NY Times Interviews Iraqi Jihadi
Fri, Dec 5, 2003 at 10:29:11 am PST
New York Times reporter Ian Fisher interviewed an Iraqi who claimed to be a mujahideen fighting against coalition forces: The Foe: A Tale of War: Iraqi Describes Battling G.I.’s. (Hat tip: PB.)
He said his group had mounted about 35 attacks locally, of which he participated in "more than five." His comments suggested a good knowledge of weapons, and he said his cell used Katyusha rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, large machine guns, AK-47's, mines and homemade bombs detonated by remote control (though he would not say exactly what kind of remote was used). He said they bought some weapons with their own money and looted others from unguarded ammunition dumps left over from before the war."We want the world to know that Bush, the biggest criminal of all, and Blair, that monkey of the desert, will not be able to control the Iraqis," he said. "We will not allow them to kill Iraqis. I am speaking before God, on my behalf and that of the other mujahedeen."
His choice of the word "mujahedeen" was perhaps one of the most telling details about what this insurgency would like to be.
The word means "holy warrior," and for many Muslims it connotes brave struggles against occupiers over centuries, against the crusaders a millennium ago or against the Russians in Afghanistan a mere two decades ago. These resisters would like that honorable title bestowed on them. The recruiting leaflets the American military says were found here called for Iraqis to join them on a "jihad," or holy war, against the Americans — prompting a large United States military raid on the town this week.
That seems pretty unequivocal, doesn’t it? The man claims outright to be a holy warrior, fighting for the cause of jihad.
So why in the world would Ian Fisher then write something like this:
It was hard to pin down any single motive for the fighter here, who said he served in the Iraqi Army for six years, ending in 1998, and who gave the nickname "Fighter for the Sake of God." In compact and articulate answers, the man seemed a fanatic neither for God nor for Mr. Hussein.
Try not to get whiplash from following the sheer illogic of that paragraph. The man himself says he’s a “fighter for the sake of God,” yet Fisher still tries to tell the reader that he’s no such thing. In the very next sentence.
Then Fisher quotes some more non-Islamic non-fanaticism:
"We are not fighting for Saddam," he said. "We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council," he said, referring to the body of Iraqis appointed by the Americans, "is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them.""The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties," he added. "The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.'
No religious fanaticism here, folks. Move along, nothing to see.
