Video of captured Iraqi US soldier surfaced

I think you need to look at the war in a larger sense. It was arabs who strated this war, they are the reason we are in Iraq, afghanistan, and soon to be in Iran. I think it will become more clear to you where the battlelines are drawn and what is going on.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
It might suprise you to know that i'm against capital punishment. But i must make an exception when it comes to war time, and when you are dealing with traitors and mercinaries.
You talk about the law in the UK being 20 years, but i guarrantee you if the war crossed to within your borders, that law would change, fast.
Your idea is utopian, but ultimately i think it is justified for resistance movements to shoot collaborators.

If only you knew how disgusting the collaborators are, if you knew what i knew, i don't think you'd still feel the way you do.

Now, don't get me wrong, with some situations, I feel such an action as capital punishment is justified, for example Timothy McVeigh and people who will walk into a school and gun down anyone in sight, or worse make a siege like Beslan (I don't want to hijack the thread on this issue, i don't know what your feelings are on this). But with the kidnappings in Iraq (or any other country, like Lebanon), it feels very wrong in my mind, possibly because it is just one sect against another as opposed to being an attack on a nation as a whole.

The resistance has decided NOT to execute him

Well, thats good, in my mind.

And when I say 20 years, thats not really the law, they say Life imprisonment, but thats what it seems to turn out to be.

So then you agree that some people deserve to die.

Let's examine the rest of your comment.

But with the kidnappings in Iraq (or any other country, like Lebanon), it feels very wrong in my mind, possibly because it is just one sect against another as opposed to being an attack on a nation as a whole.

The fact that you used the word "kidnap" instead of "Capture" shows to me that you are under US and Isreali propoganda. The two israeli men who where taken in lebanon where SOLDIERS, you cannot 'kidnap' enemy soldiers, you can only capture them.
And Why would it be wrong in your mind? There is nothing wrong with capturing enemy soldiers ESPECIALLY when they are occupying your country , which is in the case of both lebanon and Iraq.

And what does this have to do with one sect being against another? This is a Shi'ite resistance group capturing a shi'ite iraqi/US soldier. Not as secterian as they'd like to make iraq out to be.

I'm not saying it's ok to kill captured enemy soldiers, i would never say that.
What i am saying is, collaborators, that's traitors, deserve to die.
Since you admit that you agree it's ok to execute people in some instances, then you should have no problem with that statement.
I think you might have this image of the collaborators like that they are walking around minding their own business or something, but trust me you are very wrong in that, they are a bunch of murderous criminals.

Anyway with all that i've said here, i'd like to refer back to my original post, i said the resistance has made their decision. That perhaps the fact that he had american citizenship brought into question wether calling him a collaborator is warranted.

Because ussually what you see resistance do with collaborators like the ING, or the translators that work for the military/security, is that they tie them up, stand them on their knees and shoot them in the skull. There is one or two videos of the aftermath of that out there, but i ussually just hear about it from the news, like a bus load of ING found dead in same way etc.


[edit on 18-2-2007 by Syrian Sister]

By the way, I had forgotten about the soldiers captured in Lebanon, I was referring to, (maybe an incorrect comparison now I see your argument) Brian Keenan and John McCarthy or similar kidnappings.

I didn't say it was one sect against another, I said it was a sect making these decisions (and only a low level group in the sect at that), rather than the state.

And if a spy has to collaborate in even a small way to get information, does that make them a traitor too?

Now the thing is, your argument does in places make a lot of sense to me, and I realise the main reason I feel the way I do about these things is because thats how they have been put in my mind. I know that because with some of this I have an opinion of a certain thing, such as killing captured soldiers being wrong, which seemed to be what you were saying at one point. And the opinion was based on a simple statement in my mind, and I couldn't think of the exact reason.

The point that Syrian Sister still has yet to answer is- who gets to determine who the traitors are? Are the traitors the 60-70 percent of the Iraqis that voted in the elections, and want a brighter future, or the thugs and criminals in the resistance, who she admires, that are trying to prevent the will of the people from being carried out? What about the insurgents that aren't even from Iraq? How is their goal for Iraq's future more important than that of Iraqi citizens? The Iraqis that join the police and military are patriots, who want a better future for themselves and their families. The insurgents want chaos, fear, and intimidation, to impose their will. They are patriots to no one but themselves. They are a cancer to humanity, and need to be removed from the gene pool.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by GT100FV]

I don't think that someone leading your country astray is worth fighting for. But the leading of a country astray can be debated. In all honesty, Iraq before the US went in could have been better than it is now. But the Iraq that it could be might be much better than it is now and much better than it was before. Iraq is not turning into an American government but a government of their own but one that the people have a say in. I think the US has learned that in the past because the US knows all about helping governments and then having them turn against them.

