US Troops Accused of Mosque Massacre:

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rdnor I do not see any of their "leadership" giving it up for God . Do you ? Usually it is the poor illiterate that straps on the bomb with a good chance that he is only doing it to keep his family from being MURDERED .

And I don't see any of our political "leaders" or their family members actively participating in this "war on terror", do you? Lots of chickenhawks, lots of calls to "support the troops", but not a single volunteer to actually go and fight in bush's war.

[popi]

to get back to the original thread the reason U.S. troops get into so much hot water is the attitude of SOME of the troops. Kick down the door and let rip. We learnt the hard way in Northern Ireland that if you've got to sets of fanatical nutters at each others throats ,some of which are just thugs anyway, the only approach is a considered intelligance led approach.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez You suspect, or seem fairly certain, just “paying attention” (monitoring better) has effectively prevented another 911, but the DHS and its “ICE” are notoriously prone to screwup.

Like I said, they don't really have to attack us here. They're doing far more harm to the U.S. keeping us bogged down in Iraq.

Quote by: rmnunez This is fine and dandy, neighboring Muslim countries are within “Desert” in the expression “better in the desert than…

There's absolutely nothing fine and dandy about the Iraqi Sunni/Shiite conflict exploding into a region wide conflict, rm.

Quote by: rmnunez Terrorist attacks in other Muslim countries are a net benefit if this is a religious war, given the diversity of their nationality, more terrorists in Damascus, Aman, Islamabad and Jakarta is still better than more 911-like events over western capitals

A net benefit???????? It would be a gawdamn friggin' disaster.

Quote by: rmnunez A war of attrition? This is an innovative take on terrorism/insurgency tactics.

What are you talking about? The North Vietnamese lost over a million dead to America's 54,000. The Afghanis lost another million to the Soviet's 15,000. Yet both won because they were willing to absord horrific losses in order to wait for us and the Soviets to exhaust ourselves, losing more casualties and treasure than the folks back home were willing to accept. That's attrition.

Quote by: rmnunez Plenty of critical lefties will have you know this is “asymmetrical warfare” and it notoriously involves the ambush and urban warfare.

And that's not what's happening with the IEDs in Iraq?

Quote by: rmnunez Wars to draw out and sap the strength of an enemy over time require comparable numbers, it’s a game of patience. A fifteen year plan involves all sorts of contingencies and at the rate they are going it will take about 20 more years for the US to reach Vietnam levels.

Yes, and that's THEIR plan. Iraq has 26 million people to our 140,000 troops. They'll fight for the next fifteen years if necessary. After all, Afghanis fought for 10.

Americans, on the other hand, were told we'd be home by Christmas.... of 2003. Americans aren't going to support an indefinite war, and as I've said...our military won't hold up for another year.

Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point

Quote by: rmnunez Terrorism entails intolerance and bloodshed, this is why the Coalitioneers (and sensible leaders in the international community) seek its eradication forcefully.

Seeking and achieving are two very different things, and so far the achieving isn't going at all well.

Quote by: rmnunez There are plenty of scenarios; Iran, North Korea and Syria offer potential. The US could easily scramble 70-120 combat jets heavily armed and inflict thousands of casualties, including civilians, from Iraqi installations in any neighboring country.

I'm pleased you think so. Unfortunately, the military's own report says otherwise. I hope you're not offended, but I accept their expertise over yours.

Quote by: rmnunez Do remember Iraq intervention took place two years after 911, Afghanistan was the one that followed 911, but it wasn't immediately thereafter, there was a substantial delay as I saw it

Also do remember that prior to 9/11, Bush had shown exactly zero interest in terrorism, completely ignoring Richard Clarke and other Clinton people tried to warn Bush of their concerns regarding international terrorism.

Bush was far more interested in more important stuff... like StarWars.

And invading Iraq.

.

[rmnunez]

Iraq has 26 million people to our 140,000 troops. They'll fight for the next fifteen years if necessary.

