Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Insurgents: Terrorists or Minutemen?

Insurgents: Terrorists or Minutemen?
Thread Tools
Joshua
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 11:49 AM
 
Suicide bombers plow van into mosque

Four suicide bombers drove a minibus loaded with explosives into a northern Baghdad Shiite mosque early Friday, killing 14 civilians, many who had gathered for morning prayers, police said.

The bombing was part of a wave of simultaneous attacks in Baghdad that killed 25 people, including 11 Iraqi police officers killed in an attack on their station, in addition to the bombers.

Dr. Sabah Kadhim, senior adviser to Iraq's minister of the interior, said 19 civilians were wounded in the mosque attack in the Sunni al-Adhamiya neighborhood.

At about the same time as the bombing, insurgents fired five rockets at the al-Adhamiyah police station, but no injuries were reported.

Another Baghdad police station came under attack.

An Iraqi police officer from al-Bayaa police station in the al-Amil district said more than 20 insurgents, driving 11 vehicles, stormed the station, carrying rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. Eleven Iraqi police officers were killed and five others wounded.

The insurgents also freed more than 20 prisoners in a cell at the police station, which straddles the road to the Baghdad airport. The road has become one of the city's bloodiest locations.
A number of posters here have voiced their support for the insurgency in Iraq and refuse to label the insurgents "terrorists." Does that still hold true, given that these attacks -- which are clearly focused on Iraqis and not the US military forces -- are becoming more common?

Do you still support the insurgency? If so, why?
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 11:57 AM
 
I'll just answer the question you asked in your subject line beacause I don't like the comparison some make to the Iraqi insurgents and the American revolution. I really think that Bush wants a self-governing Iraq in which freedom and equality are respected above all else. The insurgents want an Islamic republic ruled by Islamic law which inherently violates the rights of several groups of people.

The British empire in the 1700's was on the side of tyranny, not freedom. The colonies wanted self-government in the name of freedom. Britain wanted to rule the colonies in the name of their king. That's the distinction.

The problem we're running into is shoring up support for our cause. People in Iraq, because of the incompetence of the Bush admin, just don't believe us. Pure and simple.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 01:06 PM
 
Most of the insurgents try and attack only military targets, and in particular these do not take hostages. While I do not support their goals, these would fit the category you describe as "Minutemen". I wouldn't call them legitimate (rebellion is illegal, after all), but they are honorable at least.

There are, however, some psychos who go beyond this. These are the people who kidnap, threaten, and kill innocents. These are terrorists. It is unforunate that they have attached themselves to the more honorable insurgents, to the point where the lines often get blurred and people forget that one group or the other actually exists. They are neither all one nor all the other, though fortunately most of them fall into the honorable group.

This is important to remember. There are honorable fighters among the insurgents. There are also terrorists. Despite the efforts of the latter to blur the line between them so as to legitimize themselves, there is a clear line.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Abu Bakr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
This is important to remember. There are honorable fighters among the insurgents. There are also terrorists. Despite the efforts of the latter to blur the line between them so as to legitimize themselves, there is a clear line.


The only thing I have to add is that I support the insurgents and that I hope they prevail.
If Palestinians are expected to negotiate under occupation, then Israel must be expected to negotiate as we resist that occupation.
- Marwan Barghouti -
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 01:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
The only thing I have to add is that I support the insurgents and that I hope they prevail.
I don't, but those who fight honorably (in whatever way that term applies) should at least be recognized for that. They do not deserve to be lumped in with the terrorists that have attached themselves to their cause.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 01:53 PM
 
... If people had only done supposedly "legal" things, we would still be stuck at the stone age: insurgency is almost a duty, when things are no longer tolerable. Terrorism is not, of course - and also (besides being inhuman) quite counterproductive for substantial changes...

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
Abu Bakr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 01:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't, but those who fight honorably (in whatever way that term applies) should at least be recognized for that. They do not deserve to be lumped in with the terrorists that have attached themselves to their cause.
Very true. And I understand that many in the west will not support the rebels(freedom fighters was what you called them in Afghanistan) but at least it is good that some can tell the truth like you just did while still disagreeing with them.
If Palestinians are expected to negotiate under occupation, then Israel must be expected to negotiate as we resist that occupation.
- Marwan Barghouti -
     
Joshua  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 03:23 PM
 
Well, then the prevailing opinion seems to be that there are three groups at work in Iraq right now: the rebel-insurgents, the terrorist-insurgents, and the US forces. Which of these three more focused on returning sovereignty to Iraqi's as quickly as possible? Which one is is working to stabilize the country and stop the random murders? Which one is taking the most pains to avoid civilian deaths?

Personally, while I think you can distinguish between the rebel-insurgents and the terrorists on an ideological level, I don't think they're distinguishable in what they're doing to the country: both are working hard to create an atmosphere of lawlessness; both are working to undermine efforts to build a representative government; both are committing acts that jeopardize the lives of innocent Iraqis; etc. ad nauseum.

