.A Message From The Iraq Resistance

Well spoken. Sadly I couldn't agree more.



I can blame them for indiscriminate bombing that kills women and children. I can blame them for choosing violence when they are faced with the possiblilty of transforming their country through peaceful elections. The country is being offered autonomy and self rule by election. No US soldier or official will be voting in the election. The Iraqi people will be deciding the fate of their country. There is no need for violence unless you are a radical power hungry killer who has no chance of winning the hearts and minds of the people. Those who truly want reform and control of their country should campaign to win the hearts of the people of Iraq and then place their own candidates in the upcoming election. Anything else only perpetuates the hatred and violence of the Sadaam years and his downfall.

Can you Blame them? Yes I can and do. These men, no matter their eloquent propaganda are Murderers and criminals not freedom fighters for they are being offered freedom and choose violence instead.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
I don't think this guy is a part of the "resistance"

There is no such thing as Iraqi Resistance. There are only the
insurgants and terrorists (foreign and domestic terrorists).

The INSURGANTS are the ones fighting the legitimate
democratic government of Iraq. They are the ones killing
their own Iraqi brethren in large numbers, in a murderous effort
to try to stop the democracy train from pulling into town.

The insurgants murder their own and commit evil acts against
their own .... blowing up oil pipelines .... which hurt all Iraqis.

No such thing as an Iraqi resistance.

[edit on 12/17/2004 by FlyersFan]

Hey, I just ran this through a bull# translator and this is what it came out as...

People of the world! These words come to you from those who up to the day of the invasion were fighting the regimes of the infidels whilst residing in nations such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. We are simple people who chose principles of Jihad and acts of terror over fear for our own lives. We have not suffered crimes nor sanctions, but we welcome the chance to fight the infidels. Years and years of agony and despair, while the condemned Saddam Hussein traded with our oil revenues in the name of his own greed. Over two million innocents died waiting for a light at the end of a tunnel that only ended with the capture of Saddam. After the crimes of the administration of Saddam and the Baathists in Iraq , we have chosen our future. The future of every resistance struggle ever in the history of man. The right to impose our own warlords, and to become rich from the Iraqi citizens, as Saddam once did.
It is our duty, as well as our right, to fight back the occupying forces, which their nations will be held morally and economically responsible; for what their elected governments have destroyed and stolen from this land, before we could steal it for ourselves.
We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. While we did cheer them on in their plight, and continue to despise the West, we have not yet been successful in those endeavors. These are only a few of the many goals which have not been able to accomplish. It is Ironic that the Iraqi's are to bear the full face of this large and growing conflict on behalf of the rest of this sleeping world, as we feel we must do everything in our power to prevent the rebuilding of Iraq, and the establishment of sovereignty, before we can take it for ourselves.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by marg6043

US as a nation is not the evil of the world, but its policy makers and administration is, and remember anything they do they do it with the power and in the name of the people of this country.

This statement is ludicrous in light of the history of US foreign policy. Compare the "evil" that this nation has done in the last 20 years to any other regime in the last 500 years that has been thought of as evil and you will find that this nations policies are more akin to the Brooklyn tabernacle choir than to the great Satan. What other nation shells out billions of dollars in foreign aid to nations and peoples who have nothing to offer in return? What other nation conquers and then seeks to return sovereignty as soon as possible? What other nation financially supports and supplies a world body that continues to be one of its greatest policy enemies?(UN) What other Evil nation will reach out with a hand of friendship to nations that have worked actively and corruptly to subvert its national policies? (think oil for food scandal) To call this nation evil shows a lack of historical perspective on what an evil nation is and does. Either that or is shows a total lack of understanding of what evil is.

Originally posted by Johannmon

This statement is ludicrous in light of the history of US foreign policy.

Sorry I don't believe in "Satan" but I do believe in evil governments and evil men in power, so everything our country has done to help other comes with a price of loyalty and if any other countries disagree they are tag cowards and ungrateful.

Perhaps you need a refresh on American history and policy making against foreign countries our past and present administrations had their dirty trail easy to follow.

Wake up and smell the stench of most politicians and leaders, as for any consolation, this country is not the only one but is the most powerful one.

They are terrorists, whether or not some of them in particular were responsible for 911 is irrelevant.[edit, didn't mean for it to be in bold, just noticed the error]

Of course its relevant; how is it not? These people are asking to fight the onslaught of western capitalism, not to wage an all out war for rancor reasons.

Do you think margaret hassan would've agreed with it

Do you see these people claiming to be the ones responsible for her death? Do you think 100,000 dead Iraqis would have agreed with Bushs statement that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the U.S? Do you think they would have agreed with them while they ebetted him for decades and kept hush about the attrocoties he commited against his own people and others?

