It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mystery of the Insurgency

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
This article cover alot of what I have been saying. These insurgents seem to be a couple gallons short of a full tank. Usually when you go around killing people like they have been, it's for a cause and you have some sort of goal in mind. These insurgents have no cause, they have no goals. They say they want to expel Americans, but they know (or should) that what they're doing will only keep us there longer. Are they trying to take over the country? Do they want anarchy instead of a civilized government? WHAT!?

The Mystery of the Insurgency


WASHINGTON — American forces in Iraq have often been accused of being slow to apply hard lessons from Vietnam and elsewhere about how to fight an insurgency. Yet, it seems from the outside, no one has shrugged off the lessons of history more decisively than the insurgents themselves.

The insurgents in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program or even a unified ideology or cause beyond expelling the Americans. They have put forward no single charismatic leader, developed no alternative government or political wing, displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern now.

Rather than employing the classic rebel tactic of provoking the foreign forces to use clumsy and excessive force and kill civilians, they are cutting out the middleman and killing civilians indiscriminately themselves, in addition to more predictable targets like officials of the new government. Bombings have escalated in the last two weeks, and on Thursday a bomb went off in heavy traffic in Baghdad, killing 21 people.

This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long-term strategy remains - and how the rebels' seeming indifference to the past patterns of insurgency is not necessarily good news for anyone.




Bunch of morons....




posted on May, 14 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
They dont care, they just want to kill people, they dont care who it is. Isnt this what has been said all along.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Hmm, that's a tough one indeed.

This quote from the article you posted might help


In Iraq, insurgent groups appear to share a common immediate goal of ridding Iraq of an American presence



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I think the Iraqi insurgents have learned from history. That being when the U.S. actually considers itself a victor, it stays in the country it occupies indefinitely much as Germany and Japan have come to find out. This is not Vietnam. The U.S. already has taken over the entire physical land area of Iraq and imposed upon them a new government. Which means that the target area becomes far wider in scope as now all facets of the country are subject to occupational rules. More Iraqis as a result are also working with the victorious occupational forces which makes them a far larger target. They are also fighting against the most well armed military the world has ever seen. It may be the case that attacks just can't reach the areas they wish so attacks are then reduced to lesser defended areas that can be hit. While creating some negative opinion about the insurgency to the populace, the violence itself certainly creates animosity towards their occupiers. Though this article already states this.

The insurgents also likely know they are working against the masters of propoganda. The United States government can basically make anybody believe anything they want them to believe, or at least muddy the waters enough to make people very doubtful about anything. Especially if they control the region in which attacks are taking place. Therefore reasons for attacks become more clouded as media is reduced to simply stating what occupational government forces want them to state. Insurgents who fear for their lives would have no voice in a media that could very well report their locations to occupational authorities.

[edit on 14-5-2005 by Frith]



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I think it's inaccurate to talk about "the insurgency" as if it was a unified whole.

The insurgency in Iraq seems to be a bunch of disparate groups with very different agendas, from Sunni Islamists to secular Ba'athists to pissed-off nationalists and criminals who see a chance to make a profit in the mayhem.

The lack of a clear and coherent strategy simply reflects the fact that there is not one "insurgency", but many simultaneous separate ones.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
basicaly it comes down to a battle of wills. can the "insurgants" kill enough to force the americans and alies to leave.

in reality the situation in iraq is not that differant than it was in france dureing ww2. in that instance it was the resistance against the "evil" geman occupiers and those who helped them, the collaborators. who is the enimy in this case? the "evil" american occupiers and those that help them, the collaborators. hmm not too much differant is it?

these people are fighting for their rights and freedoms as they see them. they are only trying to get rid of what they considder the faciast forces, the forces of tyrony. not everyone desires to be just like the americans. they have differant ideals. differant wants. and they are just trying to defend their way of life from those who have invaded to concur them. they are only trying to overthrow what they see very rightly as an opressor. i am sorry to say that i don't see things stopping untill they become victorious. if anything i can only see things getting worse. they will continue to do what they can to end this puppet statehood of the us. remember when you are fighting for freedom you realy don'tr care if you die so that your family might become free. they are more than willing to lay down their lives for the freedom that they seek.

