Iraq: Civil War Result of Bush Regime

  • News
  • Thread starter omin
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Civil
In summary, the conversation discusses the situation in Iraq, with one person arguing that it is a civil war against the US-led regime and the other person disputing this claim. They also discuss the role of Al Qaeda in the insurgency and the impact of American actions on Iraq and the Arab world. The conversation ends with a discussion on the consequences of cooperating with an invading force.
  • #1
omin
187
1
Iraq is definitely a civil war, a fight against the US leading regime.

In sells, where a company rips off a customer, that customer tells ten people and those ten people tell ten people. So do the victimized civilians in Iraq when the Bush regime bombs come.

Bush blame the civilians by evidence of there deaths, but the Iraqi civilians know exactly where to put the cause, exactly where orders came from to launch the bombs: Bush regime war machine.

The indiscriminate killing going on Iraq just recently is killing Iraqi family members and friends. Each Iraqi close to the ones who are being killed are looking at those who have invaded without a pretext, because they are the ones who are doing the murdering. Hatred is spreading in Iraq because of Bush regimes murdering of civlians.

More and more civilians are picking up guns, more and more civilians pick up a rocket, more and more Arabs contemplate what they can do to help there brothers and sisters being terrorized by Bush regime. The enemy who has found acceptance among the fat, apathetic voters in American, who say they care, but put a murderer in office do not understand what pain they indirectly cause with there tax dollars and votes. They are victims of propoganda, led by a regime of anti-Semites, murdering the Semites, the Arabs day after day in the name of freedom.

The American leadership is making enemies in Arabia, not bringing peace. And those Arabs who stand behind this action are subject to the laws of nature, which Bush cannot rewrite: a betrayers death and ten enemy exponent rule. Any one who understands the golden rule can achieve such an intelligent perspective: If my county were invaded, anyone who cooperated with the murderers of my people, would be put to death. This is a human standard higher and truly is a fundamental to humanity.

Bush regime says they don't know who the insurgents are or they say the are Saddam loyalists. Because civilians are being murdered indiscriminately, civilians take up arms and go to war. Iraq is truly a civil war! Not a rebellion.

Get out American military, you will loose in the end! The longer you stay insures American civilians are put in harms way. No one allows the murder of their people to go unpushished.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Most of that post is rambling and incoherent. But to be clear: we know exactly who the "insurgents" are: they are, by and large, Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorist groups imported during the war.

One nice thing about terrorists - its always clear who you are fighting because they are proud to be there and tell anyone who will listen (and Al Jazeera is always listening to terrorists).
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorist groups imported during the war.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #4
My guess is that the long term strategic goal of the battle plan is to drive all Muslims throughout the world insane with rage so that they attack Americans. Then, there's justification to continue attacking sovereign nations and continue fighting war indefinitely.

Is this a good plan in the best interests of America and the Arab world?
 
  • #5
I think the plan is for Iraqis one day to speak for themselves so they can shut everybody up.
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
But to be clear: we know exactly who the "insurgents" are: they are, by and large, Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorist groups imported during the war.
Excuse me?

Would you care to some way validate that? I've heard report after report from Iraqi, British and American journalists that the insurgents in Iraq are around 99% Iraqi's, and that most militias (such as Moqtada Al Sadr's), take great pride in their Iraqi nationality, and wouldn't allow foreigners to fight with them.

And also, Al Qaeda? Haven't Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld been bragging about how Al Qaeda's nearly destroyed and has no real organization anymore? Or hasn't this administration been that sucessful in destroying Al Qaeda afterall? Al Qaeda can't both be the main cause of the insurgency in Iraq and nearly defunct and in shambles, so which is it?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
omin said:
Iraq is definitely a civil war, a fight against the US leading regime.

In sells, where a company rips off a customer, that customer tells ten people and those ten people tell ten people. So do the victimized civilians in Iraq when the Bush regime bombs come.

Bush blame the civilians by evidence of there deaths, but the Iraqi civilians know exactly where to put the cause, exactly where orders came from to launch the bombs: Bush regime war machine.