Lets not be naive. The insurgents aren't fighting to get rid of the US and install, what, an iraqi democracy? They have a democracy. Yes, the current council was selected by the US, but they seem to have some popular support, and it doesn't really matter anyway since they are going to have popular elections for a council that will draft a constitution and government for their people to look at and ratify. What 'other' plan does the resistance have? And if the concern is secret corporate influence on them, then what would armed resistance help? If they are tangled up with the US British and other armies, how are they going to stop the 'monied powers'?

Tell me, what did armed agression against them help the Iraqi people to begin with? These peoples fates were written when the U.S. decided not to intervene when Saddam was far more dangerous than he was now : while he was under thier wing.

This is not a democracy, this is a government who has already seeped free-market enterprise, and written the Iraqi constitution to help further insure that Iraqis have little say in their government. The Americans are the very ones who have in recent decades sufficed "security" over "personal" liberties; the Americans own democracy is highly suspect and rampant with religious zealots who have waged more illegal wars this century than any other country combined; if not, ebetted those of other countries: Indonisea for example.

When these people do not see any other way to resolve this situation, what would you ask of them? To complain to the United Nations? What other countries will listen to the plight of these people and intervene in this illegal war?

Your thoughts and hopes are with a group of people that are kidnapping women and civilians and butchering them on tv, and all for what exactly? What does anyone think will happen in Iraq if the Coalition leaves? Peace? Hasn't anyone noticed that the insurgents have been attacking kurdish cities and shi'ite mosques recently? Does anyone actually think that this will stop if the US leave? Darfur will look like a humanitarian relocation program to the terror and chaos that will be in iraq. Without a general dislike for the 'capitalists' the insurgents will start shredding each other apart, and then whats everyone going to want? Intervention? Peacekeeping? Or are the same people who's 'hopes' are with these vicious butchers going to be content to let arab kill arab and kurd?

These people have not claimed anything you suggested above. Tell me, why are these people 'butchering' innocents? They must have been cuasualy nessicitated, correct? Tell me if the invasion into thier country had anything to do with it.

These people want self-determination, something, we, here in the west, laud above all other things. Democracy is not the greatest means to this goal, not if mankind keeps engaging in wars, allows famine to traverse the globe, and utterly commite acts of genocide against our fellow mankind.

You want to help these people in Iraq? Tell America to find an alternative energy source...

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

Of course its[complicity in 911) relevant; how is it not? These people are asking to fight the onslaught of western capitalism

Since when? THe rhetoric and reasons they state have less to do with capitalism and more to do with politics and ideology. Bin Ladin is from a capitalist family and supported by them. These terror groups are funded by capitalists in the region. There is an undercurrent of anti-capitalism to the movement, but this probably has more to do with communist propaganda in the middle east, a hold over from the cold war, than anything else. Even the baathists/pan-arabists use this rhetoric, where the muslims as a whole are the proleteariat and the west is 'capitalism' itself.

But the question was the 911 connection. You had siad that the iraqi terrorists didn't do 911. I said that that in itself is not a requirement for the US to attack them in this Terror War.

not to wage an all out war for rancor reasons.

ANd those reasons are US bases in saudi arabia and US support for Israel and US involvment in middle eastern affairs, not the success of western corporations in middle eastern markets. They aren't trying to gain control of the means of production for the public or redistribute islamic wealth thruought the region. They do use communist like propaganda when it suits them, but if they were successful, they're still be capitalism, or at the very least the domination of a wealthy status holding class over the rest of the population.

Do you think margaret hassan would've agreed with it

Do you see these people claiming to be the ones responsible for her death?

Are they or are they not the Iraqi Resistance? THey haven't claimed to have done anything in this letter. THe resistance attacks civilians. These guys are saying that they are the resistance. Therefore, they attack civilians. Its possible that the people that wrote it are wearing uniforms and have officers and only attack military targets, but we don't know who they are, all we know is that they are the 'iraqi resistance'. And more than anything the Iraqi resistance has been killing civilians.

Do you think 100,000 dead Iraqis would have agreed with Bushs statement that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the U.S?

I very much doubt that they did. Do you think margaret hassan would've agreed with the resistance or not?

Do you think they would have agreed with them while they ebetted him for decades and kept hush about the attrocoties he commited against his own people and others?

The hypocrisy and horror of waiting so long to do something is undeniable. Then again, what if the US invaded back then? Do you think that there wouldn't have been a resistance?

Tell me, what did armed agression against them help the Iraqi people to begin with?

Armed agression against the germans seemed to have worked out pretty good for them. And the Japanese. And the Italians. The idea is workable, invade a country that is undemocratic and install a democratic regime. In the French Revolution, the Revolutionary French Army marched across the whole of europe reorganizing states, knocking down monarchist regimes, even ones that were relatively popular, and replaced them with democracies. They created to a large degree modern europe. Seems to have worked out pretty well for the europeans.