by the way how many years have the irish been trying to fight off their occupying force? i believe it has been a few hundred years. i see those iraqies and their supporters doing the same thing. so the us had better strap in tight and be prepared to stay and spend money on the occupation, it may just take untill the year 2400 or so to do if they ever actualy do win. so do you have that much commitment? is your families willing to lay down their lives for a few hundred years to occupy iraq? are you willing to fit the bill as well for that long? hold on tight it may get a wee bit bumpy from now on. just as the irish have attacked london, you can probably expect the same from the iraqies all over the states, and probably the uk as well.we may even see a renewed effort from the ira as they join forces against the opressers from iraq and their supporters. after all is it not said "the enimy of mine enimy is my friend"?

ah well i guess some just don't learn from others mistakes and some don't learn from their own mistakes. and thus history might repeat it's self, yet again. hope that some countries can stomach what their governments have created. personaly i wish that this hadn't happened. or that some would see the need for this response. but i guess once you make your bed you have to lie in it.

how much better would things be if governments learned to mind their own bussiness. but of course they KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THE WORLD, and couldn't possibly be wrong .



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
by the way how many years have the irish been trying to fight off their occupying force? i believe it has been a few hundred years.


Well, if you're referring to northern Ireland, less than 100 years. Also a majority of the people that live there wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Xmotex got it all in one, it's not a unified front coming from the insurgency, there were only a few fairly organize factions, the former baath/Saddam factions which were dealt lethal blows with the capture of saddam, the execution of his sons and the capture/neutralization of the famous deck of cards which were the mastermind and money men of this faction. Then there is the foreign fighters organized through Al Zaquari (spelling) faction being what's left of a organized faction. More than half of the insurgents now are foreigners trying to achieve martyrdom and are not particularly rocket scientist to begin with. The brains of al-Qaida are the CIA trained Afghanistan vets from the eighties and those of similar experience and training, which with the war on terror and their quest for martyrdom are increasingly less and less. The a lot of the of the fighters know are the brainwashed byproduct of muslim indoctrination schools (majadras or something) which aren’t really education much beyond their anti western ideals and devotion to their brand of islam, then they get a minimal training if any and are sent to go off into jihad. And the beauty of it is if given enough room and a lull in the fighting these groups would all go after each other if it wasn’t for the US/new Iraqi govt. targets preoccupying them at the moment.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
in reality the situation in iraq is not that differant than it was in france dureing ww2. in that instance it was the resistance against the "evil" geman occupiers and those who helped them, the collaborators. who is the enimy in this case? the "evil" american occupiers and those that help them, the collaborators. hmm not too much differant is it?

these people are fighting for their rights and freedoms as they see them. they are only trying to get rid of what they considder the faciast forces, the forces of tyrony. not everyone desires to be just like the americans. they have differant ideals. differant wants. and they are just trying to defend their way of life from those who have invaded to concur them.

BS.
1. This is NOTHING like what happened in WW2 (I hate when people try to compare apples and oranges).
2. The innocents that these insurgents are blowing up aren't all helping the Americans. They're minding their own f***ing business. And the Iraqis who are "helping us" are really helping themselves and their country. The ultimate goal is peace right? So how is killing the people who are trying to bring peace (such as the Iraqi police officers) helping!?
Of course, peace is the goal of Iraqis, not these insurgents.
3. These people aren't fighting for their rights and freedoms. By doing what they are doing, they're DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE! How the (!!!!) is blowing up innocent people sitting in traffic fighting for your freedom?
The real fight for the Iraqis rights and freedoms happened in January when they voted. Just because these idiots don't believe in a civilized society, doesn't mean the rest of Iraq doesn't.
4. If these idiots were smart they would have realized by now, that causing death,destruction, chaos to defend their way of life of death, destruction, and chaos solves nothing.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
BS.
1. This is NOTHING like what happened in WW2 (I hate when people try to compare apples and oranges).


more like grany smith to delishious apples. it is quite simmiler to what happened in ww2. excepting of course that they were considdered to be "a force of good" by those who won. trust me the germans considered them no more than isurgants and terrorists. yup they even blew up and killed "innocent civilians" to try to take out germans.