And I'm not sure I buy the fact that these rebel-insurgents really have the best interests of Iraqis in mind. If they did, wouldn't they be focused on driving out the terrorists that are blowing up Iraqi police stations/mosques and butchering aid workers?

(For the record, I'm not saying the US forces in Iraq are anything like benevolent; they're working towards American best interests. But if you're supporting the insurgency, it's worth pausing and considering whether in this situation American best interests [namely, making the region peaceful and democratic and then getting the troops the hell out] coincide with Iraqi best interests.)
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 05:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Joshua:
Which of these three more focused on returning sovereignty to Iraqi's as quickly as possible?
All three groups claim to be focused on this.
Which one is is working to stabilize the country and stop the random murders? Which one is taking the most pains to avoid civilian deaths?
Although it could be argued tht the US troops are trying the hardest, the rebel-insurgents seem to be having a good deal more success when it comes to not killing bystanders. I believe that the US collateral damage is in fact accidental, and this makes things easier to forgive, but you can't ignore the fact that when the dust clears after a skirmish, far more innocents die from US bullets than rebel ones.

Why is this? I don't claim to know. At this point, it's nothing more than an observation.
Personally, while I think you can distinguish between the rebel-insurgents and the terrorists on an ideological level, I don't think they're distinguishable in what they're doing to the country: both are working hard to create an atmosphere of lawlessness
Here, I think it's possible to differentiate between the rebels and the terrorists. Certainly the terrorists are working to create an atmosphere of lawlessness. The same cannot, however, be said for the rebels, who have a pretty clear picture of the sort of law they want to set up. It is that vision which leads me to oppose them, but as a vision it does exist.
both are working to undermine efforts to build a representative government...
Here I agree with you, though the rebels wouldn't. As the rebels see it, their vision of an ideal Iraqi government is representative. It just represents something other than the people; it represents an ideology. This is why I oppose it, and I would oppose it regardless of the ideology it represented, even if I agreed with what it claimed to represent.
And I'm not sure I buy the fact that these rebel-insurgents really have the best interests of Iraqis in mind.
I agree with you that they don't, but they certainly think they do. Their goal is not to dominate, as the terrorists' goal is; the rebels believe that Iraq will be a better place if they are in charge. They don't believe they have any hope of being elected (and they're probably correct as far as that goes, whether or not the elections are honestly conducted), and so they have decided to use force. Democracy is not a priority for them; they are concerned only with doing what they believe to be The Right Thing. If something is good, the reasoning goes, then who cares if it is done democratically?
If they did, wouldn't they be focused on driving out the terrorists that are blowing up Iraqi police stations/mosques and butchering aid workers?
They believe that once they are in power, the terrorists will stop, and that in the meantime "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Very simplistic and naive, yes, but it's what they believe.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 05:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
but you can't ignore the fact that when the dust clears after a skirmish, far more innocents die from US bullets than rebel ones.
Source?
     
Joshua  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2004, 06:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
All three groups claim to be focused on this.
Fair enough; my statement wasn't clear. When I said "returning sovereignty to the Iraqi's" I was trying to indicate a representative government, which I don't think either group of insurgents is trying to achieve.

Although it could be argued that the US troops are trying the hardest, the rebel-insurgents seem to be having a good deal more success when it comes to not killing bystanders. I believe that the US collateral damage is in fact accidental, and this makes things easier to forgive, but you can't ignore the fact that when the dust clears after a skirmish, far more innocents die from US bullets than rebel ones.

Why is this? I don't claim to know. At this point, it's nothing more than an observation.
You either have a very narrow definition of the rebels or we've been reading completely different news. Do you have a source for that? Some of the worst civilian casualties have come from the police station bombings, and as we've heard in threads around here, those are legitimate targets for the rebels due to their "collaboration" with the US.

Here, I think it's possible to differentiate between the rebels and the terrorists. Certainly the terrorists are working to create an atmosphere of lawlessness. The same cannot, however, be said for the rebels, who have a pretty clear picture of the sort of law they want to set up. It is that vision which leads me to oppose them, but as a vision it does exist.
I don't see that distinction. The rebels eventual goal might be order (perverse as it may be), but attacking peace keepers (Iraqi police/national guard and US troops), bombing infrastructure and oil facilities, hiding in the civilian population, etc. creates chaos. And given that the US troops aren't likely to cut and run, that chaos will continue as long as the rebels keep fighting.
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2004, 02:22 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Source?
Good point. Off to Google to see what I can find.

I would expect more innocents to be getting killed by US actions for 3 simple reasons:
Our heavy guns a jet-planes don't deliver selective ordinance. Anyone in their paths will get wasted. The insurgents have car bombs and IEDs at most ... nothing on the scale of what we have used.
Insurgents are more likely able to make a snap judgment about who is friend and who is foe. I mean ... the foes are in uniform carrying M-16s, yes? How many US troops can distinguish an insurgent from a civilian in the heat of battle?
Our explicit methodology ignores the distinction sometimes. For examle, we aren't awfully selective in Fallujah ... we just warned the civ pop that they need to get outta dodge. We broadcast in advance that we weren't going to be troubling ourselves too much with the status of anyone still in the city when we came in.