The indiscriminate killing going on Iraq just recently is killing Iraqi family members and friends. Each Iraqi close to the ones who are being killed are looking at those who have invaded without a pretext, because they are the ones who are doing the murdering. Hatred is spreading in Iraq because of Bush regimes murdering of civlians.

More and more civilians are picking up guns, more and more civilians pick up a rocket, more and more Arabs contemplate what they can do to help there brothers and sisters being terrorized by Bush regime. The enemy who has found acceptance among the fat, apathetic voters in American, who say they care, but put a murderer in office do not understand what pain they indirectly cause with there tax dollars and votes. They are victims of propoganda, led by a regime of anti-Semites, murdering the Semites, the Arabs day after day in the name of freedom.

The American leadership is making enemies in Arabia, not bringing peace. And those Arabs who stand behind this action are subject to the laws of nature, which Bush cannot rewrite: a betrayers death and ten enemy exponent rule. Any one who understands the golden rule can achieve such an intelligent perspective: If my county were invaded, anyone who cooperated with the murderers of my people, would be put to death. This is a human standard higher and truly is a fundamental to humanity.

Bush regime says they don't know who the insurgents are or they say the are Saddam loyalists. Because civilians are being murdered indiscriminately, civilians take up arms and go to war. Iraq is truly a civil war! Not a rebellion.

Get out American military, you will loose in the end! The longer you stay insures American civilians are put in harms way. No one allows the murder of their people to go unpushished.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Noteworthy post on the war of deception! I certainly agree that shall an adamant despot waging war against my country, I would certainly without a doubt pick up anything I can to drive them out. Especially if the war is causing civilian deaths. Then, it is no longer a war, rather a covert pogrom, slowly and steady, just like the one in Iraq right now.

Is Bush intentionally waging this covert pogrom, or is he doing what he said he is doing,... just protecting the world from mass weapons of destruction... or of deception?
 
  • #8
wasteofo2 said:
Excuse me?

Would you care to some way validate that?
Certainly. You do know who we're fighting in Falluja, right?

Jeez, where do you people get your information from? It seems I'm having to spoonfeed the most basic things to the forum today.

Battle for Fallujah opens new phase in Iraq war
...foreign insurgents, most prominently Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers. Zarqawi, who has ties to Osama bin Laden, has claimed responsibility for many of the kidnappings and beheadings of foreigners. Iraqis have no natural allegiance to him. Destroying his Fallujah-based movement would alter the war's complexion. It would also aid the war on terror.
It doesn't get any more basic or specific than that, does it?

Iraqi TV reports confessions from foreign fighters
Of the 19 [interviewed (interrogated?) foreign fighters] — five Syrians, five Saudis, four Jordanians, two Egyptians, a Palestinian and two Iranians — most were said to have entered Iraq in October 2003, during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Frankly, guys, the crackpots aren't nearly as annoying to me as those who should know better but don't.
And also, Al Qaeda? Haven't Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld been bragging about how Al Qaeda's nearly destroyed and has no real organization anymore? Or hasn't this administration been that sucessful in destroying Al Qaeda afterall? Al Qaeda can't both be the main cause of the insurgency in Iraq and nearly defunct and in shambles, so which is it?
I said Al Queda or Al Queda linked. Frankly, I'm not sure how strong Al Zarqawi's ties are to Al Queda, but the point is, he's responsible for a large fraction of the fighting and the terrorism going on in Iraq right now. And a lot of the foreign-born fighters who flocked to Iraq in the hope of getting to kill Americans are now fighting for him.

But the point is, those terrorists aren't conducting operations in the US, they are conducting operations in Iraq. And I can assure you, the American soldiers fighting them in Falluja much prefer it that way.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
studentx said:
I think the plan is for Iraqis one day to speak for themselves so they can shut everybody up.


I don't think they know how to anymore, as this guy so desperately wants to showcase.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
But the point is, those terrorists aren't conducting operations in the US, they are conducting operations in Iraq. And I can assure you, the American soldiers fighting them in Falluja much prefer it that way.
Are you Implying that if you hadn't invaded Iraq they would have invaded you?
 
