on the Iraq resistance reports
>Thanks for appreciating and circulating the resistance
>reports. They take a little while to compile - first
>the daily reports from the internet Yahoo and BBC news
>and then Arabic Papers, and then the weekly addition
>of material from the report from the Resistance
>itself. But I'd probably spend most of that time
>looking at the news anyway.
>I might be tempted just to translate that weekly
>report from the Resistance and let other people read
>their newspapers, but then that weekly report from the
>Resistance is quite incomplete, actually, and they
>admit that's true and that they don't have information
>from all the guerrillas. So even when compared with
>the published media reports that Resistance repots
>leaves something to be desired. The regular media
>often refer to attacks that the Resistance report
>didn't mention, although the Resistance report most
>often quotes higher casualty figures and they're
>probably more realistic figures.
>A lot of that stuff comes out in the western media -
>though the attacks on the US headquarters in Baghdad
>are often a lot quieter sounding in the AP or BBC
>versions than in the Arabic Newspapers or the
>For a long while I stopped trying to do resistance
>reports unless there was something really new in
>Arabic that was unavailable in English. But then FAV
>got these requests for these from various parts of
>Europe and America so I resumed them. Then FAV got
>It seems like there are "no casualties" where there
>are no witnesses, and there are no "Iraqi
>eyewitnesses" within the US headquarters and other
>such areas. But it's amazing that nobody questions
>these figures over here.
>I'm glad that some peace group is getting my reports.
>The peace groups here in Dallas would probably find
>them pretty hard to swallow, there so amazingly naive
>about what the US government is up to and what war and
>resistance are like. But this dose of reality is
>really what they need - just a daily relentless
>awareness of the fact that the Resistance isn't going
>to give up.
Again, many thanks for your efforts and those of others
in the Free Arab Voice for compiling these reports. I
quite agree that integrating the reports from the
resistance with those of the Arab media and Western
media is the way to go.
>I found it really interesting that right after one USYes, it was indeed the Los Angeles Times that ordered
>paper - the LA Times, maybe, I can't remember which
>one - decided that it wouldn't use the word
>"resistance" because it might lead to "romantic
>associations" but only use "insurgents" or
>"guerrillas" or "gunmen" etc., immediately the AP cut
>the word "resistance" out of its dispatches totally -
>except in direct quotes, I suppose. So what the media
>announce as the editorial policy of one paper in fact
>was the editorial policy of the main US news agency,
>and then predictably all US papers that pull from the
>AP will just quote the same thing verbatim, and leave
>As a result, of course, I make sure that the word
>comes in in my Resistance Reports as much as possible
>and I started capitalizing it too. "Guerrillas" is
>actually a quite OK word for me too, but if the US
>media all snap in line to ban the word "resistance"
>then that's the word I have to push.
>I mean what was interesting wasn't just the choice of
>words, but that the "free" media all fall into
>lockstep with a "ruling" that suddenly and
>mysteriously appears. (I am pretty sure the hand of
>the White House and/or its Madison Avenue PR people
>was behind this.)
its reporters to stop refering to the Iraqi resistance,
and you are quite correct that just about every other
newspaper and television network in the USA quickly
fell into line, so I think the real origin of this
decision was not in that paper but from the White House.
So much for having a free press!
>Being a student of the Cultural Revolution, I alsoI don't suppose the French resistance had any mercy
>enjoy inserting "puppet" in front of police and
>councilmen and other puppet officials in Iraq. That
>word reflects the facts, but it's a fact that the
>western media generally gloss over. It's not spelled
>out, as I do it, in the Arabic press either, but
>perhaps it's sufficiently obvious to Arab readers that
>they don't need to be reminded of it.
>On the other hand, they have their ways of writing the
>reports that subtlely help their side that I try to
>For example they will lead a paragraph with: "US
>troops raided so-and-so in response to an attack on an
>I reverse it to: "The Iraqi Resistance mounted an
>attack on an outpost. US occupation forces responded
>with a raid on so-and-so."
>Their version suggests that the Americans have the
>initiative. But simply by inverting the sentence and
>leading with the Resistance attack, the opposite
>impression is given. At least that's what I think.
>Anyhow, it's an interesting exersise, rewriting their
>stuff, and that doesn't even require Arabic.
>I have a little piece in the report that I plan to
>finish tonight (for Thursday through Sunday) on the
>Human Rights Watch statement yesterday in which HRW
>said that attacks by the Resistance on collaborators,
>including puppet police and members of Bremer's puppet
>council, are "war crimes" because they are attacks on
>So supposedly Human Rights Watch opposes the
>occupation, but then demands that all puppet
>authorities be accepted without any kind of armed
>resistance. So according to international law in
>their understanding of it, as long as an occupying
>power finds locals to front for it, then that
>occupation becomes legal and acceptable, and anyone
>who takes up arms against it isn't even a common
>criminal but a "war criminal."
>Isn't it reassuring to have such people looking out
>for our "human rights"?
>Joe Stork is apparently Human Rights Watch's spokesman
>or spokesman for the Arab World. He used to be a
>Marxist who wrote about the oil monopolies, etc., in
>the Arab World. Now you see where he's ended up.
>In a way a lot of the "Marxists" are guilty of a kind
>of economism as Lenin called it. The resolve
>everything into an economic problem and fail to see
>the political aspects. (Especially when the politics
>involves a hard look at Zionism!)
towards Frenchmen who worked for the occupation police
during the Second World War, but such people would not
call them "war criminals". It just depends which
side you are on, and these so called "neutral human
rights advocates" have consistently been on the side
of imperialism, ever since Amnesty International
published that bogus report about Iraqi soldiers
having taken Kuwaiti babies out of incubators in
1990 in order to build support for the first Gulf War.
>Actually there's no word yet on a new FAV site. OurIt has occurred to me that a site based in an Asian
>webmaster's looking, but one problem is that everybody
>says, "Oh no, we'd never shut you down" when you ask
>them and even send them some pages that really seem to
>irritate the Zionists - the one on any Jew in occupied
>Palestine being a kosher target is one that they
>always jump on, saying FAV is urging people to kill
>Jews - but omitting to mention that FAV is referring
>to a very specific place and situation. But anyhow,
>that up front confidence that they won't shut anybody
>down but then the fact that they do with almost no
>warning when confronted by the Jewish Defense League
>or whoever it is, means such promises by commercial
>hosts can't be believed.
>There are other posible hosts elsewhere, but
>apparently they are slow with communications, among
country might be less prone to Zionist pressure. In
any case, I hope it is back up soon.