Not all Iraqis are in the insurgency, the highest estimates bandied about by the critical left are of some high-ranking Iraqi military intelligence officer in the quarter million range (but this includes family, kin and relateds in disinterested supporting roles). This is the pool from which to the insurgents are drawn. The relevant figures are the average number of Iraqi insurgents killed per day and how fast are they recruiting.

Critical lefties tell us the insurgency is swelling each day as the disenfranchised grow incensed with mounting occupatio transgressions and failures, but their own figures show 99% of the Iraqis aren't in the insurgency even tangentially.

The Dalai Lama says modern terrorism was born out of jealousy of Western lifestyles.

"Fundamentalism is terrifying because it is based purely on emotion, rather than intelligence," the 70-year-old monk said at the seat of his government-in-exile in the northern Indian hilltop town of Dharamsala. "It prevents followers from thinking as individuals and about the good of the world.” "This new terrorism has been brewing for many years. Much of it is caused by jealousy and frustration at the West because it looks so highly developed and successful on television. Leaders in the East use religion to counter that, to bind these countries together." Terrorists, he warned, must be treated humanely. "Otherwise, the problem will escalate. If there is one Bin Laden killed today, soon there will be 10 Bin Ladens." http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....59wi4hgk.html

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Critical lefties tell us the insurgency is swelling each day as the disenfranchised grow incensed with mounting occupatio transgressions and failures, but their own figures show 99% of the Iraqis aren't in the insurgency even tangentially.

Leaving 260,000 insurgents. That's very reassuring. And how many in the various brutal militias that are expanding as Iraqis lose faith in their army and the Americans... and that are dragging the country into civil war?

Quote by: rmnunez The Dalai Lama says modern terrorism was born out of jealousy of Western lifestyles.

That's nice. And this solves our problems how?

.

[rmnunez]

Sonart, estimates of the size of the insurgency range, one figure provided by some Iraqi intelligence authority suggested there could be up to 250 thousand, but in that figure the majority would be family and relatives, members of an active insurgent's originating community who provide him with support. That "support" would include things like a place to sleep when visiting, food, transportation (the sort of things family and friends do for one). To conclude these are people actively in support of the insurgency is stretching the concept. There aren't a quarter million people in Iraq who are active in or supporting the insurgency.

The Dalai Lama's wise perspective contradict many in the critical left suggesting terrorism has to do with US foreign policy. If "jealousy and frustration" result from how developed the west seems on TV then maybe by ordering media depict the west as poor and deprived could help. Envy is a personal problem those suffering from it must solve. Sane people address jealousy and envy by working to achieve more, terrorists by trying to destroy what they don't have.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez There aren't a quarter million people in Iraq who are active in or supporting the insurgency.

Well there's apparently sufficient numbers to have brought us to the point where we are now, rm. And like I said, now we have to start factoring in the growing numbers of competing militias.

Quote by: rmnunez The Dalai Lama's wise perspective contradict many in the critical left suggesting terrorism has to do with US foreign policy.

I'm a longtime fan to the Dalai Lama, rm, but my comment of "that's nice" was meant to be dismissive. His observation was flip, self-serving and unrealistic. As bin Laden himself said, if this was simply about jealousy, they'd be attacking Sweden too.

Terrorism is, at bottom, the one effective tool** against the perceived abuses of super-power imperialism, and please don't make the mistake of defining imperialism in 19th century terms. It's the U.S. using globalism (both the reality and the policy) to impose our military, economic and political will, through our network of defacto client regimes, on parts of the world that may not want us.

Indeed, maybe they don't want us because they're jealous, but that doesn't change the fact that we're there.

**I don't necessarily agree that it's their one effective tool. Personally I believe the Gandhi/ MKL/Aquino model of resistance would work far better... at least against oppressors who, at heart, represent benevolent democratic societies.

.

[rmnunez]

there's apparently sufficient numbers to have brought us to the point where we are now, rm.

Indeed, and what point is that? Do you see the glass half empty and words like "stagnated", "bogged-down" or "stuck" first come to mind? Regime change was successful, a fairly representative national government has been installed through a democratic process -a first among Muslims in the Middle East. This is accomplishment enough, despite the insurgency. The insurgency goes in the minus column, the democratic experience is a plus.