  • #11
Smurf said:
Are you Implying that if you hadn't invaded Iraq they would have invaded you?

They would still hate us. They would still try to attack us. So yes. Have you forgotten 9/11? That was a terrorist style invasion.
 
  • #12
franznietzsche said:
I don't think they know how to anymore, as this guy so desperately wants to showcase.
Yes well, it's not his right to speak for them either. Throughout history people who have freedom and were allowed to elect their leadership have been speaking for those who have not. They said the same things of Catholics...they said the same thing of spanish..they said the same thing of Afghani's. Iraqi's are not any different then you or I, each have right to the very BASIC human right of electing their own leadership through secret ballot based upon the most agreed upon document on the face of the Earth UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

If you will let me show you through a comparative exercise of the first five articles of the UN Declaration of HR, just to see how they sound if we were to apply the criteria of those who say that self-government in freedom "is the way we do things in the West, but might not be appropriate Iraqi's"

Article I

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Nota bene : This is for Westerners only, it may not be appropriate to coinsider Iraqis as endowed with reason and conscience, or born as free and as equal.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.


However, this is the way we Westerners function and all the above might be inappropriate for Iraqis.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


This is the Western way of doing things. It might not be appropriate for Iraqis.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


This is the Westerners way, might be inappropriate for Iraqis.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


However, this is the way we Westerners function and the above might be inappropriate for Iraqis

...

Article 21

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures...

... with a caveat : democracy is how we do things in the West, but may not be appropriate elsewhere, in Iraq for example.

etc. etc.

Screw you racists.
 
  • #13
I wasn't implying that they shouldn't be ruled democratically.

I was not imlying that people of middle eastern descent are inferior.

I was stating that certain people in iraq do not want democracy. Furthermore it is in many ways, an alien idea to the middle east. Democracy is a product of western culture. All democracies that arose without being arbitrarily built by a foreign power arose in Europe and the US (that i can recall anyway). that's not to say that they are incapable of democracy, but it is not native to their cultural mindset (another example the russian politburo seeing nixon forced to resign. it was unimaginable to them that a head of state could be forced out of office. Democracy was beyond their cultural mindset as well.)

Mostly it was statement about the thread starter in aprticular, not the Iraqi people in general.

And at no point did i mean that the Iraqis do not deserve the same rights as Americans.
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
Certainly. You do know who we're fighting in Falluja, right?
Al Zarqawi isn't an Iraqi, sure, but where is your validation that "by and large", the forces we're fighting are "Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorist groups imported during the war"?
russ_watters said:
Jeez, where do you people get your information from? It seems I'm having to spoonfeed the most basic things to the forum today.

Battle for Fallujah opens new phase in Iraq war It doesn't get any more basic or specific than that, does it?
Again, Al Zarqawi is certainly a "foreign fighter", but where is your proof he's not just mobilizing and training disgruntled Iraqi's?
russ_watters said:
Ok, you've now proved that there were at least SEVERAL foreign fighters in Iraq, again, no proof of your claim that by and large, they're imported Al Qaeda associates.

russ_watters said:
Frankly, guys, the crackpots aren't nearly as annoying to me as those who should know better but don't. I said Al Queda or Al Queda linked.
You didn't say "Al Queda or Al Queda linked", you actually said "Al Queda (or Al Queda linked)", there's a subtle difference there. In your original text, the "or Al Queda linked" in parenthesis implied a lesser level of relevance, leaving Al Queda, outside the parenthesis as the most important. There's an implied difference when you put something in parenthesis, and then bold something, and you know that.