That safe comment was for you but I hope you are safe where you are.

Freedom is a vary debated topic. It can go in so many directions. I don't think anybody could agree on what freedom means. I could have the freedom to do anything I wish, but then I would be violating somebody elses freedom.

I don't want to go too far off topic but all of this is really about keeping ones people safe. I don't care about money, power or anyting else. If the people in power had no people then they would have nobody to make money off of. If the people get too mad at them then they will overthrow them. Therefore the people in power are going to keep their people safe, somewhat happy, and look out for their wellbeing. Every country who is not in power is going to try to do just that but they have to get in a position of power to do that. Getting WMD anyone? No country is above any others. All of them want the same things. Religion, Power, Money. Money can buy power, and religion can have power over the mass. So all it comes down to is power. For those really into religion, that could come first but we all know anyone hardcore into religion is going to get us. That's right, more wars. Every government becomes corrupted over time. With government we have power, and people in power soon find out that religion is what people care about the most. It's a cycle, it just feeds itself.

Sorry for the preaching.

Styki

Styki

I don't think that someone leading your country astray is worth fighting for.

Then why are you fighting for bush?

The resistance are fighting for their city streets and their families, not some glorified leader.

Iraq is not turning into an American government but a government of their own but one that the people have a say in.

Yes, only because they are going to kick out the american's and remove the current puppet regime.
You think the current regime can survive with out you? No, and because of that reliance they are completely in your controll. The american occupation was intended to last for decades, largest embassy in the world and perminant bases. A capitalist dream where the oil can be sold of cheaply and workers exploited.

For your side, it is more about money than it is about politics, just look at the US written iraqi constituion. Heh. You call that freedom another country writing your constitution?

And don't delude yourself into thinking Iraqies chose the current leaders. The president is a kurdish shi'ite the tiniest minority , can you say hand picked? It's the biggest joke, my friend and i where laughing about it the other day, and every so often the puppets are switched around. Just like the british did during their occupation, went through 6-8 different puppet governments.

The US wouldn't know what democracy was if it was hit in the face with it. But i think the resistance will teach you occupiers what "liberation" really means.

As for your thirdof what you said in your third paragraph, there are some things in it i agree with, but your comments lack one thing, knoweledge that there is right and wrong.

I completely agree that all governments are corrupt. But you are dead wrong, if you this this is 'government against government' , 'power monger against power monger' and everyone else is just standing around getting caught in the cross fire. There is nothing ambiguos about the sides of this war, there is a wrong side and a right side.

Fighting for your national independce and freedom from occupation, is the single most righteous fight. It has nothing to do with your government, or your political and religious ideas, it is every human beings right and duty. Every faction of the resistance may have their own ideas about the running of iraq, and every fighter within those factions has a varying idea, but that has nothing to do with why they fight. It is not for taking power nor money for them as it is for your governments, if that was what it was about they would already have taking your deals to drop their weapons and start collaborating but they remain steadfast, it is about allowing Iraq to be free from foreign influence so then the IRAQI people can then choose their own future, whatever that may be.

This is not about saftey, It's about right and wrong. Never mind that starting a war to keep people safe is ridiculous, since when you declare war against a country you open up your own lines to justified retaliation. And but Keeping the murderous Maliki safe from a bullet that he so richly deserve isn't something great.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve Neither." Benjamin Franklin.

apex

And if a spy has to collaborate in even a small way to get information, does that make them a traitor too?

There are uncrossable lines, but so long as the spy remains within them, then the answer is no.

and I realise the main reason I feel the way I do about these things is because thats how they have been put in my mind.

Well i'm glad if i have helped make things clearer for you.


GT100FV

And for your information, the Iraqi resistance is not foreign but IRAQI. Even your side has to admit that the foreign fighters propoganda is largly a myth.
www.guardian.co.uk...

The biggest resistance groups like IAI and Rashedeen don't allow non Iraqies to enter. And they couldn't exist without the support of the people, they are patriots to the people and to iraq.

What you said about the elections A.k.A the Selections, i have already outlined the answer to that above.

