Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories:
Good News: Iraqi Freedom Fighters Down Occupation Aircraft
by Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Tuesday May 17th, 2005 6:40 PM
Iraqi freedom fighters killed nine occupation war criminals by shooting down RAF Hercules with 'ageing anti-aircraft gun.'
Iraqi insurgents using a rudimentary anti-aircraft weapon against an RAF transport plane are likely to have caused the biggest single loss of life in the conflict, military sources disclosed yesterday.

Nine RAF crew and an SAS signaller were killed when a C130 Hercules was shot down during a "special duties" mission 20 miles north-west of Baghdad on Jan 30.

An interim Ministry of Defence report has ruled out almost everything apart from enemy fire and it was suggested that a missile or rocket-propelled grenade could have brought down the aircraft.

But an official told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that the report concluded that the Hercules had been shot down by anti-aircraft artillery, as it flew at a low altitude, possibly 150ft.

"It was shredded by a multi-barrelled 20mm canon," the official said. "They have worked out that's what caused the crash."

The gun is believed to have been a 1960s twin-barrel Zu-23, made in China or the Soviet Union, left over from the Saddam Hussein regime.

It has an effective range of 2,000 yards and can be mounted on a lorry or set on wheels.

It is not known why the Hercules, which was equipped with sophisticated defensive measures, was flying at low altitude for the 40-minute trip.
by TB
Tuesday May 17th, 2005 7:20 PM
The death of ANYONE, whether occupation forces or innocent civilians should be mourned. These soldiers most likely did not choose to be in Iraq. Yes, they are obviously brainwashed if they're in the military in the first place and defending the state, but they are probably working class British who didn't think they had much of a choice. Your frustratios about the state of the world should not be taken out on them. It should be taken out on the leaders, the officers, the capitalists, by convincing the rank and file soldiers that they are not fighting for the interests of themselves and their families, but for the interesets of the rich few. Get them to turn the other way and point those guns at their officers, at their rulers, they wouldn't even have to fire if every rank and file soldier did that. This isn't going to though happen while you are saying that their friends dying is "good news." Every death in this occupation is an unnecessary one. And calling the people who shot down the plane "freedom fighters?" Come on, are you kidding me? Freedom for who? Just themselves and their friends. The true freedom fighters are the ones who call for the abolition of any and all states.
by Viva la Resistance!
Tuesday May 17th, 2005 7:39 PM
Why America Needs to be Defeated in Iraq
by Mike Whitney
May 2, 2005

The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It’s an issue that has caused anti-war Leftist’s the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who’ve never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American “Exceptionalism”.

For myself, I can say without hesitation, that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21-year-old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.

As Americans we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.” [Emphasis mine]

The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a “duty” to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people. Violence is not the issue, but the justification for the use of violence. The overwhelming majority of the world’s people know that the war in Iraq was an “illegal” act (Kofi Annan) of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. A recent poll conducted in the Middle East (released by the Center for Strategic Studies) shows that “for more than 85% of the population in four of the five countries polled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) thought the US war on Iraq was an act of terrorism.” Lebanon polled at 64%. (Pepe Escobar, “It’s Terror When We Way So,” Asia Times, April 23, 2005) Terrorism or not, there’s no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.

The argument most commonly offered by anti-war Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn’t defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that “We can’t just leave them without security” creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.

At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power. (Bush acknowledged this himself when he ordered Syrian troops to leave Lebanon) The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington’s “demonstration elections.” This may not suit the members of the Bush administration, but it’s a first step in the long process of reintegrating and rebuilding the Iraqi state. There’s no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the passed two years. The Bush administration hasn’t shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we’re nowhere near that period yet.
Who’s Killing Whom?

It’s not the insurgency that’s killing American soldiers. It’s the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world’s remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harms way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would, trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed. American’s would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration’s hands not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Expect another dictator or Mullah

We shouldn’t expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war. Regardless, it is not the right of the US to pick-and-choose the leaders of foreign countries or to meddle in their internal politics. (The UN, as imperfect as it may be, is the proper venue for deciding how to affect the behavior of foreign dictators) At this point, we should be able to agree that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein in every quantifiable way than they are today. Even on a physical level, the availability of work, clean water, electricity, sewage control, medicine, gas and food were far superior to the present situation. On a deeper level, the insecurity from the sporadic violence, the increasing brutality, and the gross injustice of the occupation has turned Iraq into a prison-state, where the amenities of normal life are nowhere to be found.

Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq’s publicly owned industries, banks and resources) an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, “the return-in full force of Saddam’s Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services.” (Pepe Escobar, “The Shadow Iraqi Government,” Asia Times, April 21, 2005)

Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam? (Rumsfeld’s unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn’t tamper with his counterinsurgency operatives, most of who were formerly employed in Saddam’s secret police)

We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don’t realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself. The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect that if it weren’t for the resistance the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, anti-war advocates should carefully consider the implications of so-called “humanitarian” objectives designed to pacify the population. “Normalizing” aggression by ameliorating its symptoms is the greatest dilemma we collectively face.

