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.

 

Why It Makes “Sense” For the Resistance to Target Innocent Iraqis

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
hey xmotex maybe u can explain the targeting of Shiite mosques, i dint see ani American troops there, and the Shiites dont want ani American troops near it, but the "freedom fighters" still targeted it. why?




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Well a) because they're Sunni fanatics, and they see Shiites as heretics (it all stems from an ancient disagreement as to whom the legitimate successors of Mohommad are), they hate them probably more than they hate us. And b) under Saddam, Sunni's held the reigns of power over the more numerous Shiites, in the new Iraqi government, Shiites are the dominant sect.

Don't mistake my dislike for US policy as being evidence of some great love for the Iraqi resistace, I have little use for them, especially the Wahabbi fanatics that target civilains. It's perfectly possible to dislike both the US occupation and the resistance to it, and I do in fact enthusiastically dislike both


[edit on 7/13/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

You said that it makes 'sense' for the terrorists to be targeting
children .... that' makes you a supporter of terrorists.




There is a huge difference between supporting something and saying something makes sense.

For example, I think it makes sense for a starving man to steal bread. Does this mean I support stealing? Of course not. It just means I understand it. It makes sense as in it's not confusing to me. It makes no difference how repugnant the crime is. What do you think our CIA is spending its time and resources on right now? In large part, trying to make sense of the insurgents' behavior and activities in Iraq- does this mean the CIA supports the insurgency? Of course not!

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I've posted this Again Almost Exactly as is on the Forum

1. I do not support the targeting of innocent men, woman and children.
2. But maybe you see why it seems to makes sense for the Resistance to do this if they want the coalition out. Even so I’m not saying its right under any circumstances.
3. I think that if or when the Resistance wins, through manipulating the consequences of destabilising the country (thereby having any government we leave behind overthrown), history will repeat itself and in the way it did between last time and now from about 1921 to1933 (under colonial British rule) to 2003.
4. We have the might; they have the destabilising effects that are currently (and so maybe will) thwart out our efforts. So in the long term the political outcome is a draw between our actions and the consequences these entail (namely the Resistance itself).
5. Its a draw that costs the Iraqi people in every way imaginable. And it’s a draw that costs us in every military sense possible (in lives, finance and assignations of men who in peace often make up the cream of our society).
6. Its a draw that will repeat itself time and time again till we can stay out of Iraqi affairs completely. The best last time to have done so was before this bloody war.
7. So perhaps it’s a draw that no truly wise person wants to be part of ether by supporting the Resistance or our own government in ether of their militant actions. Because although both peoples supporting ether of sides out of a genuine belief that they are the ones who are right; that their version of reality is correct, both people have blood on their hands.
8. And the blood people have on their hands is not determined by which country you live in, whether or not you are a pro war local campaigner for the Americans or Resistance. Instead it is merely determined by how much your support contributes to the bloody efforts of ether side.
9. Want to be righteous and you will ensure that Iraqis not only get a government of their choosing, but more importantly one the West WILL actually LIVE WITH.
10. Want to be wise and you will not believe the propaganda of ether side. Instead you will simply say that is their country, this is our own. Let Americans help the poor people, prostitutes, uneducated and fight the "terrorist" drug gangs experienced in every Western country. And if Iraq chooses Stalin, Col Pot or anyone else as their next leader there are peaceful ways to stop these people from getting powerful.
Look at the history of South Africa, we had sanctions but not mass starvation, we had change but not invasion by a foreign occupying (let alone civil war as well).
Providing the leader is a question of what they do to their own people, it is an issue for their own people which we must only involve ourselves in peacefully.
11. There are about 23 Resistance organisations in Iraq. That is why when seen collectively their actions are seem so contradictory. It is civil war out their, and a Resistance fighting an occupying force all at once. Whether we call it civil war, Resistance or terrorism, is a problem for our own understanding, and if we not in Iraq it would be our problem alone.
12. Don't talk of wasting nukes because you are like the anti Christ in the bible if you perpetuate these views. P.S The bible is NOT a book of my faith (well not much anyway).
13. Please do not try labelling me (directly or indirectly). I prefer to leave that to myself, but thanks for the support in doing so.

This is my opinion; and can only hope it’s answered some of your misunderstandings, about me and far more importantly the million people like me who share the same views-the exact beliefs. Yours Alex (Liberal1984).



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   


But (and I know most people totally disagree) I support Saddam.

