• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Baghdad neighborhood fights back

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Its articles like this that give me confidence the Iraqi situation will eventually be stabilized. When the citizens themselves take up arms against the terrorists, you know you have the support of the people in terms of restoring peace to the area.
I'm sure we'll see this on CNN shortly, because they do such a good job of reporting the good news as opposed to just the bad......

Article

Baghdad neighborhood rises up and fights back

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Salah heard the screeching tires and gunfire outside his home in central Baghdad, and cowered. He'd feared this moment. He'd even plotted leaving the city, though he'd never followed through on his plan.

Now invaders had entered his street, and he knew that as the only Sunni on a street filled with Shiites, he was probably their target, whomever the invaders might be - insurgents, kidnappers or sectarian death squads.

"I was shaking; it was the fourth time in three days they'd invaded," he said. "I knew they were coming for me."

Then he heard another sound: the gunfire being returned.

He rushed from his house to see his neighbors - Shiite neighbors - on their roofs, in their windows, in their yards, firing at the attackers. In a trembling voice, he explained that at that moment he felt life change. He realized that his neighbors weren't going to stand by and let the bad guys win.

"I prefer now to die among my friends and neighbors rather than leave my home," he said. "I felt thrilled to see them fighting, all my neighbors standing next to each other guarding the area."

In a country shaken by violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, where it's easy to find examples of members of one sect fleeing neighborhoods dominated by the other, Abu Salah's tale is a rare, uplifting respite from stories of sectarian tension. Even so, he, like others quoted in this story, asked that only part of his name be used to ensure his security.

How many similar tales might exist in this city of 6 million is unknown. A Sunni neighborhood across town tried to implement an armed "neighborhood watch" recently but gave up after eight residents were shot to death in the first weekend.

Many Iraqis openly hope that there will be more examples of residents rising up to say they've had enough of sectarian groups trying to split apart Iraqis - Sunni and Shiite - who'd previously lived side by side in peace.

"We have noticed a big difference in violence after people undertook security in their neighborhood," said Lt. Col. Abu Ali, a police officer who patrols the Hai al-Aamel area, where Abu Salah lives.

Officially, the police oppose vigilantes. Ali said his proposals to arm and train civilians had been rejected. But he and others recognize the value of the neighbors' willingness to defend themselves. "Look, we know that almost every house has guns inside, but we overlook this issue because they are actually helping us," he said.

Ansam Yassin knew something had to change. Her children clung tightly to her as she spoke, her eyes red and tired.

"I wish the neighborhood had acted this way before the killers got to my husband; he might have had a chance," she said. Her husband was among nine men who turned up dead after gunmen took them away, before the neighborhood agreed to defend itself.

To the eye, there's nothing unusual about Hai al-Aamel - if you don't dwell on the fact that the main streets into the middle-class neighborhood have been turned into zigzag paths by carefully arranged palm tree trunks and whatever large metal objects that neighbors could drag into the street. Or that at the bakery, a security guard pats down an old man, checking for weapons. Or that every face entering the area is studied. Strangers aren't welcomed.

Sheik Salam, a local tribal leader, said Sunnis and Shiites had agreed to defend the area, night and day, in shifts.

Some residents talked excitedly about the new weapons they'd bought to take part in the defense. Others talked about the military precision of the attackers, and of how difficult it will be to drive them off forever.

But fighting back gives people some sense of being in control, in an out-of-control place.

"They come looking for someone to kill," said Ahmed al-Saedi, 18, who recently helped drive off intruders who were dressed in commando uniforms. "But they want more and more."

Hajj Ali, 70, said he took aim and fired on intruders often.

"They can't shoot at us; we are on the roofs," he said. "But when I got down to the street I was happy to see the whole street carrying weapons."

Neighbor Abu Aadel shared the sentiment.

"We are fed up with the gang attacks coming every day," he said. "It's time to put an end to such attacks, even if it costs our lives."
 
Since we can't do the job of you protecting them you feel better than ordinary citizens are at a last ditch effort trying to do something about this? This wouldn't be happening if we didn't invade under false pretenses in the first place. Whatever makes you feel better in the morning.
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.

I disagree. Here's an example where people aren't being sheeple. Shites protecting Sunni neighbors and vice -versa is anarchy?