We should be clear about our feelings about the war and the occupation. The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination, ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence. The toppling of foreign regimes and the destruction of entire civilizations cannot be justified in terms of “democracy” or any other cynically conjured-up ideal. The peace and security of the world’s people depends on the compliance of states with the clearly articulated standards of international law and the UN Charter. Both were deliberately violated by the invasion of Iraq. Crushing the insurgency will not absolve that illicit action; it will only increase the magnitude of the crime. Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat would serve as a powerful deterrent to future unprovoked conflicts and would deliver a serious blow to the belief that aggression is a viable expression of foreign policy.
by Paul Craig Roberts
Tuesday May 17th, 2005 7:43 PM
George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America's reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America's reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the US. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.

As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush's far more serious lies. Bush's lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America's reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.

America's reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush's Afghan puppet, "president" Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his US overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed US troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of US military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002,,,2087-15936), leaked to the Sunday Times (May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted:

"to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The [UK] Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."

This memo is the mother of all smoking guns.

Why isn't Bush in the dock?

Has American democracy failed at home?
by The Devil and George Warmonger Bush
(His Assholiness George Warmonger Bush@666 The Devil's (Bush) Oil For Wednesday May 18th, 2005 4:04 AM
That's Right! While you fight for a bunch of Chickenhawks, who send you to Kill or Be Killed, they line their Pockets. While these Yellow Stain Chickenhawks make Billions by sending your Kids into a War Zone made by their Lies, they Rob The Domestic Programs such as Education, Health Care, The Enviornment, etc. and they Ship Your Jobs Overseas so you can earn minimum wage. So long as you give these Hyaenas control over you they will continue to get the Pipeline and give you the Pipe.
by Sefarad
Wednesday May 18th, 2005 7:55 AM
by Viva la Resistance!
Wednesday May 18th, 2005 2:47 PM
I see the resistance is plagiarizing the Bush regime's excuses now.
by passerby
Wednesday May 18th, 2005 2:50 PM

Given that those freedom fighters have reasons to kill civilians, then for me it's ok. They can proceed to kill more.
by Aaron Aarons
Wednesday May 18th, 2005 11:21 PM
There's little evidence of popular support for Zarqawi among Iraqis, including Sunnis. It seems that his main function is to provide a demon who the U.S. can use to justify -- in the minds of U.S.-Americans, at least! -- committing mass murder against the people of any area where resistance is strong. It's much like the role Saddam played, in providing "justification" for the bombings and sanctions that, since 1990, have killed well over 1,000,000 Iraqis, at least half of them children.

I wouldn't pretend to know whether Zarqawi is what he claims to be, or is rather a real or imaginary creation of the U.S. and Israel. Possibly he's a "useful idiot" who thinks he's serving Islam while in reality he's serving imperialism.

BTW, in the CNN article linked to by ZIonist Sefarad, In Washington, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is quoted as saying (in reference to Zarqawi), "Talk about a guy who has no moral foundation. It's an absolute outrage." This from a man whose "moral foundation" allows him to be the head of an institution that has directly killed many millions of people -- most of them innocent civilians, as that concept is generally understood -- just since 1950. He's also the guy who was the head of U.S. air defenses on Sept. 11, 2001 and came up with two mutually contradictory explanations as to why his planes failed to intercept the planes that hit the WTC or Pentagon! His "punishment" for this "failure" and prevarication was to be promoted to his present job.
by Zach
Friday Sep 16th, 2005 8:01 AM
The beauty of it all is that every single one of the Americans that are in Iraq are volunteers. Every single one of them.

Not one single person currently in the military was forced to join the military. They all did that by choice, and in doing so agreed to the terms and conditions of joining the military. Signed the contract, including the inactive reserve part which is not hidden, in fact is explained in full detail (and the contract is two pages, front and back, and only one of those pages is text, the rest is forms and sigs area - so not to long to read).

But the true beauty is that they are there, so you can continue to believe such rubish, because they understand to be free, you have to allow those that have completley idiotic thoughts a place and room to voice those idiotic thoughts. Only in America could you get away with writing this. In any other country in the world, except maybe Canada and England, you would be arrested for such thoughts.
by misconceptions
Friday Sep 16th, 2005 9:31 AM
Almost all of them are victims of a poverty draft. But whatever their motivation, they are foreign invaders and can be expected to be treated as such. When they tire of it, they will start killing their officers, wrecking their equipment and deserting . Then the war will end.

It's happened before:
by David
Thursday Mar 16th, 2006 5:21 AM
I support my Arab brothers in Iraq fighting the US & UK oil nazi troops. Well done!
by David Price
Saturday Mar 17th, 2007 12:08 PM
As of now they are, so who will be next. Glad you are closer than me.

So remember, smile as you cough.
Saturday Apr 21st, 2007 8:30 PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 160.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network