> That's pretty strong stuff, a
> persuasive justification of the Iraqi
> resistance - it's amazing the NYT
> would host it. It's not what their
> reporters are writing or saying.
Right. It's an op-ed video. In that case, does the NYT do fact checking or is it only up to the authors to ensure accuracy?
The screen with the text below surprised me a lot. With Pentagon figures, these guys belie the picture pushed by the White House and echoed by the media of internecine war, sectarian strife, Al Qaida type terrorist attacks against civilian victims, etc. That's not the way Iraqies seem to be looking at it.
The attacks against Iraqi forces and civilian targets are over 1/4 of all the attacks. At first sight, that's a lot. But the voices in the video claim that -- as long as these attacks are conducted by nationalist insurgents -- they tend to isolate those in the Iraqi forces and civilians who act as willing collaborators. The figures about the popularity of the nationalist insurgency are also impressive.
When did the Pentagon release the stats below?
* * *
>From April 2004 thru May 2007 an average of 74% of significant attacks
in Iraq were aimed at the U.S.-led coalition forces.
16% of attacks were directed at Iraqi forces and 10% at civilian targets.*
* Based on Department of Defense figures.