You have not presented any evidence that any majority of the insurgents in Iraq are Al Queda or Al Queda linked, only shown that one terrorist leader has ties to Bin Laden and shown of several foreign fighters.

russ_watters said:
Frankly, I'm not sure how strong Al Zarqawi's ties are to Al Queda, but the point is, he's responsible for a large fraction of the fighting and the terrorism going on in Iraq right now. And a lot of the foreign-born fighters who flocked to Iraq in the hope of getting to kill Americans are now fighting for him.
Fine, Al Zarqawi's a terrorist mastermind, just show me that he's not training Iraqi's, and that he has huge armies of imported Al Queda linked terrorists from other countries.

russ_watters said:
But the point is, those terrorists aren't conducting operations in the US, they are conducting operations in Iraq. And I can assure you, the American soldiers fighting them in Falluja much prefer it that way.
In your original post, the point seemed to be that the majority of the Iraqi insurgents are imported from Al Queda (or it's associates). Ya'll are pretty good at changing "the point" when you don't have evidence to support your original point.

Case in point:
We're invading Iraq because Saddam has wmd, for sure, no doubt at all, we know exactly where they are!
Saddam had no wmd.

The point was that he disobeyed the UN.
You disobeyed the UN too.

The point IS that he killed innocent civilians!
40,000 civilians have been killed since the war started, and no one seemed to care when he gassed the kurds in '88.

THE POINT, is that at least we're not fighting the terrorists at home!
The people in Iraq weren't fighting us before we invaded, now they are, we're making new terrorists faster than we're killing them.

IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER ANYMORE, because now that we're there, if you say anything bad about the war, you're demoralizing the troops, and they'll be sad that some people don't think they should be fighting and dying out there.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
franznietzsche said:
I wasn't implying that they shouldn't be ruled democratically.

I was not imlying that people of middle eastern descent are inferior.

I was stating that certain people in iraq do not want democracy.
I understand clearly what you were saying and what you were replying to. I also understand clearly that even when blacks in this country were fighting slavery for freedom and later fighting for the right to participate in selecting their leaders that there were also those among them that were just as firmly objecting to the black men having those rights. Should those amongst them have been listened to and should we not have allowed them this very basic human right? I also understand clearly and have history to back me up when we speak of the fight for womens right to choose their leadership by secret ballot in this country that there were many women amongst them that fought against women having this basic human right. I also remember and have history to back me up that Spaniards, together with other Spanish speaking Americans weren't fit for democracy, that what they needed in view of how they were historically and culturally, was "a long stick and a harsh hand" (palo largo y mano dura).
There's no room for claims that democracy, self-government and the further respect for other human rights that come with democracies, are beyond anybody's reach. Universal human rights are just that UNIVERSAL, not for those who already have those rights to sanctimoniously have chosen they because they are arab are fit for this and not fit for that. No matter how pretty you want to paint the picture that saying otherwise might sit upon, it in the end..is racist. period.
 
  • #16
Am I the only one who just gets distraught when they read this?
Forgive me but I feel the need to quote Adbusters again
I've visited a lot of countries, I've lived in many places around the world, and believe me there arn't many places with as many lonely, alienated, paranoid, narcissistic, frightened and trapped people as the US. so why are US citizens so proud of their country? because they deny being its victim
 
  • #17
Kat, the problem isn't that we think Iraqi's are unfit for Democracy, at least not me, I think that democracy is unfit for the Iraqi's, or anyone in the world. It doesn't work anymore and we need to stop denying it and end this hundred years long experiment.
 
  • #18
Smurf said:
Am I the only one who just gets distraught when they read this?
Forgive me but I feel the need to quote Adbusters again
Lol, distraught? You need to learn to separate opinion from fact and do a comparitive study on realities...1st world versus 3rd world..human rights in democracies to those in dictatorships. :yuck:
 
  • #19
Smurf said:
Kat, the problem isn't that we think Iraqi's are unfit for Democracy, at least not me, I think that democracy is unfit for the Iraqi's, or anyone in the world. It doesn't work anymore and we need to stop denying it and end this hundred years long experiment.
Lol, good then why don't you give up that right voluntarily by going to a non-democratic country. In the meantime, I'm standing by the most consensuated document on Earth which says that it is a BASIC Human right for everyone that "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. " Then once we've given the Iraqi's that right...lets see whether or not they vote to give it up, eh? Not likely!
(and hundred years? Hello?)
 