Yes, most people do disagree


How can you support a man that has murdered thousands?
How can you support a man who condones his own sons raping women whenever they feel the urge to do so?

I know..your gonna throw..how can you support Bush, in my face.
But seriosuly, just answer the questions with no throwback questions.

Thanks

BTW, I am one that reads your letters and your threads....



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Worpse: Just posted this by mistake on the forum topics, tried to delete it and it won't, maybe i'll post it as a topic some other time.

How Do I Support Saddam

Simple really.
Saddam by our estimates killed 350,000 people through oppression over a 30 year period, arguably its more when you take into account his decisions as leader but I support virtually all those decisions for separate reasons (usually for the ones they were taken). But you asked me to stick to the point so I will.
So how do I support this big bad man who by my own admission killed all these people?
Simple: He brought political stability to Iraq. The "insurgency" is not knew. It was there way before Saddam was anywhere near power, you can back in time hundreds of years and it was still there.
The reasons for this tend also not to have changed for hundreds and even thousands of years. Iraq is made up of many different ethnic and cultural tribal groups. A minority are secular Muslims, a majority are fundamentalist. They have ideological beliefs that are opposed to each other in many ways.
In part because of Iraq’s tribal society these groups have thought each more or less constantly.

The only thing that changes in time is the size of the OPEN fighting. Under Saddam the fighting appeared to be small, but when you look at why so many of the people he killed ended up getting killed the reasons usually dates back to these cultural differences.
So in a way the fighting has never stopped, just that sometimes it has been more by the state against the insurgency, or more against the state by insurgency (as is today’s case).
A fundamentalist leader will mostly torture and kill secular people; a secular leader like Saddam will mostly torture and kill fundamentalists.

What does change is that if the state does takes control of the country it becomes "stable". Investors are attracted, and many people will live ordinary lives. Only the true nutcases will get themselves in the mass graves, and yes if you receive Iranian bribes to sture up trouble in Iraq that includes you Kurds.
The means are brutal but stability is achieved. Arguably you need to watch your back and deploy brutal means if you want to hold onto power in a country such as Iraq.

And for the vast majority of people who just want to live their lives this is a good thing. Such a good thing that Iraqi living standards where far higher under Saddam before the sanctions, and still higher after the sanctions than they are today.
It is arguable that Saddam saved more lives by bringing to stability to Iraq than he killed through the oppression that brought the stability in the first place. Therefore my eyes he is certainly justified. Simple.

Now with that answered I will move onto his decisions which in human terms he falls down on most. The Iran Iraq war happened because a section of the river Tiqruis (can't spell it) was handed to the Iranians on the understanding that they would stop bribing the Kurds. Unfortunately they didn’t so Saddam invaded Iran at the cost of well over a million lives in total.
As for Kuwait he simply tried to re-unite the territory with Iraq, after they flooded the oil market which made brought into recession due debts built up from the Iran Iraq war. Kuwait’s earliest history goes back to 1710, and was only made truly independant and made to include as much of Iraq’s oil wealth as possible within its boarders under colonial British rule in the early 1920's. This was deliberately and openly done to "divide and rule" over Iraq’s oil wealth encase Iraq became too powerful in the future. Before that Kuwait had been part of Iraq for over 5200 years.
Given that Saddam warned Kuwait to cut its oil production at a time Iraq owed much debt i think he was totally justified.
But yes unfortunate not have found himself a way out that would have been acceptable to the Iraqi people once we warned and told him to get out. But he had a reason. He knew with the economy been in the state it was, and with the military so strong, that he almost certainly overthrown had he openly done what we were telling him to do, because we told him to do it. Its a disgrace in the Arab world.
As for this war the guy unilaterally disarmed on the understanding sanctions would end. What more could he have done. We knew he had disarmed and would have had the bulls to invade a country with WMD's unless it was totally urgent.

That is why i support Saddam. For bringing stability (despite the blood cost), and for bringing 1st world living standards before the sanctions to over 90% of the population. And like him because his military decisions were just, although I do not disagree that they were highly regrettable, so therefore (with high sight) should certainly have been smarter.
Throwback: I think he over reacted with the Iran Iraq war and should have ignored our support for this war, and if he had done that Kuwait may never had happened.
But my opinion that although saddam was brutal, but he was so in the right region.

P.S. Some of my other posts explain my support too but I hope I’ve answered your question directly.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB


But (and I know most people totally disagree) I support Saddam.