2. The innocents that these insurgents are blowing up aren't all helping the Americans. They're minding their own f***ing business. And the Iraqis who are "helping us" are really helping themselves and their country. The ultimate goal is peace right? So how is killing the people who are trying to bring peace (such as the Iraqi police officers) helping!?
Of course, peace is the goal of Iraqis, not these insurgents.


actualy those not actively helping defend against the agressors, tend to be considdered colaborators. YOUR view of those helping the us are only helping themselves and their country. just the same as those who collabourated with the germans were only trying to help themselves and their country.

just like those who were helping the germans acting as police under them were considdered collabourators of the worst sort. so are those iraqis being police under the opressor americans, colabouraters of the worst sort.

peace is not the isue at all. the overthrowing of the opressors is the goal, then they may be wanting peace. i would remind you that insurgant is a conveiniant lable for those who are against any government. i think that they are considdering themselves "freedom fighters".


3. These people aren't fighting for their rights and freedoms. By doing what they are doing, they're DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE! How the (!!!!) is blowing up innocent people sitting in traffic fighting for your freedom?
The real fight for the Iraqis rights and freedoms happened in January when they voted. Just because these idiots don't believe in a civilized society, doesn't mean the rest of Iraq doesn't.


it has helped before why not this time? when people are fighting for their freedom one must bear in mind that there are NO innocents. there are only two sides viewed, those actively or passively resisting, and those on the other side. i might ask how blowing up a cafe to get a couple of germans and killing civilians as well, was fighting for freedom? but since their side won they are HEROES.

all the elections are to them is the putting in place of a puppet regime government. it is not seen as something for freedom. who said that they are uncivilized? they just happen to believe in a FREE iraq. not an iraq under the boot heels of the americans. to them these elections were nothing more than a farce, an attempt to pretend that they are in power.


4. If these idiots were smart they would have realized by now, that causing death,destruction, chaos to defend their way of life of death, destruction, and chaos solves nothing.


being smart has nothing to do with it. the only thing that they care about is to be free of the opressors, AT ANY COST. and again, it has worked before so why not now?

[edit on 15-5-2005 by drogo]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
thatsjustwierd
In my opinion, the situation in Iraq is a mirror image of what happened in France. Look at some of the techniques the French Resistance used, and ask yourself, if that's not terrorism, what is?

The reason people are so skittish about this comparison is clear as day, it puts America in the shoes of the Nazis. This is old news to some, who came up with these comparisons just after 9/11, comparing it to the Reichstag fire.

Just put yourself in their shoes, if you can...

Somebody invades your city, to liberate you from your government, what do you do? People will answer differently, conflict arises. It's an old story, and it's more than a little predictable.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Well, let's see, the guy we said was the big number 2 alqeda man turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, Saddam's wife said we were holding the wrong guy, we can't find dialysis toting, Bin Laden even though CIA was meeting with him in an american hospital in Dubai just weeks before
9-11...

and now, after we announce another major player of the terror organization has been hit by by a CIA Predator Aircraft turns out to bologna as well.



charter.net...
Pakistan Denies Report of al-Qaida Killing
Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:53 PM EDT
The Associated Press

Pakistan on Saturday denied a media report that an unmanned CIA Predator aircraft killed a senior al-Qaida operative near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border earlier this week.

ABC News, quoting unidentified intelligence sources, reported Friday that senior al-Qaida operative Haitham al-Yemeni was killed by a missile fired from an unmanned CIA Predator aircraft.

But Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Amhed told The Associated Press that, "No such incident took place near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border."

A U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan, Lt. Cindy Moore, said forces from the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan were not involved in such an incident, but she couldn't say whether it had taken place.

The CIA has declined to comment on the report.

Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror, earlier this month arrested Abu Faraj al-libbi, reputed to be al-Qaida's No. 3 leader.

ABC News said that after the capture of al-Libbi, officials decided to strike at al-Yemeni rather than risk that he would go into hiding.


Just who the hell are really spending all that money chasing around and fighting?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I see where you guys are coming from with the analogies to france, I for one am not for putting a pretty face on something to make myself and others feel better about it. But what the french "insurgents" and the Iraqi insurgents wanted overall for their people are 2 completely different things. F

For one the french resistance was by far 90-95+ percent french with foreign "advisors", the insurgents in Iraq are at the very least 40-45 percent foreigners, and from what people who I know in Iraq tell me the number is much higher than that.

