Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iraq is a Civil War

  1. Nov 8, 2004 #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 truely 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 truely 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: Nov 8, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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).
  4. Nov 9, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  5. Nov 9, 2004 #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?
  6. Nov 9, 2004 #5
    I think the plan is for Iraqis one day to speak for themselves so they can shut everybody up.
  7. Nov 9, 2004 #6
    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: Nov 9, 2004
  8. Nov 9, 2004 #7
    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?
  9. Nov 9, 2004 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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
    It doesn't get any more basic or specific than that, does it?

    Iraqi TV reports confessions from foreign fighters
    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. 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: Nov 9, 2004
  10. Nov 9, 2004 #9

    I don't think they know how to anymore, as this guy so desperately wants to showcase.
  11. Nov 9, 2004 #10
    Are you Implying that if you hadn't invaded Iraq they would have invaded you?
  12. Nov 9, 2004 #11
    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.
  13. Nov 9, 2004 #12


    User Avatar

    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.
  14. Nov 9, 2004 #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). thats 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.
  15. Nov 9, 2004 #14
    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?
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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: Nov 9, 2004
  16. Nov 9, 2004 #15


    User Avatar

    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.
  17. Nov 9, 2004 #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
  18. Nov 9, 2004 #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.
  19. Nov 9, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    Lol, distraught? You need to learn to seperate opinion from fact and do a comparitive study on realities...1st world versus 3rd world..human rights in democracies to those in dictatorships. :yuck:
  20. Nov 9, 2004 #19


    User Avatar

    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?)
  21. Nov 9, 2004 #20
    What are you saying Kat?
    I don't get any of that.
    (Democracies and Totaltarian Gov'ts are not opposite ends of a spectrum)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Iraq is a Civil War
  1. The war in Iraq (Replies: 4)

  2. Civil war in Iraq (Replies: 17)