These peoples fates were written when the U.S. decided not to intervene when Saddam was far more dangerous than he was now : while he was under thier wing.

Agreed, it was disgusting and inexcusable. So now the US is not supposed to actively intervene because of that? And the US didn't create hussein, it supplied him to fight the iranians. What if the US had invaded shortly after he came to power? The US would be perceived as jingoistic invaders and everything woudl be the same as it is now.

This is not a democracy, this is a government who has already seeped free-market enterprise, and written the Iraqi constitution to help further insure that Iraqis have little say in their government.

The iraqi consitution has not been written. The january elections are about as democratic as an election can be and are for representatives to a national constitutional convention. The current interim authority was influenced by the US, but its just a provisional presiding authority. Obviously there can't be an invasion followed by immeadiate elections.

The Americans are the very ones who have in recent decades sufficed "security" over "personal" liberties;

Irrelevant. If the americans want to sacrifice their liberty for security thats their business and they are doing so in a democratic context. If the iraqis want to create a constitution wherein the koran is the authority for their law, businessses are regulated by a central iraqi ethinic authority and no foreign businesses are allowed, then that's what they'll get. THey are getting a democracy, they are electing representatives to create their new government.

the Americans own democracy is highly suspect

I understand that you are critical of it, but that criticism doesn't have any bearing on whats going on. If the US was a totalitarian dictatorship with a hereditary king, it wouldn't make any difference to who the iraqis elect and what those electors make as their constitution.

When these people do not see any other way to resolve this situation, what would you ask of them?

To expect to be killed if they take up arms and not to expect anyone to care when they are killed. Their other option is to organize, protest, garner support, and participate in the elections and influence their upcomming constitution. What exactly are the insurgents fighting for? Tyranny? They are given elections. They have been given democracy. All they have to do is vote and participate. It doesn't matter if the US is corrupt of if the US is sinister. If there is voter fraud, that a different thing, if the US 'steals' the iraqi election and creates a constiutional assembly that creates a constitution that the iraqis don't want, then thats another story. But what, honestly, do you think is reasonable about the demands of the insurgents? They are interfereing with the election process, they are murdering people in elections offices. Do you actually think that they want democratic elections?

What other countries will listen to the plight of these people and intervene in this illegal war?

What is illegal about the war? War is not illegal. Targeting civilians and holding illegitimate religious courts in the field and executing people is illegal. Fighting with no command structure and out of uniform is illegal, or at the very least a blatant breaking of the geneva conventions. The resistance here are the criminals fighting an illegal war.

These people have not claimed anything you suggested above.

Gosh, what a surprise, they haven't said that they are brutal savage murders. They've only presented themselves as honest people struggling against an enemy because they have to.

Tell me, why are these people 'butchering' innocents? They must have been cuasualy nessicitated, correct? Tell me if the invasion into thier country had anything to do with it.

Irrelevant. Invasion does not legitimatize targeting and murdering civilians. The US has invested a large amount of resources to creat weapons that are more effective at killing the legitimate enemy, as opposed ot having massive population casualties. It didn't need to do that. Instead of expensive cruise missles, laser guided bombs, and computerized smart bombs, it could've just carpet bombed entire cities. In chooseing the more effective and less deadly to civilians method, the use takes on much larger money costs and doesn't get the added 'benefit' f having a broken and defeated population to occupy. If the population of Iraq, especially cities that are real problems now, had suffered casualties like germany did, then the occupation and reconstruction would probably go as smoothly as the german reconstruction. But the US -chose- not to do that, it chose to not only not target civilians, but to develope and use weapons that purposely avoided civilians. The resistance can certainly be faulted for specifically and wantonly targeting, killing, capturing and murdering civilians. Absolutely nothing is stopping them from attacking their legitimate targets, which, if they were a legitimate resistance, would be the coalition military. Sabotague of oil piplines and industry would also be legitimate I beleive, and undoubtedly civilians would die as a result, but thats entirely diffrerent from taking hostages.

These people want self-determination, something, we, here in the west, laud above all other things.

This is preposterous. The resistance is attacking election offices. What is self determination if not being able to vote for your own representatives nad govenrment?

Democracy is not the greatest means to this goal, not if mankind keeps engaging in wars, allows famine to traverse the globe, and utterly commite acts of genocide against our fellow mankind.

Self-determination and democracy, whether representative or direct, are synonyms. What else do you suggest if not democracy?

You want to help these people in Iraq? Tell America to find an alternative energy source...

How about killing everyone that attacks the elections and tries to take over the country instead? And letting the population make its own government? But how would a non oil based economy do anything? It would return that portion of the world to insignificance (at least arabia). How does that affect self-determination either way?