[edit]
Well, I quickly found reference to the Lancet study (the one claiming 100k deaths). Whether or not their numbers are correct, another of their conclusions was that the bulk of violent civilian deaths came from aerial bombing in the cities. Does anyone have any counter evidence to say that this isn't the case? Not really what I'd call an "unexpected" conclusion.
[/edit]
( Last edited by Krusty; Dec 4, 2004 at 02:29 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 06:30 AM
 
To answer that question: just try to reverse the situation to your country -- what would you do?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Joshua  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 11:21 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
To answer that question: just try to reverse the situation to your country -- what would you do?
If my country had suffered under a brutal dictator for decades, and a foreign power stepped in to try to establish a democracy, I sure as hell wouldn't use that foreign power as an excuse to start murdering my fellow citizens.

Here are a couple more examples of that noble insurgency at work:

U.S.: 21 Iraqis killed in three attacks

A total of 21 Iraqis -- 17 civilians working for coalition forces and four Iraqi security personnel -- were killed Sunday in three separate insurgent attacks, U.S. military officials said.

The 17 civilians died when insurgents attacked them as they were going to work near Tikrit about 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, officials said.
Car Bombers Strike Near Green Zone, 7 Dead

A double suicide car bomb attack devastated a police station just outside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone on Saturday, killing seven people and wounding 57 in the latest strike against Iraq's beleaguered security forces.

Another suicide car bomber destroyed a bus carrying Kurdish militiamen in Mosul, killing seven, and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades also fought street battles with U.S. troops in the northern city for a second day.
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:06 PM
 
Insurgents = Cowards = Belong in Canada.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Joshua:
If my country had suffered under a brutal dictator for decades, and a foreign power stepped in to try to establish a democracy, I sure as hell wouldn't use that foreign power as an excuse to start murdering my fellow citizens.

Here are a couple more examples of that noble insurgency at work:

U.S.: 21 Iraqis killed in three attacks



Car Bombers Strike Near Green Zone, 7 Dead
But the Iraqis have suffered for years from the embargo imposed on them by (among other states) the US as well as attacks on civillians, e. g. from air strikes by the USAF. The image they have from the US is probably not the best.

I'm not defending anything those Iraqis do here, but I think your idea of the Iraqis' feelings towards the US is a bit naive.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:22 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
But the Iraqis have suffered for years from the embargo imposed on them by (among other states) the US as well as attacks on civillians, e. g. from air strikes by the USAF. The image they have from the US is probably not the best.

I'm not defending anything those Iraqis do here, but I think your idea of the Iraqis' feelings towards the US is a bit naive.
BS.

The "Embargo" was a farse thanks to France, et all, especially the UN!

It was a failure, and had zero impact on anything in Iraq, except to fuel (pun intended) Saddam's billions, and weapons development. He was as strong as ever, and quite capable of torturing, killing his own people as well as the Kurds.

Sounds like you *are* defending the actions of the insurgents here, the Iraqis are with those who want freedom in their country.

I think your idea of who the insurgents are and what Iraqis feel stem from ignorance. They are not Iraqi.
     
Abu Bakr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:42 PM
 
Originally posted by koogz:
BS.

The "Embargo" was a farse thanks to France, et all, especially the UN!
You do know that the US has veto power in the UNSC don't you? They didn't use it and in fact they supported the embargo.

It was a failure, and had zero impact on anything in Iraq, except to fuel (pun intended) Saddam's billions, and weapons development. He was as strong as ever, and quite capable of torturing, killing his own people as well as the Kurds.
Simply wrong.

Sounds like you *are* defending the actions of the insurgents here, the Iraqis are with those who want freedom in their country.

I think your idea of who the insurgents are and what Iraqis feel stem from ignorance. They are not Iraqi.
They aren't Iraqis? Where did you get that from?

oh and

If Palestinians are expected to negotiate under occupation, then Israel must be expected to negotiate as we resist that occupation.
- Marwan Barghouti -
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
You do know that the US has veto power in the UNSC don't you? They didn't use it and in fact they supported the embargo.

Simply wrong.

They aren't Iraqis? Where did you get that from?

oh and

The UN is being investigated for kickbacks. Didn't you hear? Also, France was kicking back to Saddam. This was unknown to the US, even with it's veto power, if one does not know the wrong doing is taking place, a lot good the VETO does.

You are simply wrong.
Laugh all you want, it shows your immaturity, and lack of understanding of serious issues.
     
Abu Bakr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:50 PM
 
Originally posted by koogz:
The UN is being investigated for kickbacks. Didn't you hear? Also, France was kicking back to Saddam. This was unknown to the US, even with it's veto power, if one does not know the wrong doing is taking place, a lot good the VETO does.