Restoration of human rights at the pedestrian level has got to be worth something, under Saddam when one of the depraved sought you or yours out, you had no rights. Now, if your kid gets mangled in an accident with some military, there is at least some financial compensation. Abu Ghraib goes in the minus, but it doesn't reduce human rights levels generally to pre-occupation levels.

The economy is another factor to be balanced, things are worse now but its hard to say how much worse. Macroeconomic data is good but the details are unknown, lots of cell phones, more computers and telephone service, improvements in electrical power supply and water quality, but services are frequently disrupted. Medical services and education have seen improvements, but there are disruptions. Schools are used as targets by terrorists since united statians think of them as voting places and tend to put ballot boxes there. Its a mixed bag, pretty bad in lots of places, getting better in some, but obviously not as expected.

I would note these shortcomings all have to do with the derided "nationbuilding" component now attached to intervention. The UN should be doing this, they wouldn't draw ire or fire as they are harmless, they would be able to monitor united statian military excesses and rein them in a bit, they could document progress in reconstruction and even moderate with radicals. Dumb frogs stuck their oar in trying to protect their perfidious secret parastatal contracts with Saddam.

But this is correctable, the insurgency is small and the united statians are getting real good at tracking foreigners which helps get terrorists. The Coalition needs to put a bit more effort in reconstruction, do some major works in areas where the insurgency is low, concentrate on Basra, the oil refinery areas, Kurdish oil fields and pipelines, build some important dams or irrigation systems. This will provide jobs, generate income and some prosperity, produce a national benefit and can be done in relative safety since they aren't in insurgency-infested areas. Use the government controlled TV to promote the accomplishments with footage of the completed installations, of smiling Iraqis on the construction crews repairing and rebuilding, ribbon-cutting ceremonies with officers and local muftis exchanging keys in front of their new school or library.

The casualty rate is terrible, but not intolerable, buck up! This is a necessary cost in erradicating terrorism. It would be better if more people realized and contributed, but the US got its boot in and will bear the brunt. There is an alternative to insurgency and unrest (either dissuasion or withdrawal) but no alternative to terrorism. It won't go away if the west leaves them alone. Leaving Iraq (or Afghanistan) will invariably be read as a terrorist victory, a victory of Islamic fundamentalism over the infidel (capitalist imperalists in western terminology).

Ideally the US will find a way to transition into garrisons at the 4 envisaged regional mega-airbases they planned. This would reduce their profile and diminish some of the irritation. They need to step up the retraining and equipping of local regular Iraqi military forces, use them more like we are now seeing (at this "mosque" and in "Operation Swarmer" too). They're about a third of the way retrofitting the Iraqi military, with half as many more, they could reduce deployments by half. It will take a few months.

And like I said, now we have to start factoring in the growing numbers of competing militias.

Again it depends how you see through the glass, more competing militias will also clash unless they integrate and develop a vulnerable chain of command, leadership and headquarters. What we need to know is whether more people are joining the insurgency in an active way. If so, at what pace? If madrassas are overrun with aspiring martyrs there's a problem. I don't have this information, what I've seen is evidence which suggests the insurgency is fairly stable, it peaks with electoral events and otherwise averages just over 2 Coalitioneers and about 60 Iraqi civilians per day.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez ndeed, and what point is that? Do you see the glass half empty and words like "stagnated", "bogged-down" or "stuck" first come to mind? Regime change was successful, a fairly representative national government has been installed through a democratic process -a first among Muslims in the Middle East.

Is it? Today I read that "Prime minister's Shiite support is eroding"

--"Leaders of the Shiite Muslim alliance that governs Iraq have given Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari until today to convince his opponents he should retain his job in Iraq's next government or face being pushed aside, U.S. and Iraqi officials said."--

So, three months after the election, Iraq still does not have a stable government. Meanwhile, also today...