  • #20
kat said:
Lol, distraught? You need to learn to separate opinion from fact and do a comparitive study on realities...1st world versus 3rd world..human rights in democracies to those in dictatorships. :yuck:

What are you saying Kat?
I don't get any of that.
(Democracies and Totaltarian Gov'ts are not opposite ends of a spectrum)
 
  • #21
kat said:
I understand clearly what you were saying and what you were replying to. I also understand clearly that even when blacks in this country were fighting slavery for freedom and later fighting for the right to participate in selecting their leaders that there were also those among them that were just as firmly objecting to the black men having those rights. Should those amongst them have been listened to and should we not have allowed them this very basic human right? I also understand clearly and have history to back me up when we speak of the fight for womens right to choose their leadership by secret ballot in this country that there were many women amongst them that fought against women having this basic human right. I also remember and have history to back me up that Spaniards, together with other Spanish speaking Americans weren't fit for democracy, that what they needed in view of how they were historically and culturally, was "a long stick and a harsh hand" (palo largo y mano dura).
There's no room for claims that democracy, self-government and the further respect for other human rights that come with democracies, are beyond anybody's reach. Universal human rights are just that UNIVERSAL, not for those who already have those rights to sanctimoniously have chosen they because they are arab are fit for this and not fit for that. No matter how pretty you want to paint the picture that saying otherwise might sit upon, it in the end..is racist. period.



READ MY WORDS:

I NEVER SAID THAT BRINGING DEMOCRATIC RULE WAS NOT TO IRAQ WAS A PROPER GOAL. I NEVER SAID THAT THE CITIZENRY DO NOT DESERVE DEMOCRACY.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, and please stop claiming i am purporting things that i am not.

Its starting to piss me off.
 
  • #22
Smurf said:
What are you saying Kat?
I don't get any of that.
(Democracies and Totaltarian Gov'ts are not opposite ends of a spectrum)


Your quote is a nice bit of OPINION...
as I said "You need to learn to separate opinion from fact
and if you do comparitive studies things will be clearer for you...
" and do a comparitive study on realities"
as in
1."...1st world versus 3rd world"..
and
2. "human rights in democracies to those in dictatorships."
 
  • #23
franznietzsche said:
READ MY WORDS:

I NEVER SAID THAT BRINGING DEMOCRATIC RULE WAS NOT TO IRAQ WAS A PROPER GOAL. I NEVER SAID THAT THE CITIZENRY DO NOT DESERVE DEMOCRACY.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, and please stop claiming i am purporting things that i am not.

Its starting to piss me off.
Well, I am only quoting you...and replying to your statements and although your not clearly saying they don't deserve democracy..I haven't seen you say they do either. I only see you making statements at to why they might not grok it or that some apparently don't want it or why it might be so hard. I don't see anywhere you are agreeing that it is their basic human right and nobody has the place or the room to deny that to them. Is this what you're saying or not?
 
  • #24
kat said:
Your quote is a nice bit of OPINION...
as I said "You need to learn to separate opinion from fact
and if you do comparitive studies things will be clearer for you...
" and do a comparitive study on realities"
as in
1."...1st world versus 3rd world"..
and
2. "human rights in democracies to those in dictatorships."

I've been studying them my whole life Kat, they're very broad topics, do you want to point out anything specific perhapse?
 
  • #25
kat said:
Well, I am only quoting you...and replying to your statements and although your not clearly saying they don't deserve democracy..I haven't seen you say they do either. I only see you making statements at to why they might not grok it or that some apparently don't want it or why it might be so hard. I don't see anywhere you are agreeing that it is their basic human right and nobody has the place or the room to deny that to them. Is this what you're saying or not?


Basic human rights, being basic, tend to go without saying.

I like to limit my proclamation of the obivous.

Smurf said:
...studying them my whole life...

From the cradle?
 