The French wanted to get rid of a totalitarian, genocidal regime bent on full on war with the rest of world. Say what you want about the US (trust me I got plenty, trust me) they do give you a certain amount of freedom (more than most anybody else would). No sane, rational/objective human being can blame the Us of active and full on genocide. And we may like to stick our noses in way too many places for a price/benefit of course, it's not the same as the germans.

The insurgents are after one of 2 things and neither of them is close to freedom or close to what freedom the US would bring forth. They either want to have saddam or someone of his ilk re-instated to get things back to status quo (I'm sure we all know the FACTS of saddams PR policies) or they want and fundamentalist taliban type government (and we know how things were there). Either one of these cases isn't going to be a cumbaya (spelling?) picture, Im sure we can all agree on this regardless of your own pro/anti US bais. Mass tortures and death squads under saddam and the same goes for the Taliban. The French weren’t fighting to installed anything remotely similar to either of these governments.

As for the tactics and selective name callings, here I tend to agree with you guys, MOSTLY. The one place I don’t, and it’s what my own personal definition of terrorism is, it’s the deliberate targeting of non government/military aligned targets OVER military/government targets. I respect somebody who is willing to fight and die regardless of why or who there are fighting, if it’s against my personal/national interest I’ll have no problems going after you because I’m fighting for my beliefs. If you go out of your way to target and slaughter Innocent civilians don’t try to make your self look like mother Theresa and own up to your actions. I say American/coalition forces, and Iraqi police/soldiers are fair game, government officials, and direct employees of the government/military/coalitions are also fair game as far as that goes, its war and not some polka dot dance contest. Now if you choose to target a Mosque full of playing women and children, or a civilian bus stop (had to throw in Israel), or pizzeria/night club, or anything of the like when you have military and/or government targets available then that crosses the line and own up to it. I mean the US military goes out of it’s way to limit collateral damage not just out of altruism (it’s just a perk) but for public relations/image, can you say that insurgents try to or even care to limit the damage they do?

And look at just what these people are fighting for, don’t let your anti-american/Bush views blind you to just take up anybody’s side against them. Say what you want but we are not going to set up a systematic torture/death squad system like saddam had, even their Olympic teams where tortured and killed. Can any sane, rational person actually think that the US is going to set up such a system? And the women will have some rights unlike what a Taliban like government would bring and these people would have greater personal freedom than they would have under any other Middle Eastern type government outside of Israel. And you people seem to enjoy all your anti-american talk here do you really think that you would have the same abilities to criticize under any government these insurgents would set up? So like I said, I don’t like bush, I don’t really trust a lot of the people in his cabinet and I’m not a flag-waving, propaganda eating sheep either, but don’t let your own personal bias some how convince you that the insurgents would really bring a utopia to the peoples of Iraq (half of the insurgents aren’t even Iraqis) Most of the chaos in Iraq now is coming from the Insurgency, would a end to the wholesale mayhem that saddam had going is more favorable to a MOSTLY iraqi government who is would be getting screwed out of part of the percentage from the oil which would still be kept by the big cats no-matter who is behind Iraq.

The American way, it’s not any where near utopia, it’s close to all the propaganda the dish out left and right, but show me a better system? And at least we can all sit here call the leader of the most powerful nation in human history a complete motherless BLANK and whatever else you might want to think of and not worry about a government death squad coming for you or disappearing into some dark pit like you do in most of the rest of the world.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
For those who would like to know, there is no mystery in Inurgency. The Collins English dictionary translates insurgent as a person who takes part in an uprising or rebellion. I translate it as wimpish, wannabe politically correct jargon for Terrorist, which the same dictionary translates as the systematic use of violence, to coerse or control by violence, fear and threats, to inspire with dread. But please feel free to call them whatever you want, my message is not to correct your english but to tell you where they came from and why.
They have come to Iraq via the Wahhabi indoctrination of Islam. The official and only accepted version of Islam originating and exported by Saudi Arabia (affectionately known as Hatred's Kingdom) worldwide, in their effort to the spread of it's hard-line vision(nightmare to us infidels) and recruitment for Wahhabi's grand agenda of global jihad.
They don't care if you hate your goverment and rally for them,
They don't care that you understand them due to their repression and poverty,
They don't care if you're athiest or religious,
And they don't care to die...
Me, you and a dog named Boo are nothing but crusaders and infidels...
Skeptical? I dare you to visit the friendly local mosque in the Khamis Mushayt area of Saudi Arabia(religion of peace, right?) where you will be personally greeted by the radical Shiekh Ahmad al-Hawashi who recruited 5 of the 9/11 (insurgents) and still heads the local mosque.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I think the number of "foreign fighters" is consistently exaggerated for political purposes. I have no doubt that foreign jihadists are coming to Iraq to raise hell, but IIRC no less an authority than the US Army itself reported that only about 2% of the insurgents they had captured came from outside the country. I will try to find a link.