--"Violence continued across the country, meanwhile, with at least 20 people killed. The U.S. military said one of its helicopters had gone down southwest of Baghdad while on combat air patrol. The status of the crew was unknown, a military statement said."--

What? You mean we don't know where they are? Are there still places in Iraq we can't go?

Plus, the various militias continue to grow in a vicious cycle... citizens in Sunni and Shiite areas, terrified of opposing militias and death squads, with no faith in the Iraqi army or police to provide security, are incresingly throwing their support behind their own militias, who promptly terrorize the other side, causing them to increase their militias. Meanwhile, you have gang of just plain criminals dressed up in uniforms running around kidnapping 1 to 20 Iragis a day to extort ransoms.

Quote by: rmnunez This is accomplishment enough, despite the insurgency.

Not really... it was an artificial milestone. Sure, it's a sign of some progress, but after 3 years, failing to make any progress would have been more remarkable. But it's not solving anything. Even today, Iraqis still, after three years, can't get adequate power, water, sewage or phone service. American troops stopped all those lovely construction projects -- schools, clinics, etc. -- a couple years ago because all of them were needed to deal with the insurgency problem.

Quote by: rmnunez The insurgency goes in the minus column, the democratic experience is a plus.

I assume you meant to preface that with the word 'IF'.

Quote by: rmnunez Restoration of human rights at the pedestrian level has got to be worth something, under Saddam when one of the depraved sought you or yours out, you had no rights. Now, if your kid gets mangled in an accident with some military, there is at least some financial compensation.

Unfortunately, with the increase in sectarian violence, human rights has pretty much gone out the window too. However bad Hussein was, the militias certainly aren't any better.

Quote by: rmnunez I would note these shortcomings all have to do with the derided "nationbuilding" component now attached to intervention. The UN should be doing this,

You mean the 'nationbuilding' that Bush vowed we would never do? And as far as the UN goes, I'm afraid we burned our bridges with them some time ago. And because of our refusal to support the UN, with either money or manpower, there isn't diddlysquat they could do in Iraq under the present circumstances anyway. They'd simply be a massive target.

Quote by: rmnunez The casualty rate is terrible, but not intolerable, buck up!

It's not about the numbers of casualties, it's about the fact there weren't supposed to be any in the first place... we'd be gone by Christmas. It's about a steady, unending grind of our military resources that's stretching it to the breaking point... a war of slow and steady attrition, death by a thousand cuts, that our military simply isn't designed to deal with and our citizens were not prepared for.

Quote by: rmnunez It won't go away if the west leaves them alone. Leaving Iraq (or Afghanistan) will invariably be read as a terrorist victory, a victory of Islamic fundamentalism over the infidel (capitalist imperalists in western terminology).

I've already stated my belief that we're there because Osama bin Laden wanted us there. 9/11 was simply the means to provoke us into going. Up until then, terrorist attacks against our interests were vicious but sporatic... the price of global empire. Only now, with our massive presence and investment of resources in Iraq, on the ground of their choosing, can their terrorism really hurt us... simply by making Iraq ungovernable they are eroding our military, beggering our economy, shredding our international influence and dividing our country.

[rmnunez]

The situation in Baghdad:

The first thing you'll notice is the traffic: one of the coalition's successes is the extent of car ownership, even if the shortage of fuel means there are queues half a mile long outside many petrol stations. The second is the shops. They're full of goods nowadays, and plenty of people brave the possibility of car bombs to throng them. Things are expensive and inflation is high. So is unemployment: perhaps above 50%. There is malnutrition, and the level of infant mortality is still disturbingly high. But in the cities, at any rate, most people seem to get by. But there's one unquestioned success for the coalition: every available wall has a tattered election poster on it. True, three months after the last election Iraq still has no government, but the old terror of authority has evaporated. There are dozens of newspapers, plenty of television channels, and hundreds of thousands of satellite dishes: under Saddam Hussein, you could be jailed for having one. Many are still glad that Saddam Hussein was taken off their backs. But there is a real, abiding anger that the richest nation on Earth should have taken over their country and made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4825200.stm

Is that anger enough to push people into insurgency?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Sonart Terrorism is, at bottom, the one effective tool** against the perceived abuses of super-power imperialism, and please don't make the mistake of defining imperialism in 19th century terms. <snip> Personally I believe the Gandhi/ MKL/Aquino model of resistance would work far better... at least against oppressors who, at heart, represent benevolent democratic societies.

