Terrorists and insurgents intent on civil war.

news.yahoo.com...

no doubt Zarqawi as a Sunni and a Jordanian does not give a dam about wat happens if the Shiites and Sunnis kill each other who are both Muslims. it seems he is determined to let both sides kill each other that could result in hundreds of thousands of Muslims dead. i wonder wat Osama has to say about dat who is the leader and defender of the Muslim population.

Al-Duleimi, a Sunni Arab, said insurgents killed 230 civilians last week alone, while only 13 Iraqi soldiers and policemen were slain.

good post delta! just imagine what could happen if we pull out and leave them to it!!

You could also entitle this thread, "US letting Iraq fall apart", or "Freedom Fighters and Resistance Infiltrating Political Factions" or "I Thought Bush Said Mission Accomplished?" or "The Reprocussions of Nation building"
Guess it depends on where you get your news.

how did you come up with this title? "US letting Iraq fall apart", the US is doing a fine job at reducing the numbers of insurgents in iraq who are causing all these problems! i am sure if you ask the people all they want is iraq back to its former glory and get back on with life, why do they destroy what we build in iraq? why damage the water supply and power stations? this only makes life harder for the innocent people who want to get passed all this "resistant" b******k's and live the way they should...

Screw the resistance and insurgents you will never beat the coalition and contractors! we are here until you are stopped regardless of the time it takes!

think the phrase "stubbon as a mule" applies to both sides right now!

Before the US/UK invasion there were no insurgents in Iraq, now there are lots. QED

Most are there because they've come in to kill the invader or are home-recruited and reacting to the invasion.

If UK invaded the US or France invaded UK most of us would take up arms, become 'insurgents' and be convinced we too had 'right' on our side.

In WW2 we had forces assigned to execute British collaborators, sympathisers and suspects after a German invasion - this would have involved bombings, snipers etc etc. Churchill's intention was to provoke savage reprisals ensuring no (or less) collaboration. He would have been branded a terrorist / insurgent / murderer.

I'm not defending them or their cowardly actions but to solve the problem you have to at least appreciate why they're so motivated and 'busy'.

The reason for their actions is that their country has been invaded & occupied by 'the Great Satan' and the old imperialist power and their mineral wealth exploited for the invader's benefit. You can see their point.

Probably another reason we are seeing a sharp increase in 'insurgency' there is because some of these people haven't had clean water, power or sewage in two years, and we just announced to the world that there were no WMD's there. We also announced we wouldn't clean up the Depleted Uranium we powdered their country with, and we told them that the 12 billion dollars we allocated to rebuild their infrastructure was handed over to security and military forces. Just my speculations, but I'd say that might have something to do with it as well.

Originally posted by CTID56092
Before the US/UK invasion there were no insurgents in Iraq, now there are lots. QED

Most are there because they've come in to kill the invader or are home-recruited and reacting to the invasion.

If UK invaded the US or France invaded UK most of us would take up arms, become 'insurgents' and be convinced we too had 'right' on our side.

In WW2 we had forces assigned to execute British collaborators, sympathisers and suspects after a German invasion - this would have involved bombings, snipers etc etc. Churchill's intention was to provoke savage reprisals ensuring no (or less) collaboration. He would have been branded a terrorist / insurgent / murderer.

I'm not defending them or their cowardly actions but to solve the problem you have to at least appreciate why they're so motivated and 'busy'.

The reason for their actions is that their country has been invaded & occupied by 'the Great Satan' and the old imperialist power and their mineral wealth exploited for the invader's benefit. You can see their point.

so it is a good reason for their actions that against the occupation they decided to intentionally kill innocent Muslims in mosques or targeting Christian churches or commit martyrdom on mourners?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by CTID56092
Before the US/UK invasion there were no insurgents in Iraq, now there are lots. QED

Most are there because they've come in to kill the invader or are home-recruited and reacting to the invasion.

If UK invaded the US or France invaded UK most of us would take up arms, become 'insurgents' and be convinced we too had 'right' on our side.

In WW2 we had forces assigned to execute British collaborators, sympathisers and suspects after a German invasion - this would have involved bombings, snipers etc etc. Churchill's intention was to provoke savage reprisals ensuring no (or less) collaboration. He would have been branded a terrorist / insurgent / murderer.

I'm not defending them or their cowardly actions but to solve the problem you have to at least appreciate why they're so motivated and 'busy'.

The reason for their actions is that their country has been invaded & occupied by 'the Great Satan' and the old imperialist power and their mineral wealth exploited for the invader's benefit. You can see their point.

so it is a good reason for their actions that against the occupation they decided to intentionally kill innocent Muslims in mosques or targeting Christian churches or commit martyrdom on mourners?

If you're going to quote me at least read my post.

I said I don't excuse I just try to compare to other situations where 'right' was deemed to be, possibly, on the other side.

We never excused PIRA or Malaysian Communist guerillas but we understood them before we defeated them - IMO the two processes are / were linked.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by CTID56092
Before the US/UK invasion there were no insurgents in Iraq, now there are lots. QED

Most are there because they've come in to kill the invader or are home-recruited and reacting to the invasion.

If UK invaded the US or France invaded UK most of us would take up arms, become 'insurgents' and be convinced we too had 'right' on our side.

In WW2 we had forces assigned to execute British collaborators, sympathisers and suspects after a German invasion - this would have involved bombings, snipers etc etc. Churchill's intention was to provoke savage reprisals ensuring no (or less) collaboration. He would have been branded a terrorist / insurgent / murderer.

I'm not defending them or their cowardly actions but to solve the problem you have to at least appreciate why they're so motivated and 'busy'.

The reason for their actions is that their country has been invaded & occupied by 'the Great Satan' and the old imperialist power and their mineral wealth exploited for the invader's benefit. You can see their point.

so it is a good reason for their actions that against the occupation they decided to intentionally kill innocent Muslims in mosques or targeting Christian churches or commit martyrdom on mourners?

If you're going to quote me at least read my post.

I said I don't excuse I just try to compare to other situations where 'right' was deemed to be, possibly, on the other side.

We never excused PIRA or Malaysian Communist guerillas but we understood them before we defeated them - IMO the two processes are / were linked.