How can you support a man that has murdered thousands?


HUNDREDS of thousands Sporty. He has murdered hundreds of
thousands and has caused the deaths of millions by starting the
Iran/Iraq war and by invading Kuwait.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
makes sense for the Resistance to do this if they want the coalition out.

No. If they want the coalition out, they have to STOP what they are doing.
It's actually just the opposite of what you are saying. When the
insurgents stop, we can leave. INSURGENTS ... not resistance.


when the Resistance wins ... (namely the Resistance itself)
.... supporting the Resistance ... Resistance. ... 23 Resistance organisations
.... Resistance fighting ... Resistance or ...


INSUREGENT TERRORISTS! Not Resistance. There is no resistance.
Try to understand that basic concept and it will help you out a great deal.


far more importantly the million people like
me who share the same views-the exact beliefs.


Then there are a million others who 'don't get it'. How sad!
Go to your dictionary and look up resistance and insurgent.
When you try to speak about a subject that you don't even
know the basics about .. all you get is mud.

Insurgent - a person who engages in armed resistance to a government
or to the execution of it's laws; rebel. A member of a group as a political
party who revolts against the policies of the group.




[edit on 7/14/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
How Do I Support Saddam
Simple really.
Saddam by our estimates killed 350,000 people through oppression over a 30 year period, arguably its more when you take into account his decisions as leader but I support virtually all those decisions for separate reasons (usually for the ones they were taken). But you asked me to stick to the point so I will.
So how do I support this big bad man who by my own admission killed all these people?
Simple: He brought political stability to Iraq. The "insurgency" is not knew. It was there way before Saddam was anywhere near power, you can back in time hundreds of years and it was still there.



So are you saying that if we took off the kid gloves, took total control of the country no matter what means it took or how many innocents died.....then you would support us too?

Are you saying we just arent brutal enough?

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   


INSUREGENT TERRORISTS! Not Resistance. There is no resistance.


Of course, we should all use the definition that best suits your agenda


Frankly I think some of them can be best described as a resistance movement: the ones targeting occupation troops, whether we like it or not - and some can best be described as terrorists: the ones targeting Iraqi civilians.

To pretend they are all one monlithic movement is silly.
There are something like 60 different insurgent groups in Iraq, and each seems to have it's own agenda and tactics.

Whether I like it or not, targeting occupying troops is a whole different ball of wax than targeting random civilians.

[edit on 7/14/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


INSUREGENT TERRORISTS! Not Resistance. There is no resistance.

Of course, we should all use the definition that best suits your agenda



Oh for Pete's sake. I have no agenda. I'm using the proper
term for what is taking place. The Iraqis HATE the insurgents. The
insurgents are INSURGENTS, not a resistance. They murder innocent
Iraqi civilians, blow up Iraqi children, murder freely elected Iraqi officials,
and disrupt the freely elected Iraqi government and as well as the
electricity and water supplies. This isn't helping Iraqis ... it's hurting
them. The insurgents are causing the Coalition of the Willing to have
to stay longer than we want, and longer than the Iraqis want.

INSURGENTS. That's what they are. Pathetic murdering thugs -
NOT a romantic version of 'resistance', and to call them such is a
disservice to true resistances and true patriots across the globe.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
You continue to pretend they're all one group, when in fact there are dozens.

If all the Iraqis hate the insurgents/resistance/whatever, why are so many Iraqis joining?

If they're all "foreign jihadists" looking to make trouble, why are less than 2% of the people the US has captured non-Iraqis?

[edit on 7/14/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Xometx: I totally agree with you when you say the insurgents who target civilians are terrorists and the insurgents who target the occupying force are Resistance. Although certainly the French Resistance would target civilians who collaborated with the Germans you are so right to call the people who target totally innocent civilian’s terrorists not Resistance. So I was wrong on that point and I admit it.

I still think that the groups who target civilians are doing the occupation more harm than good, and therefore it does make a sort of "sense" for them to do so. It’s mostly because like I say the Iraqis as a mass seem to end up loathing the coalition more for the Resistance than they blame Resistance itself.
As long as this remains the case (probably un till we leave their country) there will undeniably be a sort of logical sense in targeting civilians as much as I hate these people having so much as an ounce of logic on their side.