This is, IMHO, precisely the reason "terrorism" can never be defeated. This is why a political solution can be the only rational response to any terrorist activity. There will always be some that support every cause, whether it's the activists themselves, or their families, their sympathsizers, or simply those that want to play devil's advocate for them.

The Gandhi/MLK/Aquino model will only work in places where there is a social conscience, or where outside political pressure can bring tangible consequences to ignoring that pressure. By demonizing our "enemies" bush is effectively assuaging our social conscience. Our enemies are so bad that ANYTHING we do to them is acceptable, even "collateral damage" is an acceptable cost, as long as we can put it into the context of "unfortunate, but necessary" actions.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Is that anger enough to push people into insurgency?

What I find fascinating about your snippet, rm, are all the qualifying statements.

Lots of cars... but no gas.

Lots of election posters... but no government.

Joy that Saddam is gone... but deep anger at us because we've "made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before."

Not to mention that the "old terror authority" of Saddam has been replaced by another, and in many ways, worse one. So it seems that whatever progress we seem to achieve, we're constantly taking two steps backwards for every step forward, and that strikes me as a glass half empty.

Quote by: Zeebadee The Gandhi/MLK/Aquino model will only work in places where there is a social conscience, or where outside political pressure can bring tangible consequences to ignoring that pressure. By demonizing our "enemies" bush is effectively assuaging our social conscience. Our enemies are so bad that ANYTHING we do to them is acceptable, even "collateral damage" is an acceptable cost, as long as we can put it into the context of "unfortunate, but necessary" actions.

I think this is an interesting discussion. When I said "benevolent democratic societies" I was refering specifically to the U.S. and Britain.

I'll start out by saying that, despite it's flaws, I am a passionate believer in the superiority of democracy. And I know what you're going to say, but I truly believe that, in the end, true democratic governments are eventually answerable to their people, which is why I believe that any given administration can only get away with just so much before they have to start answering to their constituents.

However, what you said bears a lot of truth. If the people in a foreign country we're dealing with act in such a way that they can be demonized -- vile, evil terrorists -- then Americans will go along with that characterization. But this is where the Gandhi model comes into play, particularly in the age of global media. If those people are seen as holding the moral high ground, the bascially benevolent American people will eventually gain their respect and pressure their elected leaders to act honorably.

For examples:

Gandhi -- the British Empire ruled India with an iron fist, as long as the Indians could be characterized as savage heathens. But when Gandhi took the moral high ground with patient, peaceful civil disobedience, eventually he gained the respect of the British people, who pressured the British government.

Gandhi could never have survived under Hitler, Stalin or Mao, where the will of their people was irrelevent.

King -- Likewise with Martin Luther King. In the Soviet Union, King would have disappeared into the Gulag, never to be seen again. But because America is, at it's core, answerable to the people and the rule of law, and because King took and held the moral high ground... the government eventually had to submit.

Aquino -- In the Phillipines, the people peacefully demanded that we take our bases and get the hell out. Our government had no choice but to get the hell out, because American public opinion sympathised with them.

My favorite example is Israel and the Palestinians, and for the life of me I'll never understand why the Palestinians today can't see this. The closest the Palestinians ever came to their own state was during the first Intifada, when the major resistance was comprised mostly of kids throwing rocks. When the Israeli government reacted brutally, world opinion and, more importantly, Israeli public opinion began to sympathise with the Intifada because of their willingness to endure repression without resorting to major violence. Alas, only to tragically end with Rabin's assassination.

With the second Intifada, with it's proliferation of suicide bombers, the Palestinian resistance could once again be portrayed as evil savages, and Israeli public opinion set against them. However, if the Palestinians were to simply abandon their bombs and guns, take the moral highground and peacefully hit the streets enmasse to protest their treatment, I'd bet they'd have their own state in a year, becaue at it's heart, Israel is a benevolent, democratic society.