As for your question about who is determined to be a collaborator, i will outline it simple. Anyone who is actively working with the occupiers. For example.
1) The puppet army, and puppet security forces.
2) government officials.
3) translators working for the army, or for mercinary companies
4) informants.
5) A while ago the US made an offer to iraqi men to get a green card if they join the US military, those who took this offer are deemed to be traitors too.

I hope that makes things clear for you.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Syrian Sister]

My question wasn't who do you think is a collaborator, but rather who gets to decide who collaborators are(i.e. who appointed you as the arbiter of patriot vs. traitor/collaborater?) You aren't even Iraqi, and you're willing to condemn to death, Iraqis who are trying to improve their country. Explain how a successful Iraqi government and end of hostilities would be a bad thing for the Iraqis? It might be a bad thing for Syria and Iran, when their populations see a democratically elected government next door.
I worked with a bunch of Iraqis while over there, that wanted nothing more than a brighter future for Iraq, and saw the best opportunity for that to work with the coalition forces. I saw Iraqis who were fed up with insurgents forming neighborhood watches, and executing insurgents when they'd come and cause mayhem. I saw huge numbers of Iraqis calling tips lines to report insurgent activity, to include who, where they lived, locations of weapons caches, etc.... I saw huge numbers of Iraqis under threats of death, participate in the elections, and proudly show their inked fingers. Spare me your pro insurgent propaganda/apologist rhetoric, I've seen things first hand there. As for foreign fighters, even if the claim of only 10 percent is accurate, that's still a fairly large number(though I suspect it is higher). There were quite a number in Fallujah when I was there, though they got what they had coming to them as a result.

My question wasn't who do you think is a collaborator, but rather who gets to decide who collaborators are(i.e. who appointed you as the arbiter of patriot vs. traitor/collaborater?

A dictionary decides.

2 collaborator, collaborationist, quisling
someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force

www.wordreference.com...

It's already decided by the very definition of the word. Or would you like to change the defintion to suit your own purposes? Create your own language, war is peace, freedom is slavery, traitors are patriots. Double plus good?

10% foreign fighters is by your numbers, so as a matter of fact it's much less than that. I like how you americans pretend that you can tell them apart from the rest of the population, funny. Alot in fallujah? lol, did the traitor badr's help you out with that? You find an iraqi with fair skin or green eyes, hey why not, call him a syrian. The facts are out of the 10,000 people you had in abu gharib, you only had a couple of hundred non iraqi arabs, and most of them lived in iraq before the war began.

And might i add what hypocracy! You talk about foreign fighters when you occupiers are the biggest group of foreign fighters that exist in iraq. You say i'm not Iraqi, but your not Iraqi either, Your not even arab!

And why is it that you think you are the only one entitled to allies? The resistance has supporters from around the world, south americans , anglo's and europians to name the ones that i know.

As for Iran, belive it or not, they support the collaborators. Because, they see Iraq as an enemy since the Iran-Iraq war. If your still blind to that, then your so easily manipulated by your governments propoganda. Then again, look who i'm talking to !

VIVA FALLUJAH, behtek be albi ya al fallujah.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by Syrian Sister]

The US military isn't the enemy of the Iraqi population though, so that right there screws up the definition you posted. The enemies of the Iraqi people are the instigators of ethnic violence, trying to cause a civil war. The US is trying to provide security and stability, and foreign interference is hampering this goal. Were it not for this continued violence, US forces would be pulling out, allowing the Iraqi forces to handle the security needs, but they aren't ready yet for unilateral efforts due to the scope of the meddling. You yourself referred to the Iranian support of "collaborators" due to their view of Iraq as an enemy. Answer this question- does it matter which insurgent group one supports, or is one as good as the next so long as they are against the US? The reason I ask this is they all have differing ideologies and goals, which may not coincide with those of another insurgent group. How do you know which group to throw your support behind, or is it the enemy of my enemy is my friend point of view? Many times insurgent groups may fight amongst themselves as often as with coalition forces as they are trying to get more power, influence, prestige, or whatever. These groups are primarily effective due to their intimidation of the locals, not because of the respect they garner. This is what I've seen first hand, not as a result of seeing US government propaganda. I guess your views are completely unbiased and devoid of any influence from insurgent propaganda, as only the Americans are susceptible to that sort of thing right?

First the definition: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

lol doesn't that mean that everyone has committed treason if they have captured a POW and given them medical attention?

