MSNBC

...the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I wonder if they went ahead with the 'Salvador Option' after all.
Here's an article from back in January 2005:

Don;t think its a great idea, since the outcome from the training of Afgan peeps against the former USSR, got the US into this current mess we see.

Anything that operates under the umbrella of the U.S Army or wears an underwear with Bush's face is not considered an enemy or aggressor whatsoever. They wouldn't even be considered terrorism like you said souljah.

To further my point, look at the CIA or KGB for that matter, do you think whatever they do is so call LEGAL by the International Law or even by their own Domestic Law? NOPE!

In relations with the Salvador Option, I think it is a bad move. Take for example when the Soviets wanted to invade Afghanistan. The U.S helped Osama Been Laid and his gang to resist the invasion. See what happens now? They turn their crosshair at you.

That guys' dad didnt need any slippers because he was a terrorist about to be dealt with. Hooyah kill em all let got sort em out.

Originally posted by Dero
That guys' dad didnt need any slippers because he was a terrorist about to be dealt with. Hooyah kill em all let got sort em out.

Hmm... Say WHAT?

You sound like a Terrorist Yourself.

And its God not Got.

I have a Suggestion for you:

- Think FIRST before you Open your Mouth.

Your Statement was pretty Racist and Ignorant. I wonder what you would do if Armed Men came and took Your Daddy away and say that to him.

Souljah-I think Dero has the same intelligence and insight of the planning forces for the coallition in Iraq. It certainly seems to be what they are doing-killing every Iraqi that isn't working for them and showing complete disregard for both the citizenry and infrastructure. They are like spoiled children making a big mess and leaving it for the maid to clean up. It makes me ill. These are PEOPLE. They did not ask for our help and our lame excuses for being there cannot justify the course that we are taking. This cannot end well for anyone. I remember when we first invaded Iraq. I heard several people talking about the cheap oil we would be getting once we got Iraq straightened out. I wonder what they are thinking when they pull up to a gas station now. I pity the Iraqi people, but they are only the most recent to suffer and certainly not the last. The American people will end up being served the same treatment, as will all who refuse to give all power to the GWB regime. Pray for us all.

cindy....your last name wouldnt be sheehan? just wondering...rhetoric sounds identical.

anyway...i posted this on another thread ("have the terrorists won"), but i think its applicable here as well, so....

here's the problem as i see it (and you can call me ignorant if you want, because this is just my opinion):

let me start by saying that i dont agree with the reasons we went into iraq to begin with. the time and resources could have been much better spent persuing OBL in afganistan (or pakistan, or wherever the heck is his now). but neither do i think bush is an outright liar. heck, EVERYBODY in the US government was hoodwinked on this one...even the major democratic players believed the intel (until, of course, they were up for election).

but now that we are there in full force, i think that it would be a major mistake to leave, and here are a few reasons why:

first of all, it would be just like beirut in 83, or somalia in 93...."the americans got there noses bloodied and ran". you think maybe that has something to do with where we are today? i do.

second, if we left right now, the entire country of iraq would slide into uncontrollable civil war. as it is, shia and sunni gangs are attacking each other every day and committing horrible atrocities against not only each other, but innocent women and children. without us there to at least try and stop the carnage, it would get ten times worse. kind of reminds me of northern ireland....brits try to step in and stop the mess, and they get the overall blame from both sides (and i know im gonna take hits on that comment, because im just a dumb yank that doesnt know anything about the conflict except what i read in the western press...forget the fact that im third generation irish).

third, anyone who has kept up on the middle east over the last twenty years and has any knowledge of the situation knows that saddam definitely had WMD...because WE SOLD IT TO HIM!!!!! (enough said on that).

what does any of this have to do with the subject of this thread? well, if we leave now, then terrorism HAS won. if we leave now, then they would be proven right about beirut and somalia.

as far as the changes in the US, i dont think terrorism has won at all....i think that all the attacks have done is bring us up to date with the rest of the world as far as security standards are concerned...its just a shame that it took 9-11 to do it.

Originally posted by snafu7700
second, if we left right now, the entire country of iraq would slide into uncontrollable civil war. as it is, shia and sunni gangs are attacking each other every day and committing horrible atrocities against not only each other, but innocent women and children. without us there to at least try and stop the carnage, it would get ten times worse. kind of reminds me of northern ireland....brits try to step in and stop the mess, and they get the overall blame from both sides (and i know im gonna take hits on that comment, because im just a dumb yank that doesnt know anything about the conflict except what i read in the western press...forget the fact that im third generation irish).

Hmmm... I think Iraq is going straight to the Civil War even if the US Troops do not leave. Problem is that Bush admnistration probably WANTS a separated Iraq, split into 3 states. It's much easier to Control that way, and if they are not United they are weaker and easier to Control. So its quiet Obvious that the Coalition Troops do not want a United Iraq, but rather to buld permanent Bases and foritfy the Borders and keep the Oil Flowing at ALL COST!

third, anyone who has kept up on the middle east over the last twenty years and has any knowledge of the situation knows that saddam definitely had WMD...because WE SOLD IT TO HIM!!!!! (enough said on that).

True. But Saddam also destroyed all the WMD's and at the time of the illegal occupation had none in his Possession. Yes he Had WMD's, especially Chemical Weapons, because without them he would never have won the Iraq-Iran war.

as far as the changes in the US, i dont think terrorism has won at all....i think that all the attacks have done is bring us up to date with the rest of the world as far as security standards are concerned...its just a shame that it took 9-11 to do it.

Terrorism is on the Increase and with every Muslim Country Invaded, there are More "Terrorists" appearing all over the World that are fighting for their Muslim Brothers under Occupation. So, how exactly is that going to STOP international Terrorism?

Snafu-No my last name is not Sheehan, but I don't take your assumption as an insult. I admire her greatly. I have no support for either "party" of our government. They have both betrayed us. I firmly believe that our own government is the source of most of the terror in Iraq, and all of it here in the U.S. I know... call me crazy but this is what I believe, and I am not alone. The truth will eventually come out. I hope that there is something left of our rights and our country when it does. I love America.
I have the blood of Native America, Ireland, Scotland, and Russian Jews in my veins and every corpuscle cries out for truth and justice.

well cindy, i completely disagree with you, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion...just try to remember that the only reason you are allowed to express that opinion is because of the blood shed by american patriots.

i just dont think our government is capable of a coverup as large as you are suggesting. i spent five years in the military, and i am a government employee now. trust me....there is just no way they would be able to keep a secret like that....the almighty dollar is too strong....somebody would talk.

Terrorism is on the Increase and with every Muslim Country Invaded, there are More "Terrorists" appearing all over the World that are fighting for their Muslim Brothers under Occupation. So, how exactly is that going to STOP international Terrorism?

Dont let the terrorist rhetoric fool you, they have no more a wish to die than moist people, they jist fool others(and sometimes themselves) into believing their nonsense, USA has done alot to cut the head from the snake, moreso than any other nation except great britain, and without the head the body dies, everybody said the same stuff when reagan called the soviets the evil empire, everybody thouh he was mad too. History proved him right and I hope history proves bush right too.