You are simply wrong.
Laugh all you want, it shows your immaturity, and lack of understanding of serious issues.
The UN is being investigated? I'm sorry but you are wrong. People working for the UN is being investigated. Keywords: People and investigated. So there you are wrong.

And the US was the one that helped put the embargo in place and was not trying to get rid of it.

And perhaps you should stop the personal attacks. Just to show your "maturity".
If Palestinians are expected to negotiate under occupation, then Israel must be expected to negotiate as we resist that occupation.
- Marwan Barghouti -
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 12:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
The UN is being investigated? I'm sorry but you are wrong. People working for the UN is being investigated. Keywords: People and investigated. So there you are wrong.

And the US was the one that helped put the embargo in place and was not trying to get rid of it.

And perhaps you should stop the personal attacks. Just to show your "maturity".
No, the UN is being investigated. The UN is made up of people. That is like saying the "People who work for Enron" were being investigated, not the "Company Enron".

I remain correct.

The US did help place the embargo on Iraq. What is wrong with that? The Countries who violated the embargo by accepting kickbacks from Saddam are at fault here.

- France
- Russia
- Germany
- The UN

Source 1
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 05:14 PM
 
Originally posted by koogz:
BS.

The "Embargo" was a farse thanks to France, et all, especially the UN!

It was a failure, and had zero impact on anything in Iraq, except to fuel (pun intended) Saddam's billions, and weapons development. He was as strong as ever, and quite capable of torturing, killing his own people as well as the Kurds.

Sounds like you *are* defending the actions of the insurgents here, the Iraqis are with those who want freedom in their country.

I think your idea of who the insurgents are and what Iraqis feel stem from ignorance. They are not Iraqi.
I don't think you understand my post.
It wasn't my opinion, but rather the impression that a lot of the Iraqis have.

Again, for you: not my opinion.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 09:25 PM
 
*The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle.... If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. - Frederick Douglass

As much as I deplore the violence I recognize it is necessary, for all three interests to fight. Though not all three are equal.

One interest would impose the yoke.

The second would throw off the yoke.

The third fears all yokes but can't seem to tell who would harness them.

The absence of a successful Iraqi popular revolt during Saddam's regime (which some posters unrealistically cited as proof the Iraqis don't deserve freedom, or our help in becoming free) doesn't mean they aren't hungry for self-determinism.

In January the people will have a chance to show their revolutionary spirit; and "NO," the elections should not be delayed.

Only now, the peoples' courage will not be in vain. People will be killed attempting to vote. They will be killed by the extremists (working with 'dead-enders' - thugs, criminals and former Baath Party members who fear a democratic government) and by misguided Iraqi freedom fighters. Most Iraqis would have to understand this. But, at least the freedom loving Iraqis stand a chance now, where under Saddam it was impossible.

If they don't turn out to vote, then that may be something to consider.

* There is often in people to whom "the worst" has happened an almost transcendent freedom, for they have faced "the worst" and survived it. - Carol Pearson

I hope the Iraqis' terrible suffering will metamorphose into qualities (defiance, courage, strength and wisdom...) often gained through revolution, and grant them a requisite sense of transcendence to make their statement to the insurgents, the terrorists, the world.

"This is OUR country. WE shall decide!"

Of course, if this tragic fight for freedom only paves a road to a "freely chosen" enslavement (through habit, deceit or familiarity), then that may also be something for us to consider.

It might mean some of the liberal posters were right. Maybe the Iraqi people aren't able to handle liberty and self governance after all.

If, as a result of a free and fair election, the Iraqi people don't choose freedom and democracy...and IF the US withdrew (both are very unlikely) I'd predict it would be a very long time before the Iraqi people ever come as close as they are now, to real freedom.

How ironic it would be for the Iraqis to voluntarily, knowingly risk becoming just one more spoke in an Axis of Evil.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 10:10 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
*The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle.... If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. - Frederick Douglass

As much as I deplore the violence I recognize it is necessary, for all three interests to fight. Though not all three are equal.

One interest would impose the yoke.

The second would throw off the yoke.

The third fears all yokes but can't seem to tell who would harness them.

The absence of a successful Iraqi popular revolt during Saddam's regime (which some posters unrealistically cited as proof the Iraqis don't deserve freedom, or our help in becoming free) doesn't mean they aren't hungry for self-determinism.

In January the people will have a chance to show their revolutionary spirit; and "NO," the elections should not be delayed.

Only now, the peoples' courage will not be in vain. People will be killed attempting to vote. They will be killed by the extremists (working with 'dead-enders' - thugs, criminals and former Baath Party members who fear a democratic government) and by misguided Iraqi freedom fighters. Most Iraqis would have to understand this. But, at least the freedom loving Iraqis stand a chance now, where under Saddam it was impossible.

If they don't turn out to vote, then that may be something to consider.

* There is often in people to whom "the worst" has happened an almost transcendent freedom, for they have faced "the worst" and survived it. - Carol Pearson

I hope the Iraqis' terrible suffering will metamorphose into qualities (defiance, courage, strength and wisdom...) often gained through revolution, and grant them a requisite sense of transcendence to make their statement to the insurgents, the terrorists, the world.