.

[rmnunez]

Yes, lots of qualifiers conditioning any success in Iraq and plenty of subjectivity in their importance and how they impair satisfactory performance. The US has failed to perform as promised, but not as completely as claimed. Its why I refered to the half-empty or full glass. Some people see Iraq as an unmitigated distaster, but there are positive effects and we all recognize some of these; Saddam's ouster, verifying there are no WMDs, instituting a representative goverment by the ballot and ending genocidical practices are all easily recognized positive outcomes. Failing to at least repair and maintain the infrastructure they damaged, the emergence of an insurgency, lack of adequate security and poor economic conditions are all readily recognized negative effects of the occupation.

Fortunately the shortcomings can be corrected, the US has the wealth and power to fix Iraq's infrastructure and maintain it, they are making inroads against the insurgency. Everything is related; with an adequately equipped and local trained military force and improvements in the infrastructure the insurgency will lose strength. If the united statians can train and equip another 25 thousand Iraqi regulars and with the 40 thousand already set these can provide sufficient protection for infrastructure repairs, with the excellent equipment, resources and know how of the Coalitioneers, things could easily improve quickly.

The Coalition needs to pick an area that can be used as a model, clear the region of insurgents and terrorists, establish a safe perimeter, man it with local military, recruit plenty of young disenfranchised Iraqis for the work crews and get them to the job site with all that heavy earth moving equipment. Hold up their accomplisments and the local benefits as an example of what comes with pacification. Do this a couple of times and Iraqis will come to realize things go better with the military working on waterworks and power plants rather than chasing down insurgents or terrorists.

[jose]

what i found interesting in raul´s link was the lack of noteing the date! :rolleyes:
¨The first thing that struck me about Baghdad when I saw it in April 2003, a few days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, was how poor it had become¨
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4825200.stm

[rmnunez]

Right, people were already complaining immediately after intervention that not enough had been done by way of 'nationbuilding'. I suspect many took up the banner of nationbuilding just because Bush had expressed his opposition to this, but nonetheless it is something necessary for success in "winning the peace" so the failures here reasonably are blamed. Three years later things are about the same, not much has been accomplished and lots of money allocated to the effort has disappeared.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Fortunately the shortcomings can be corrected, the US has the wealth and power to fix Iraq's infrastructure and maintain it, they are making inroads against the insurgency.

And I'm sure all America is waiting patiently. But with $500 billion now sunk into the black hole of Iraq, and Congress raising the debt ceiling to over $8 trillion to keep the U.S. from defaulting, I'm unclear how our "wealth and power" is going to miraculously accomplish what it hasn't be able to so far.


.

[rmnunez]

Most economic indicators reveal the US economy is growing at over 5% and accelerating, housing starts, tax revenues, real property value, exports and inflation all indicate the US economy is doing fine (the government's economy is in a shambles).

[jose]

, when I interviewed the Saudi foreign minister, I asked him why he thought the US was determined to invade Iraq.

He said he had put the same question to Vice-President Dick Cheney. Mr Cheney had replied: "Because it's do-able".

By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4894148.stm
an Interesting read

[whoracle]

Disclaimer: The below has no bearing other than idiocy.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Sometimes I think he says such outlandish things for the sole purpose of seeing if his herd will mindlessly allow it. I can envision him sitting back with a cigar and a brandy saying: "Holy shit! I can't believe they BOUGHT it!"

[jose]

On Friday, the Marines relieved of duty three leaders of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, which had responsibility for Haditha when the shooting occurred. They are Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and two of his company commanders, Capt. James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell. McConnell was commanding Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion, the unit that struck the roadside bomb on Nov. 19 and led the subsequent search of the area.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14298263.htm

HADITHA, Iraq - In the middle of methodically recalling the day his brother's family was killed, Yaseen's monotone voice and stream of tears suddenly stopped. He looked up, paused and pleaded: "Please don't let me say anything that will get me killed by the Americans. My family can't handle any more."

The story of what happened to Yaseen and his b