However I suspect the jihadists (both foreign and domestic) are behind the bulk of the mass casualty attacks against Iraqi civilians. There is noone more willing to kill innocents than a religious fanatic convinced that God is on their side.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out if you're serious or not. You sound serious....but....how can one be so ignorant?

Originally posted by drogo
excepting of course that they were considdered to be "a force of good" by those who won. trust me the germans considered them no more than isurgants and terrorists. yup they even blew up and killed "innocent civilians" to try to take out germans.

lol
The French had a goal. To expel German invaders. These insurgents have no goal. It certainly isn't to get rid of Americans, otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they're doing prolonging our stay there. The French DID NOT go around randomly blowing up their own citizens for no reason. These insurgents are.
The Germans also were a real enemy, a real conquering force.
We have only 100,000 troops there and are helping establish thier own government and restore order. Whether you want to believe it or not, that is a huge difference.



actualy those not actively helping defend against the agressors, tend to be considdered colaborators. YOUR view of those helping the us are only helping themselves and their country. just the same as those who collabourated with the germans were only trying to help themselves and their country.

bs again.
If that was the case, these insurgents should be blowing themselves up then.

These insurgents are collaborating more with US than the people they're blowing up. Well, the majority of the people they are blowing up are just innocent people who have nothing to do with the invasion and aren't police officers or anything. But by doing what they're doing, they're the one's prolonging our stay there as opposed to the police officers and military personnel who shorten our stay as they become more and more organized and grow in numbers.





peace is not the isue at all. the overthrowing of the opressors is the goal, then they may be wanting peace. i would remind you that insurgant is a conveiniant lable for those who are against any government. i think that they are considdering themselves "freedom fighters".

1. THEY ARE THE OPPRESSORS! I know you don't know anyone in Iraq so you don't get a chance to talk to anyone over there (hence, that's why you're posting this nonsense), but if you ever get a chance to....ask any of our soldiers who have talked with the Iraqis who they're more afraid of. The US or the insurgents. 9 times out of 10 the Iraqis will say the insurgents. Despite what you think, our 100,000+ troops is hardly enough to run their lives and "oppress" people. Believe or not (and I know you don't) but we're actually doing everything we can to help those people.

2. The insurgents have not called themselves freedom fighters so PLEASE, PLEASE do not do that. Defending those subhuman monsters is bad enough.



it has helped before why not this time? when people are fighting for their freedom one must bear in mind that there are NO innocents. there are only two sides viewed, those actively or passively resisting, and those on the other side. i might ask how blowing up a cafe to get a couple of germans and killing civilians as well, was fighting for freedom? but since their side won they are HEROES.

Please stop refering to WW2. Nothing like this has ever happened.
When has it worked before??
When has indiscriminately blowing up thousands of innocent people ever helped a cause?
Please show me.


who said that they are uncivilized? they just happen to believe in a FREE iraq. not an iraq under the boot heels of the americans. to them these elections were nothing more than a farce, an attempt to pretend that they are in power.

1. Blowing up innocent people who have nothing to do with anything with an end result of nothing changing vs. Voting to bring about change.
Which is the more civilized in the 21st century?