"This is OUR country. WE shall decide!"

Of course, if this tragic fight for freedom only paves a road to a "freely chosen" enslavement (through habit, deceit or familiarity), then that may also be something for us to consider.

It might mean some of the liberal posters were right. Maybe the Iraqi people aren't able to handle liberty and self governance after all.

If, as a result of a free and fair election, the Iraqi people don't choose freedom and democracy...and IF the US withdrew (both are very unlikely) I'd predict it would be a very long time before the Iraqi people ever come as close as they are now, to real freedom.

How ironic it would be for the Iraqis to voluntarily, knowingly risk becoming just one more spoke in an Axis of Evil.
Interesting.

To take your own reasoning would mean that for Iraqis to gain freedom, they need to make a revolution.

1) Get your troops out of there and see what happens.
2) If they hate those insurgents, they'll take care of them.

Your patronizing has no bounds... And your own reasoning is so flawed, it is amazing you can type!

Btw, I don't believe any Liberals here ever psoted anything in the oder of Iraqis unable to "handle liberty and self governance after all.". More like your own hallucinations...
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 10:21 PM
 
Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Interesting.

To take your own reasoning would mean that for Iraqis to gain freedom, they need to make a revolution.

1) Get your troops out of there and see what happens.
2) If they hate those insurgents, they'll take care of them.

Your patronizing has no bounds... And your own reasoning is so flawed, it is amazing you can type!

Btw, I don't believe any Liberals here ever psoted anything in the oder of Iraqis unable to "handle liberty and self governance after all.". More like your own hallucinations...
Do you mean:

The Iraqis need to *start* a revolution? (not make one)

How do you suppose they do that? They've been opressed for their entire lives, and have no capabilities. Furthermore, if you have any understanding of the area, you would know they need us to get them under way. (i.e. Post WWII Germany)

You are amazed he can type? I'm amazed at your ability to breath and type at the same time. It's ever entertaining how someone in these forums criticizes others of spelling or grammar, while making horrible grammatical errors themselves!
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2004, 11:48 PM
 
Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Interesting.

To take your own reasoning would mean that for Iraqis to gain freedom, they need to make a revolution.

1) Get your troops out of there and see what happens.
2) If they hate those insurgents, they'll take care of them.

Your patronizing has no bounds... And your own reasoning is so flawed, it is amazing you can type!

Btw, I don't believe any Liberals here ever psoted anything in the oder of Iraqis unable to "handle liberty and self governance after all.". More like your own hallucinations...
Sorry if my post gave you that impression. I was trying to say that there have been posters who suggested because the Iraqis hadn't successfully toppled Saddam on their own, that they weren't deserving or worthy or something. I STRONGLY disagreed with that point of view.

However, I can see that in the same way giving birth to a revolution and fighting for ones freedom can imbue a people with certain qualities.

It is my hope that in lieu of an actual revolution, that the sufferings of the Iraqis since Saddam will suffice to bring out that same kind of yearning for freedom and appreciation of it that is often present in peoples who have fought an actual "revolution."

This war has been a revolution of sorts, so I hope it counts.

What your post fails to take into consideration is the failure of the good people of Iraq to to even "take care of" the terrorist outsider elements in Fallujah. They are being intimidated and bossed around in their own country, in their own city, in their own HOMES by jihadists.

from: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/ne...aq/10166880.htm

Foreign fighters now reviled by Fallujah residents

By Hannah Allam

SAKHLAWIYA, Iraq - The fighters came to Fallujah last year with piles of cash, strange accents and a militant vision of Islam that was at once foreign and fearsome to residents emerging from nearly 30 years of Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

Yet out of custom and necessity, tribal locals offered their Arab guests sanctuary and were repaid with promises to help keep American forces out of the town. This week, with U.S. troops battling their way through the Sunni Muslim stronghold, several Fallujah residents said it had been a grave mistake to trust the foreigners who turned their humble stand against foreign occupation into a sophisticated terror campaign.

Once admired as comrades in an anti-American struggle, foreign fighters have become reviled as the reason U.S. missiles are flattening homes and turning Iraq's City of Mosques into a killing field. Their promises of protection were unfulfilled, angry residents said, with immigrant rebels moving on to other outposts and leaving besieged locals to face a superpower alone.

The fact that Iraqis are turning away from foreign terrorists, however, doesn't necessarily mean that they're turning toward the United States and Iraq's U.S.-backed interim government.

"We didn't want the occupation and we didn't want the terrorists, and now we have both," said a Fallujah construction worker who gave his name as only Abu Ehab, 30. "I didn't think the Arabs would be so vicious, and I never thought the Americans would be so unmerciful."

How foreign jihadists came to make Fallujah their base is a cautionary tale for other Iraqi cities that might receive fighters in search of a new place to plot bombings and beheadings. The most notorious foreign rebel, Jordanian militant Abu Musab al Zarqawi, is still at large despite a $25 million price on his head. The violence that's rocked several other Sunni areas since the Fallujah battle began also suggests that insurgents are broadening the battleground now that they've lost one of their havens.