GT100FV

The US military isn't the enemy of the Iraqi population though, so that right there screws up the definition you posted.

Yes you are enemies of the population, even if you don't think you are, they see you as the enemy to be sure.

Who get's to decide that right? how about we let the dictionary decide again.

The definition says, an enemy occupying force. When is an occupier not an enemy, when the country you occupy was an ally before you entered, and it allowed you to enter as a friend. For example american bases in australia.

You are an enemy occupying force, you were enemies with iraq before you attacked them, you certainly where not allies, your sanctions caused the death of 1.2 million people.

Your presence in iraq is for the purpose of subjugating the iraqi people to your will. To strip them of their NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. And to take their resources. They hate your guts, even the people that work with you do, no honour among thieves and such.

But even if your claims of benevolence were true, which they clearly aren't, by definition, an enemy country is one that attacks, and invades . So stop trying to twist words in your favour, the meaning is clear as crystal.

The US is trying to provide security and stability, and foreign interference is hampering this goal. Were it not for this continued violence, US forces would be pulling out, allowing the Iraqi forces to handle the security needs, but they aren't ready yet for unilateral efforts due to the scope of the meddling.

I really doubt you even belive half this crap.

Answer this question- does it matter which insurgent group one supports, or is one as good as the next so long as they are against the US? The reason I ask this is they all have differing ideologies and goals, which may not coincide with those of another insurgent group. How do you know which group to throw your support behind, or is it the enemy of my enemy is my friend point of view? Many times insurgent groups may fight amongst themselves as often as with coalition forces as they are trying to get more power, influence, prestige, or whatever.

If your talking about the badr/wolf brigades when you refer to iran, i'll have you know that those Pro-occupation scum, though a militia they are not a resistance group but a death squad, they belong to the interior ministry and aide the enemy always, they are killed by all resistance groups.

I have my own ideologies, but i support every single man and women out there who picks up a weapon to fight for the liberation of their country from occupation. Their ideologise don't have to match up with mine, i support them on principle

The resistance ofcource have many different groups. Sometimes it's because they have different ideologies, sometimes it's simple because they come from different cities or neighborehoods, and the group that's created is made up of people from that neighborehood. What's more fighter within a given group could have varying ideas about the way iraq should be run. BUT they all have one uniting idea that their country needs to be freed from occupation, everything else comes second to that, and can be worked out when iraq can decide it's future for itself.

The real resistance is united. When the mehdi army fought in Najaf, the resistance of fallujah sent fighters to aide them, when fallujah was attacked, the mehdi army gave blood to the red cross to be sent over there. THese are shia's and sunnis.

The only time there is clashes, is when the true resistance decides it's had enough with america's CIA puppet "al qaeda" and the secterians. But these are ussually small clashes since the organisation is miniscule and inconsequential.

These groups are primarily effective due to their intimidation of the locals, not because of the respect they garner.

Is this what you kept telling yourself?

HAH, yea that's right, the people are affraid of their relatives, not the large foreigner with the big uniform, who breaks down the door while they are sleeping and points a gun in their face screaming "DOWN ON THE GROUND, WHERE ARE HE PARTISANEN??!!!"

It is you who intimidates the population. Did you ever get a nervous smile? Did you wonder what thoughts lie behind those eyes? If they where not affraid of you, they would tell you to your face what they thought. But abu gharib is not a place people wanted to end up. They love you like they love saddam, not at all.

As for the informants, people who are only interested in money $$$, who get payed for informing, they exist in every country, The french resistance also had to deal with them. In arabic they are called 'the mokhabarat' i'm sure you have heard that word before. I've seen the effect of the action of these dirt bags that's how i know, they deserve to die.

No matter how much you try to convince yourself the fact is the resistance could not exist without the aide of the Iraqi people, they are among their families and friends, the people they grew up with, their own country men. Ofcource the people are going to protect and support them, the people love the resistance, face it, that's the reason you are losing the war.

I guess your views are completely unbiased and devoid of any influence from insurgent propaganda, as only the Americans are susceptible to that sort of thing right?

I live in australia. So i get enough of your side of the story. I've got the facts, it's obvious to anyone who lies consistently, i know who i stand with. No one has given me these opinions. No one has controlled what i see and hear, soldiers can't ussually say the same.
I never said i was unbiased, clearly i am. Biased towards the right side. But perhaps it will be good for you to finally hear the other side of the story.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Syrian Sister]