I saw another example of this type activity. IIRC is was in some small village outside of Bahgdad. The guy was some self-appointed sherrif type. Seems like after the gov figured he had good motives and was competent they gave him a brand new police cruiser, uniform etc.
 
The only way Iraq will be safe is when they take it upon themselves to kill or remove those who would attack Iraqis. Props for those who stand up for their country.
 
I thought we're supposed to be there protecting them so this wouldn't be necessary? Is our security apparatus that weak?
 
Originally posted by: shurato
Since we can't do the job of you protecting them you feel better than ordinary citizens are at a last ditch effort trying to do something about this? This wouldn't be happening if we didn't invade under false pretenses in the first place. Whatever makes you feel better in the morning.

Yes it makes me feel good.
People are uniting to stand up for their country, and fight off those who wish to tear it down.
We're supposed to be turning control over to them, this is another step. No, its not a planned step and its not the ideal step by any means.
But having the citizens of Iraq unite together as one is a very important step in accomplishing a united Iraq.

And its good to see Shiites and Sunnis working together. Thats a HUGE step in the right direction.
 
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I thought we're supposed to be there protecting them so this wouldn't be necessary? Is our security apparatus that weak?

think of yourself at a twin convention....now go in and knock off the bad twins.
they are walking a thin line of trying to detect who's who over there.
To adequately do the job they would have to level baghdad, and thats not going to happen. when iraqi's get pissed off enough to finger and or kill these rouge gangs the job becomes a lil easier.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: shurato
Since we can't do the job of you protecting them you feel better than ordinary citizens are at a last ditch effort trying to do something about this? This wouldn't be happening if we didn't invade under false pretenses in the first place. Whatever makes you feel better in the morning.

Yes it makes me feel good.
People are uniting to stand up for their country, and fight off those who wish to tear it down.
We're supposed to be turning control over to them, this is another step. No, its not a planned step and its not the ideal step by any means.
But having the citizens of Iraq unite together as one is a very important step in accomplishing a united Iraq.

And its good to see Shiites and Sunnis working together. Thats a HUGE step in the right direction.

I certainly agree that it gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling, especially when the various religious people in OUR country have enough trouble getting along, to see Iraqis of different religious groups working together. It IS a good thing, and should be treated as such.

However, you keep using the word step, and I think that's wrong. It is a plus in terms of uniting Iraq, but it is not a step in the right direction. The fact that they had to do this at all is a bad sign, and even that fawningly positive news article suggested it was a rare event. Various groups of Iraqis are still shooting it out on a regular basis, and while I'm happy that it isn't always a Sunni vs Shiite battle, I'm not sure other forms of Iraqi vs Iraqi are really a huge improvement...more like a shift in the kind of violence we see, when I think a much more positive step would be to see less violence of any kind.
 
This is great news...just great news.

To Rainsford's point - there WILL be less violence when enough gangs get stung by local defenses. These gangs aren't fighting for their homes and loved ones - they do it either because of their religious beliefs, or to feel macho and be part of the action. Once neighborhoods fight back, and people from their OWN RELIGION fire routinely at them...then the stage is set for them to question their local mulah and commanders. And once they realize that going into neighborhoods can actually get them killed, then the macho fun and games aspect will become much less important - it will no longer be a game with them always winning. Then they will have to decide just how much they really want to participate...if it can get them killed.

Thanks for posting that SpecOp...

Future Shock

btw - my money is still on a civil war for control of the oil fields...but that's not my desire, it's just cause I think the prize is too big to ignore for one group or the other...
 
Originally posted by: Future Shock
This is great news...just great news.

To Rainsford's point - there WILL be less violence when enough gangs get stung by local defenses. These gangs aren't fighting for their homes and loved ones - they do it either because of their religious beliefs, or to feel macho and be part of the action. Once neighborhoods fight back, and people from their OWN RELIGION fire routinely at them...then the stage is set for them to question their local mulah and commanders. And once they realize that going into neighborhoods can actually get them killed, then the macho fun and games aspect will become much less important - it will no longer be a game with them always winning. Then they will have to decide just how much they really want to participate...if it can get them killed.

Thanks for posting that SpecOp...

Future Shock

btw - my money is still on a civil war for control of the oil fields...but that's not my desire, it's just cause I think the prize is too big to ignore for one group or the other...