American-led forces launched Operation Dawn, so named to signal a new day for Fallujah residents, to wrest control of the dusty city 40 miles west of Baghdad from rebels. U.S. military officials believed the insurgents' leaders were foreign fighters who earned their stripes in Afghanistan and were importing their guerrilla war to Fallujah.

Within the first hours of battle, top military officials predicted that most foreign insurgents, including al Zarqawi, had left the area. So far, the military has confirmed only a handful of foreign nationals among the 600 fighters it estimates have been killed in Fallujah.

"I personally believe some of the senior leaders probably have fled," Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told reporters on Tuesday.

The Bush administration has faced criticism that it overstated the presence of foreign fighters in Fallujah to justify a prolonged occupation of Iraq, minimize Iraqi resentment of the American presence in Iraq and tie its war in Iraq to its battle against Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization.

Likewise, interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has blamed much of Iraq's mayhem on al Zarqawi and other foreigners, minimizing homegrown opposition to his government. He's drawn condemnation from prominent Sunni politicians and clerics who've withdrawn from his government and announced a boycott of national elections set for January.

Fallujah residents, most of them now displaced by the fighting, said there were hundreds of non-Iraqi Arabs in town before the offensive began on Monday. However, they added, the ties of brotherhood had mostly unraveled and the remaining foreign fighters had tried to intimidate residents into staying as human shields.

A rebel-allied cleric who goes by the name Sheik Rafaa told Knight Ridder that Iraqi rebels were so infuriated by the disappearance of their foreign allies that one cell had "executed 20 Arab fighters because they left an area they promised to defend."

Other residents said foreign militants wore out their welcome months ago, when they imposed a Taliban-like interpretation of Islamic law that included public floggings for suspects accused of drinking alcohol or refusing to grow beards. Women who failed to cover their hair or remove their makeup were subjected to public humiliation. Those accused of spying for Americans were executed on the spot, residents said.

The turning point for a young man named Hudaifa came the day he saw a Yemeni fighter whipping an Iraqi in a public square. He recalled his humiliation this week in a conversation with other Fallujah residents now in Baghdad. Still fearful, the men asked that their last names not be published.

"An outsider beating an Iraqi in his own town?" Hudaifa asked, outrage still in his voice. "It's such a shame for us."

His friend Amer interrupted: "But we have to respect them. They left their families to come fight with us."

When they swept into Fallujah from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and North Africa, the Arab fighters told wary residents that God favors believers who give up their homes and travel to defend Islam.

"God has preferred the strivers above the sedentary with a great reward," they quoted from the Quran, Islam's holy book. "Whoever emigrates in the cause of God will find in the earth many a refuge, wide and spacious."

The Arab visitors portrayed themselves as the Muhajireen, the storied emigrants who in ancient times journeyed with the Prophet Muhammad to the holy city of Medina in what's now Saudi Arabia. The tribes of Fallujah were cast as the Ansar, the legendary "helpers" who offered the prophet's people refuge and loyalty.

Several rebel sources confirmed that al Zarqawi had settled in Fallujah until recently, running his group, which recently said it had allied itself with al-Qaida, from farmhouses and even downtown buildings. Some even claimed to have seen al Zarqawi; others only know him as a myth spoken about in hushed conversations as Sheik Ahmed or The Emir, the leader.

In a Sept. 11 audio recording posted on the Internet, al Zarqawi boasted that Muslim holy warriors had humiliated the Americans through "the brotherhood of jihad, both Muhajireen and Ansar."

Indeed, al Zarqawi loyalists won favor during the first U.S. invasion of Fallujah, an April offensive that ended with Marines withdrawing and installing an Iraqi proxy force. Foreign fighters took credit for the outcome and invited more outsiders into the city, residents said.

"When the Marines stepped back in April, the foreigners grew stronger, so they persuaded their friends to come and help them hold the victory," said Ali Jarallah, 32, a Fallujah resident now living in a cramped camp with other displaced locals.

But then came the wave of foreign hostage-takings, many ending with gruesome beheadings broadcast for the world to see. Zarqawi also claimed responsibility for massive bombings that spilled the blood of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

Aghast, Fallujah residents began drawing distinctions between their own fighters, who favored mainly military and police targets, and foreigners encouraged by the fear they inspired through spectacular attacks.

When the military build-up for Operation Dawn began, local tribes and Iraqi fighters wanted to negotiate with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. In several interviews, Iraqi rebels, negotiators and residents insisted that it was the foreign elements who scotched a peaceful settlement.

U.S. air strikes began pounding their city, and hopes of peace evaporated. Families fled to nearby villages. When they returned to check on their homes, many found small groups of foreign fighters camped out in their living rooms.

Abu Omar Daoud, for example, opened his front door this week to the surprise of eight militants hiding in the house that his family had fled. Only two were Iraqis, said the 35-year-old truck driver. The rest were Syrians.