2. Even if they did believe the elections were a farce, how is blowing up innocent people going to change anything? How is blowing up innocent people bringing about a free Iraq? It's not. PERIOD. It's doing the OPPOSITE.


please stop defending this bastards who are causing more death, destruction, broken lives, and fear than we did when we invaded.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
They're supporting their cleric, so he can take over the Iraqi government. They may also just be Saddam loyalists dying for what they believe in.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Their political motivation centers around hate driven by religious dysfunction. Muslims under this influence are constantly prodded by zealots to believe the West is out to annihilate Islam in a Borg-like fashion. It doesn't take long to fill the insurgent ranks in a region that has been mired in turmoil and despondency for decades, if not centuries.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out if you're serious or not. You sound serious....but....how can one be so ignorant?


i am serious. i may not support what they are doing but i can understand why they are doing it. i am not the ignorant one here. that i leave up to people like you.


lol
The French had a goal. To expel German invaders. These insurgents have no goal. It certainly isn't to get rid of Americans, otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they're doing prolonging our stay there. The French DID NOT go around randomly blowing up their own citizens for no reason. These insurgents are.
The Germans also were a real enemy, a real conquering force.
We have only 100,000 troops there and are helping establish thier own government and restore order. Whether you want to believe it or not, that is a huge difference.


your hypocracy is not amuseing unfortunately. they certainly are trying to repel those that have invaded them. remember that anyone not helping to stop the ocupation would be seen as supporting it. as such they realy can not be considdered innocent. unfortunatly there are generaly considdered to be two sides them and us. just like any accupation, rebellion, civel war ect. i will also add that i doubt random has any real meaning here, you do things where you have the most to gain. trust me there is plenty to gain in causeing disturbances, death and destruction in any place the enimy holds power.

the fact that there may be only 100,000 does not mean anything. they are still an occupying force regaurdless. also i would think that with todays tech use in the armed forces that they actualy can project more power than the german occupiers dureing ww2.


bs again.
If that was the case, these insurgents should be blowing themselves up then.


what do you call suicide bombers? are they not killing themselves?


These insurgents are collaborating more with US than the people they're blowing up. Well, the majority of the people they are blowing up are just innocent people who have nothing to do with the invasion and aren't police officers or anything. But by doing what they're doing, they're the one's prolonging our stay there as opposed to the police officers and military personnel who shorten our stay as they become more and more organized and grow in numbers.


are you implying that you have inside info that says that these "insugents" are actualy in the employ of the states? in order to keep those forces there? intresting perspective i will admit. you could even be partialy right.

aside from that possibility they are trying to fight off the occupying forces to the best of their ability. they certainly wouldn't see it as prolonging the stay of the occupiers after all if a puppit government is in place then they will never realy be gone will they? as for the police force and armed forces from iraq they would be colaborators of the worst sort. again just as those who served under germany in france in the same types of possitions were.


1. THEY ARE THE OPPRESSORS! I know you don't know anyone in Iraq so you don't get a chance to talk to anyone over there (hence, that's why you're posting this nonsense), but if you ever get a chance to....ask any of our soldiers who have talked with the Iraqis who they're more afraid of. The US or the insurgents. 9 times out of 10 the Iraqis will say the insurgents. Despite what you think, our 100,000+ troops is hardly enough to run their lives and "oppress" people. Believe or not (and I know you don't) but we're actually doing everything we can to help those people.


WRONG. it is only your OPINION of the situation. you are correct i do not have any face to face contact with people over there. i wish i was able to and could afford it. i would just love to talk to the people about what they feel. includeing people such as sadam and ossama, as well as both the "insurgants" and those backing the states.

yes you do believe that this has all been done "for the people" that is what is so sad. just because that has been what you have been told does not mean it is true. oviously these insurgants don't believe it, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting at all.


2. The insurgents have not called themselves freedom fighters so PLEASE, PLEASE do not do that. Defending those subhuman monsters is bad enough.


so they are "subhuman" are they? i guess that makes it easyer to do what you want to them. afterall since they are not realy human and below you, then they are oviously not able to decide what is right for themselves and need to be controlled. also i guess that they should not be able to live life the way that they want to and need a real human to make their decisions for them.

freedom fighter/insurgant, i guess that lable depends on who's side that you are on. just as opressor/saviour is dependant on your views.



it has helped before why not this time? when people are fighting for their freedom one must bear in mind that there are NO innocents. there are only two sides viewed, those actively or passively resisting, and those on the other side. i might ask how blowing up a cafe to get a couple of germans and killing civilians as well, was fighting for freedom? but since their side won they are HEROES.