  • #26
Smurf said:
Are you Implying that if you hadn't invaded Iraq they would have invaded you?
I said nothing of the sort. What you just said is wrong/misleading on several levels. For instance, who are "they" (besides a trap...)? Reread what I wrote and try again.
 
  • #27
russ,

the problem with you reasoning is that you swallow the bush regime propoganda without using common-sense, golden rule logic which would bring to the real reasoing you need to use. Let me demostrate this to you.

you are now an Iraqi. a "smart bomb" drops on your, which is always 100% collateral damage. all people in Iraq are civilians, so 100% of the collateral damage is civilian deaths from those bombs. you look through the rubble and there is you beloved family or friend. you weep as you look up their mutilated body. behind you is an honorable Iraq that has been through this circumstance and knows what you are recoginizing as a human being as any human being in this circumstance. he looks you in the eye as he hand you the gun russ. you will do the right thing for your people won't you russ?

Iraqis are driven by defense, by the obvious mutiliation of their own people. All the Iraqis didn't leave and then were replaced by terrorists like your incorrect bush regime assuption asserts. they are mostly Iraqis defending. what are American militia driven by? first, they are low class, and less intelligent people turning to the military because of the conservative pay that the military offers compared to the capitalistic market that others can survive in but because of being less intelligent on average can't succeed in. They are also driven by the propoganda of war. Compared to the Iraq warrior who is driven by sadness of the death of family and friends, they are ignoramus and cowards hiding behind technological superiority, not spirit and natural defense intelligence which brings out the real warriors in these circumstances.

wake up to reality russ.
 
  • #28
wasteofo2 said:
Ok, you've now proved that there were at least SEVERAL foreign fighters in Iraq, again, no proof of your claim that by and large, they're imported Al Qaeda associates.

He has proven that 90% of the insurgents are foreign fighters, just like that survey said there were 100.000 civilians killed. A small poll of a few individuals...
 
  • #29
omin, that post is so garbled, as to be barely readable, but your basic assertion is that the people we are fighting are, by and large, Iraqi. Two words for you: PROVE IT. I have provided ample evidence that you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
wasteofo2 said:
Al Zarqawi isn't an Iraqi, sure, but where is your validation that "by and large", the forces we're fighting are "Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorist groups imported during the war"?

Again, Al Zarqawi is certainly a "foreign fighter", but where is your proof he's not just mobilizing and training disgruntled Iraqi's?
If you read the articles I linked, there are two main points:

1. Al Zarqawi is enemy #1 in Iraq.
2. A significant (though I don't know the actual percentage - no one does) fraction of the actual fighters are foreign.

But the actual percentage is, in any case, irrelevant because of the implication (which I didn't state explicitly and aren't in the articles):
3. People fighting for Al Zarqawi are, by definition, foreign terrorists. They are de facto members of a foreign terrorist organization, fighting for/under the orders of foreign terrorists - just like John Walker Lindh. But also...
4. Iraqis not fighting for Al Zarqawi who attack Iraqi civilians are also terrorists - domestic terrorists.
 
  • #31
1.American soldiers who attack iraqi civilians are not terrorists too?



2.
Since Ramadan began last week, officials say daily attacks have increased 25 percent. They say only a small number are carried out by foreign terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but that those tend to be more deadly.
http://www.voanews.com/english/Iraqi-Insurgents-Number-As-Many-As-20000-say-US-Officials.cfm [Broken]


Despite concerns about foreign fighters, American officials said the most significant challenge to the stabilization effort came from domestic Iraqi insurgents, and not from foreign terrorists, despite the violence of attacks organized or carried out by foreigners

According to data assembled by the military, about 80 percent of the violent attacks are criminal in nature - kidnappings for ransom or hijackings of convoys - with no political motivation. Of the other 20 percent, which include the most violent attacks on Iraqi security forces, the American military and international organizations, about four-fifths are attributed to domestic insurgents rather than to foreign terrorists.
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID3263.htm [Broken]

In the Summer of 2003, there were some reports that Syrians were often outnumbering locals in carrying out attacks in various locations including Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, Baqubah, Balad, Tikrit and Mosul however, these reports were contradicted by reports in November indicating most fighters in most parts of Iraq have been native Iraqis.
An Insiders Look at the Iraqi Resistance
"They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence. We don't think so," said a senior military official in Baghdad. "What's the main threat? It's internal."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
russ_watters said:
If you read the articles I linked, there are two main points:

1. Al Zarqawi is enemy #1 in Iraq.
2. A significant (though I don't know the actual percentage - no one does) fraction of the actual fighters are foreign.