As to Amuk it may seem (due to my support of Saddam) that I do not think we are being brutal enough.
But instead I don't think we should be brutal at all because I don't think we should be there are at all. And if we become brutal (like we did in the British colonial occupation of Iraq) then history will certainly repeat itself like it did then (it will work before back firing against as foreigners).
However if the Iraqis want a brutal leader to deal with the actions of the Insurgents-Resistance then that’s something they alone must appoint and decide. I think they will want a leader who will stabilise their country at any cost, and so he is bound to be brutal. Which to my mind means we should have stuck with Saddam. Especially as a truly representative Iraqi leader would be fundamentalist as opposed to Secular like Saddam was. However if we (the West) can work with a fundamentalist leader if and when that’s Iraqi democracy yields; then whether or not the leader is fundamentalist, is none of my concern. Although I will then feel sorry for the poor Sunnis and hope they are spared from the rule of a fundamentalist (currently unlikely to say the least). I say give the Sunnis more independence from the rest of Iraq and then there will be much less violence.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I believe that the only way to view this conflict is by distancing our view from the two main combatants here: the US forces and the insurgents. If you are 100% (does not need to be so high, just plain in agreement would do) supportive of the US forces there, then it is natural for you to view the enemy as being wrong in bombing civilians. even "cowardly guerilla" attacks are unacceptable for you.

If you want the US to fail in its iraq goal (to have a democratic pro-western govt and easy access to cheap oil) then you will agree that even killing innocent bystanders is acceptable for a higher cause.

Lets face reality here, both sides does not really care about the iraqi people's safety in the midst of their fighting.

Insurgents view iraqis that participate in the new govt such as joining police forces, local administration official or even someone just being friendly to US forces a traitor to their cause. That cause is not chaos but to establish a fundamentalist theocarcy in iraq (reality = both SUNNIs, local and "imported" and #TEs want their own brand of theocracy). In the end, they just got desperate enough and view the resulting chaos as a practical weapon against the stability and legitimacy of the new iraqi govt. Hence, innocent children, market places etc have become targets just to induce chaos.
THIS CHAOS IS NOT A GOAL in itself but a factor that will help in their ultimate cause. Driving the us forces away is just one factor that will help in the ultimate goal.


The americans are not guiltless either. Its true that they avoid PURPOSELY targetting civilians but that is not the case in 2 ways.

1. Us airforce bombs target from the sky knowing that even how "accurate" their bomb is, it would still kill some bystanders as the bombs are just too powerful to not cause collateral damage.

2. for big land operations such as fallujah, they evacuate civilians before procedding to attack insurgent strongholds but for surgical commando strikes, such evacuation procedures must not be carried out due to obvious reasons. This again results to casualties.

LETS GIVE CREDIT TO AMERICANS FOR AVOIDING DELIBERATE targetting of civilians but it still cant be helped. Americans bombs is still responsible for many innocent iraqi deaths.


As for my conclusion, Im neither supportive of both sides but tend to base my opinion by placing myself IN THE SHOES of the main combatants. I believe that by doing this, I will have a non-biased view and will be able to see this not as a right vs wrong thing but as a cause and effect devoid of moralistic bias.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
However if the Iraqis want a brutal leader to deal with the actions of the Insurgents-Resistance then that’s something they alone must appoint and decide.

Hello?? Aren't you aware that they just held FREE ELECTIONS in that
country and the DID NOT vote Saddam back in office! The people HAVE
decided ... they DID NOT want a brutal leader, they wanted those
freely elected souls that are in office now ... none of them are Saddam
or his former regime of terrorists. After 30 years of mass murder,
attempted genocide, and rape as a weapon the Iraqis are SICK of
brutality and violence.


I think they will want a leader who will stabilise their country at
any cost, and so he is bound to be brutal.

Nope. They didn't elect brutality. They elected democracy.
You sound like you have a battered wife syndrome that you are
projecting onto the politics of Iraq. Very strange. - Hubby beats me
but my life is 'stable' so I'll put up with the broken bones and burns
from his cigars. That's very disordered and requires police intervention
and psychological care for the victim.


as opposed to Secular like Saddam was.

Saddam wasn't secular as much as he was CRAZY and an egomaniac.


I say give the Sunnis more independence from the rest of
Iraq and then there will be much less violence.

I say let the Iraqis vote and have free elections, as they just have,
and they can work out their issues by themselves. It's a growth
process for them and now that they are free they will learn to get
along or disappear in the process. The sooner the insurgents stop
the violence, the sooner the Coalition of the Willing can leave and
the Iraqis can get going with their growth in democracy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join