Daoud said he demanded that the men leave immediately. The fighters rose, reached for their guns and told him he was being impolite. They said they'd come to "defend Iraqis and their honor and their families," Daoud recalled Thursday.

"I yelled at them, `don't you know where my family is, the ones you came to defend? We're refugees,'" Daoud said. "We are living in a school. If my house is destroyed, who will fix it?"

If he kicked them out, Daoud figured, he faced two choices: die in a U.S. air strike or be killed as a traitor by the militants. He shut his front door and walked away.
Oh, and someone actually did say that or something to that effect.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2004, 12:09 AM
 
The side that shows it can protect the people best...or AT LEAST NOT VICTIMIZE THE PEOPLE...will have the advantage in winning their hearts and minds.

This might help explain why we've seen increased attacks on the police and Iraqi military. It is THEY who the people depend on for protection.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2004, 06:36 PM
 
Originally posted by koogz:
BS.

The "Embargo" was a farse thanks to France, et all, especially the UN!

It was a failure, and had zero impact on anything in Iraq, except to fuel (pun intended) Saddam's billions, and weapons development. He was as strong as ever, and quite capable of torturing, killing his own people as well as the Kurds.

Sounds like you *are* defending the actions of the insurgents here, the Iraqis are with those who want freedom in their country.

I think your idea of who the insurgents are and what Iraqis feel stem from ignorance. They are not Iraqi.
Ok, either you missed or ignored the last paragraph. Either way, reread it.

Judging from the reactions of (apparently many) Iraqis, Americans are not recieved as the White Knights you wish they would be seen as. I'm not defending them. I'm simply trying to answer parts of the question in the title.

Also, to simply `expel' all insurgents/terrorists/minutemen from Iraq (so that there is no `Iraqi' resistance) is pure ignorance on your part. Like it or not, but (at least parts of) the resistance is Iraqi resistance, justified or not is another question.

What you think of the UN and the effectivity of the sanctions (not embargos) is irrelevant to the question. Make a separate thread if you wish and stick to the topic.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Joshua  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2004, 06:51 PM
 
Western Media Misinforming About Iraq, Says Kirkuk Prelate

The Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk criticized Western media "misinformation" about his country and insisted that Iraqis are looking forward to elections "because they will be useful for national unity."

"It is not all death and destruction," explained Archbishop Louis Sako in an interview Tuesday published by AsiaNews.

"Much is positive in Iraq today," he said. "Universities are operating, schools are open, people go out onto the streets normally." He did acknowledge that "where there's a kidnapping or a homicide the news gets out immediately, and this causes fear among the people."

Yet, "there is no organized resistance" in Iraq, the prelate insisted. "Those who commit such violence are resisting against Iraqis who want to build their country.

"Iraqis instead are resisting against terrorism and are not carrying out attacks, which instead are the work of foreign infiltrators. I have stressed this before: Saudis, Jordanians, Syrians and Sudanese have entered Iraq. Prime Minister Allawi has said this as well. And clearly, there are also Iraqi collaborators who, for money, help the terrorist hide."

According to Archbishop Sako, to overcome this crisis, Iraqis must "manage themselves."

"We have a government now that is setting up elections, and those who want to run for government can do so, freely," he explained.

The archbishop said that the "war being fought by the terrorists is senseless." If they want an "open, modern and democratic Iraq" they "can register to vote, negotiate with the new government, and use the instruments of dialogue," he stressed.
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
Joshua  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2004, 01:36 AM
 
The brave insurgency wins another noble victory for the Iraqi people by bombing a funeral procession and a bus station, as well as dragging an election official out of his car and executing him. No doubt, the 70 dead were all deserving collaborators.
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 03:25 PM
 
It's not a "brave insurgency": it's a desperate insurgency (quite different thing!), which could have been avoided - if...

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Originally posted by Sven G:
It's not a "brave insurgency": it's a desperate insurgency (quite different thing!), which could have been avoided - if...
If, what?

If we let the UN fcuk things up for another 12 years, and did NOTHING except allow it's members and family of members do dispicable criminal undermining of their resolutions?

Hogwash!

Desperate insurgency is right. They don't want democracy in the middle east, and they never want peace. There is, and never was any goal for peace in the middle east by anyone in the UN. It's about time one of it's members took the lead though, THE USA, and did something about it by LEADING. Just as we have always done in every war.

WWII - 9 year occupation in Japan until they held elections, 3-5 years in Germany, and we are still in both countries with our presence.

How many here think our democracy in the USA supresses religious freedoms? (Except for the Christians of course, who are demonized at every turn.)

Democracy in the Middle east would do nothing to harm the religion of the region and the Muslum world. They would flourish. The only desperate ones are those countries along-side who would be next naturally by their own citizens. Freedom is contageous!

God bless the USA.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 04:00 PM
 
Originally posted by koogz:
Insurgents = Cowards = Belong in Canada.

Anytime Koogz... come up anytime and I will show you just what a coward you are for making a comment like that.