But the actual percentage is, in any case, irrelevant because of the implication (which I didn't state explicitly and aren't in the articles):
3. People fighting for Al Zarqawi are, by definition, foreign terrorists. They are de facto members of a foreign terrorist organization, fighting for/under the orders of foreign terrorists - just like John Walker Lindh. But also...
4. Iraqis not fighting for Al Zarqawi who attack Iraqi civilians are also terrorists - domestic terrorists.

Have you noticed how ya'll always change what you mean?

You stated clearly in your original post we know exactly who the terrorists are. You stated they were by and large, Al Queda (or Al Queda linked) terrorists IMPORTED during the war.

Now, you've provided anecdotal evidence of a few, possibly a few dozen, foreign fighters being found in Iraq. You then decide to classify anyone fighting under Zarqawi as a foreign fighter, because their leader is foreign, and add in that domestic terrorists exist too.

It somehow doesn't seem to bother you that you go from saying we know exactly who they are, they are al queda terrorists (or al queda linked) that were imported from other nations, to later saying that anyone fighting under a foreigner is classified as a foreign fighter, plus, anyone fighting inside the country is a terrorist.
 
  • #33
There are a lot of very well informed, and highly intelligent people that feel exactly as Wasteofo or (however that is spelled), does.

On day one of the war, when the US public was being spoonfed just how cool it was going to be, it would be easy, we would be welcomed, I just laughed. Then I said, the Iraqi people will have to fight a war of liberation to get us back out of there. I have no illusions what this war is about, cowardice, Oil, imperialism, egalitarianism, bigotry, religious bigotry, cavalier disregard for law, and human rights, remorseless greed. Because of this a boatload of Americans are in a hell world, and a three boatloads of Iraqis have died. Before this is over we will have easily surpassed Saddam's murderous binges.

Bechtel, Halliburton, Kellogg Brown And Root, Mercenary Armies, makers of bullets, humvees, bradley tanks, cruise missiles, the glut of income this war has generated could have bought us all medical coverage, and let us retire. But noooooo, we need to "Enjoy the pleasures of being a super power", according to Richard Pearl. The people who thought this up, this war, are evil, and small, and have no sense of history, no savvy, no morals whatsoever.

Now, people who get reactionary hate mail, masquerading as valuable intelligence from the RNC, (only if you pay big bucks), feel like they have an inside intelligence track. So they post in forums like this, like they have superior knowledge of this situation, and we are all terribly misinformed. Well greedy, cowardly, short-sighted, brutal idiots, got us and Iraq into this mess. We arm and prop up Saddam's dictatorship, and then we pull out the props. History will not be kind to them, and the present is liable to rear up and kick our ass. To quote the father of a man wounded in Iraq, "We have to get our boys out of there, the whole nation is not worth the loss of a single American life." He said this directly to me.

What if the world got the idea that this election was fixed, and in order for peace to return to the world, we would have to be invaded; and we would have to have a regime change? What then?

What are we going to do then, make the whole world, even more sorry, than they already are?
 
  • #34
Dayle, not once in that whole post did you mention Exxon, you blamed everyone from Weapon makers to Kelloggs - stop aiming for the henchmen and take out the evil genius behind it all.
 
  • #35
I read the list over and over, trying to get them all, but I am not the verbose maniac, I used to be. Still, I will never forget that scenario of Bectel, Halliburton, and Exxon, tapping George W Bush to be a presidential candidate.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
8K
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
67K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
98
Views
13K
Back
Top