Please stop refering to WW2. Nothing like this has ever happened.
When has it worked before??
When has indiscriminately blowing up thousands of innocent people ever helped a cause?
Please show me.


hmm seems to me i just did tell you that. but you just don't want to believe it. in fact you have gone so far as to tell me to stop useing it as an example. how did it help? well because of the french insurgants they were able to tie up troops that could have been used to better effect elsewhere. either by being able to participate in an invasion or in some defenceive role. they helped tremendously in protecting britten and tyeing up force for the alied invasion.

it also seems to have worked in both vietnam and in afganistan . both yet again against supirior armed and numbered forces. besides what have they got to loose? if they stop then they already loose their freedoms as they see it.


1. Blowing up innocent people who have nothing to do with anything with an end result of nothing changing vs. Voting to bring about change.
Which is the more civilized in the 21st century?


why would they presume that voteing will work? after all it was set up and run by the opressors. therefore it was just a wee bit biased. then look at the farely recent calls of voteing problems in the states. if it can happen in the opressor's home country than why would it not exist in an effort to set up a puppet government. yet again another matter of viewpoint. they did not trust in an unbiased vote. so why would they put faith in that which they do not trust to be fair and impartial?

which would have been more civilized? attacking a country on false pretenses or letting them live in peace? they are fighting for what they think is right. what makes us any better them them in this situation? oh yea we are supposidly doing this FOR THEM, how dare they not want it. afterall we know whats best for them don't we.


2. Even if they did believe the elections were a farce, how is blowing up innocent people going to change anything? How is blowing up innocent people bringing about a free Iraq? It's not. PERIOD. It's doing the OPPOSITE.


how is the continued occupation bringing about a free iraq? sorry i forgot we know better them them what is best for them, therefore we have the RIGHT and the necesity to impose our will on them.

what they are hopeing to do is to force out the occupation to try to regain what they believe has been taken away from them. they are no more right in this than the invasion was to begin with, lets not forget that important thing. they see what they are doing as what they have to do to regain their rights and freedoms that the invasion and occupation has taken away from them.


please stop defending this bastards who are causing more death, destruction, broken lives, and fear than we did when we invaded.


and instead support those that caused this"death, destruction, broken lives, and fear" in the first place.

no thank you .personaly i don't support either side on this. now if the iraqies were to come up with a way to only attack the agressor occupying force, to throw them out on their collactive butts. then i might considder supporting them. as it stands we need to try to rely on things like the un to charge and prosecute those who started all of this by invadeing a sovern nation. too bad i don't see this happening too soon. just goes to show how biased that organization is. guess we will just have to let them fight it out.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
drogo do you really think that the baath/saddam insurgents or the religous/taliban like insurgents are really going to offer a more freedom and a better life than the american puppet government would? like I said before we know what went on in iraq when saddam was in power (yo gotta be a complete BLANKING Idiot to think that was an ideal situation) and we know how the taliban ran afghanistan. Even been an american puppet they would have greater freedom than the vast majority of the middle east. The only real damage being cause in iraq now is a direct result of the insurgency.

Let’s get pass the right and wrong argument, because anybody with half a brain would know that anybody who is willing to die for something thinks he is right. Bypass for a second if you can your obvious bias against America and ask yourself under whom would Iraqis have a better future (not Ideal or Perfect mind you), or let’s put it this way who you really want to live under, a psychopath like saddam and his sons, a Taliban type government or a puppet US government who would just be giving them an extra sweet deal on Oil and fork over some space for some military bases to intimidate their neighbors mostly who don’t particular like Iraq to begin with and would have not qualms about attacking it. So come on get off your anti-American horse for a second and honestly think, do you think that a puppet US government is worse than a Taliban-style or a psychotic dictatorship with a systematic torture and death squads. I mean look at germany and japan, they should lived and matured in a complete hell hole thanks to American occupation, 2 of the richest and most industrialized nations in the world I would frankly prefer to live in either of those countries the way things are going here.

Like I said the whole selective name calling (terrorist/name calling) irks me a lot, I for one don’t need the added FALSE justifications of name calling to agree or disagree, it’s quite shallow if you simply go by whatever labels the powers that be choose to imposed on something. So like I asked before, do you honestly believe that saddam or the religious zealots are going to honestly offer the Iraqi people a better way of life than what the US would bring, I mean saddam has killed hundreds of thousand more Iraqi than the Americans, the insurgency is on the way to surpassing the death toll from all American operations in Iraq and their collateral damage the way they are going.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join