You might be right, I certainly hope so. But the current state is not what we really want to happen in Iraq (I would imagine), and I guess I'm not convinced the transition from Wild West to a democratic country with a respect for law an order is assured.

IMHO, the problem is that the police so far seem to have some serious issues keeping the peace. It DOES say something good about the Iraqis that they are willing to fight for themselves, but in the end, what Iraq really needs is a government that can protect the people. As much as pro-gun people like to talk about self-defense in this country, we certainly wouldn't be where we are today if all we had to rely on to defend ourselves was our own weapons and those of our neighbors. I think the real test is still whether or not we can really get the police up and running.

On the other hand, it IS possible that gun wielding neighborhoods will convince the current crop of insurgents that it's really not worth it. I think you underestimate their motivation, but what you suggest could still come to pass. The only problem is that, once they are gone, someone else will just step into their place unless there is a government framework set up to really keep the peace.
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.

The general historical wisdom is that insurgencies die when the local population turns on them
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.

The general historical wisdom is that insurgencies die when the local population turns on them


Well at least thats what the guy says while the next map is loading. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.


The American west settled itself peaceably due to this type of anarchy. Until the totalitarianism movements dawning in the 80's it still was largely policed this way. Now you rarely hear of local law enforcement using citizens to help round up leads/suspects unless its something to do with an amber alert call.
 
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.


The American west settled itself peaceably due to this type of anarchy. Until the totalitarianism movements dawning in the 80's it still was largely policed this way. Now you rarely hear of local law enforcement using citizens to help round up leads/suspects unless its something to do with an amber alert call.

I'm not sure the American west is such a good example. It's ture, things did work out alright, but it was far from ideal...and far from the fantasy of libertarian ideals people seem to believe it was. The fact that it turned out alright doesn't mean it's the best course to take, and for that matter, it doesn't mean that Iraq is analogous. For one thing, the American west was SETTLED in this fashion, while Iraq is an established civilization that's far older than ours. The same rules can't always be applied, the main one that comes to mind being the idea of frontier justice in crowded urban areas. The American west had a far different makeup than the busy urban areas that are the primary hotspots in Iraq, something that makes citizen police less useful, as any force big enough to deal with threats will face organizational issues. In the old days in the west, local law enforcement could keep the peace with the help of a few good citizens. In Iraq, you would need many thousands of citizens, and right now they would all be pretty much acting on their own. This was ok in the west, with relativly low population density, but in Iraq, vigilante justice groups will almost certainly start bumping into each other.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.

Anarchy can build nations.

No, it can't. Nations do not exist in a state of anarchy, they may START that way, but something else pulls them out of it. The fact that anarchy is where many new nations start does not mean it is the foundation of building a country.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The only way Iraq will be safe is when they take it upon themselves to kill or remove those who would attack Iraqis.

Does that include the growing millions of Iraqi's who don't appreciate American occupation and are willing to at least tacitly support an insurgency? It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some American's are about the world and its well-documented history. Rebel forces lash out at not only their occupiers, but ANYONE who's seen as a collaborator. Innocents often get in the way.

It isn't at all about "outsiders" killing Iraqi's with the US representing and protecting the "good" people. The ONLY way to stabilize Iraq is to withdraw all American forces and leave them the hell alone.
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
Uh... this isn't good news. This is more or less anarchy.

so what are you smoking???

You call that anarchy? noway....
The civil authorities can`t stop this stuff....
So the people are taking a stand...
That is hardly anarchy!!
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
If it makes you feel so warm and fuzzy inside then when are you shipping out to give a hand?

So you don`t think this is a good thing?

I thought you were smarter than that??

oh I get it anything good that happens in Iraq your against for fear it might make GWB look good?

Or you just want the Iraqi people to be randowmly killed by thugs...ahhhh
 
i believe that it is physically impossible for some people to recognize ANY of the good things that are happening over there...some part of their brains prevents the data from computing properly.
 
We would need like 2 million troops or more to protect Iraqi's. They will either have to protect themselves or allow the country to fall into all out civil war. You can not force a country to be free they have to be willing to die for their own freedom.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
We would need like 2 million troops or more to protect Iraqi's. They will either have to protect themselves or allow the country to fall into all out civil war. You can not force a country to be free they have to be willing to die for their own freedom.

Only an American could see what's happening in Iraq, as well as our part in it, in such glowing and wholly disconnected terms.

 
Back
Top