Another childish comment from a racist, prejudice, illiterate idiot to attempt to hijack a thread and turn it into Canada bashing. You want to see cowards... look at your fellow Americans who are torturing handcuffed prisoners and shooting men on their knees. Just like they are making the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq look stupid, so do you for every intelligent American I know. You truly are the most un American person on this board.

So while the adults are debating intelligently on this thread, and most American soldiers fight bravely, YOU, the coward, sit in your ivory tower and make comments like above. I will tell you what.. when you send me a copy of your registration papers so that YOU can go to Iraq and show people how brave YOU are, then I will change my opinion of you. Until then you should refrain from calling anyone a coward.

Now that the child has jumped in with his dribble, let's return the thread to the topic at hand.
     
koogz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by James L:
[B]Anytime Koogz... come up anytime and I will show you just what a coward you are for making a comment like that.

Another childish comment from a racist, prejudice, illiterate idiot to attempt to hijack a thread and turn it into Canada bashing. You want to see cowards... look at your fellow Americans who are torturing handcuffed prisoners and shooting men on their knees. Just like they are making the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq look stupid, so do you for every intelligent American I know. You truly are the most un American person on this board.

So while the adults are debating intelligently on this thread, and most American soldiers fight bravely, YOU, the coward, sit in your ivory tower and make comments like above. I will tell you what.. when you send me a copy of your registration papers so that YOU can go to Iraq and show people how brave YOU are, then I will change my opinion of you. Until then you should refrain from calling anyone a coward.

Now that *I* the child has jumped in with his dribble, let's return the thread to the topic at hand.
Who did I call a coward? The INSURGENTS. I said you can HAVE THEM along with the other cowards that go AWOL to Canada.

Fixed.
Don't threaten people on the internet. It doesn't make you look very good.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 05:04 PM
 
Originally posted by koogz: It doesn't make you look very good. [/B]
Actually in your case I think it makes me a very good judge of character... or lack thereof.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 05:34 PM
 
settle down kids
     
Abu Bakr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 05:37 PM
 
Originally posted by Joshua:
The brave insurgency wins another noble victory for the Iraqi people by bombing a funeral procession and a bus station, as well as dragging an election official out of his car and executing him. No doubt, the 70 dead were all deserving collaborators.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4116487.stm

This is the brave rebellion many of us are talking about. Those who attack the US military. Unfortunately the western media doesn't show much of that and try to focus on the terrorists that have gotten a place to be thanks to the US invasion.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4116107.stm
If Palestinians are expected to negotiate under occupation, then Israel must be expected to negotiate as we resist that occupation.
- Marwan Barghouti -
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 06:24 PM
 
Minutemen fought for the right of self-determination through voting and elections. These "insurgents", or terrorists, in Iraq are fighting to prevent just that.
( Last edited by spacefreak; Dec 21, 2004 at 06:53 PM. )
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2004, 08:11 PM
 
Interestingly enough, while the British empire was classified as tyrannical, the American revolution was actually caused by radicals. Many groups, including the "Sons of Liberty" group didn't reflect the actual consensus of the populace. Much like in Iraq, a few small, but very radical groups managed to push everyone else into a war, for better or worse.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 08:03 AM
 
Originally posted by koogz:
Just as we [the US] have always done in every war.
Interesting, how many wars were fought by the US, in which the US actually changed something for the better? Hmm, just two if you count the war against Japan and the one against Germany in ww2 as two wars. In both of those wars other nations achieved more than 75% of the warfare, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc and the Soviet-Union against Germany, and China, North-Corea, Australia, etc and the Soviet-Union against Japan.

The Corea-war just served for reestablishing the status quo, that north-corea tried to change. The US tried to "liberate" the north after the status-quo was achieved, too, in that golden opportunity but China entered the war. Just imagine it, the Corea-war changed into a "China vs USA"-war, wow! The US wasn't able to defeat the chinese army and so everything stayed like it was.

In Vietnam the US tried to liberate the people from communism and lost and then led a secret bombing campaign against Cambodia, during which hundreds of thousands of civilians died, in order to stop the invading Vietcong from conquering Cambodia. Pol Pot and his farmer-regime, that killed millions, was the result of that intervention.

Before Hitler came to power in Germany (through a democratic election by the way), there was a democracy, so it was easy to reestablish democracy there.

Taliesin
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 07:36 PM
 
Originally posted by goMac:
Interestingly enough, while the British empire was classified as tyrannical, the American revolution was actually caused by radicals. Many groups, including the "Sons of Liberty" group didn't reflect the actual consensus of the populace. Much like in Iraq, a few small, but very radical groups managed to push everyone else into a war, for better or worse.
It's nothing like Iraq.

Our 'radicals' wanted representation. Iraq's radicals want to disallow populace representation.

Furthermore, the Sons of Liberty didn't kill thousands of uninvolved citizens. That's another big difference.

The only similarity is that they are both small, militant groups. Cause-wise, they are complete opposites.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,