The only one that continually proves to be “mindless” around here is *you." For while it’s true that the insurgents appear to lack a central command structure, it is also just as true that, A-they have a uniting goal and B-that they are getting more and more proficient and succesful in the pursuit of said goal.
I’ll leave it up to you to rub your two braincells together in a no doubt futile attempt to figure out just what that goal might be.
**
To anyone but a monkey, it should be rather clear from the above examples that the insurgents do indeed have a clear goal in mind. And furthermore, that they are using increasingly effective guerrilla tactics in pursuit of same.
Start rubbing. Or bury you head back in the sand.
Your choice. I personally don’t give a shit what you choose to do.
If I were your buddy, I’d take your admonition to heart and be deeply moved to examine my statements.
Then again, I am blessed by God in that I’m not your buddy, so kindly take your criticism and stuff it up your ass, m’kay? If I ever fall victim to some kind of hideous head injury which damaged my brain enough to care about your opinion. I’ll be sure to let ya know. And when the phone don’t ring, it’ll be me, eh?
First off, I reread my previous reply to you and it was far to snarky. For that I apologize.
As to your rebuttal. That is not what I said. I said the two groups are not necessarily the same. Thereby implying that not all resistance fighters are terrorists who target civilians.
The groups are not necessarily the same. As you pointed out, there are multiple cells and there are different people with different beliefs, tactics and goals. My point is that the resistance fighters are not necessarily a homogenous group. Just as there were several sects of the resistance in Northern Ireland, or any other cause/fight, there are several different groups in Iraq.
However, to avoid getting off into a tangent, I would like to get back to the the original point. From a neutral standpoint, which a multicultural and international message board would have to be, there is no difference between:
Supporting U.S. foreign policy that calls for the invasion of another sovereign nation AND Supporting Iraqi resistance that calls for force to be used to repel an invasion. They are both wishing death upon others by virtue of force.
Celebrating the combat medals and courageous deeds of American soldiers who are engaged in killing Iraqis AND Celebrating Iraqi resistance fighters who engage in killing American soldiers.
Talking about how a person is joining the military to go fight in the Iraqi War AND Talking about how a person is joining the Iraqi resistance to repel a U.S. invasion.
These are all ways of supporting the killing of another person and, from a neutral perspective, they are advocating violence against other human beings and will result in death.
I am NOT supporting Iraqi resistance, I am not picking a fight with any posters/mods. I simply believe that this whole thread has pointed out some interesting things and I wanted to comment.
As a non-American, it would be nice to have some official comment on this.
Is this an international message board?
What would be the response if someone posted something along the lines of ‘what’s happening over there makes me so angry, I want to join the army and go fight the terrorists in Iraq’?
Zoe, I’d very much like to have the ability to talk to you in private on occasion, as well. Sometimes I’d just like to make sure you see a post I made, other times to perhaps ask a question or two, mainly about your travels. I can provide references from other posters that I’m not a pain in the butt (emailingly, that is ) should you decide to take me into your confidence.
Xamatix and Starving Artist, I think if you ask your favorite mod to forward an email to me, she or he would probably oblige.
I must confess that I check my email only a couple of times a month, but I will make it a point to check it by mid-week.
Starving Artist, thanks for your kind words. And you do make a good point about my full life, of course. I just wish that everyone’s life could be as fortunate.
I hope you are not going to use that rascal of a woman EddyTeddyFreddy as a reference! (Oh well. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.)
Thanks for making that post Lissa. Those are exactly the points I’d like to see addressed. The_Raven, I am powerfully NOT your buddy. Gotcha. Thanks for still not being stingy on the love.
The _Raven: It’s true, your little ditty was quite disgusting and inflamatory to some, I’d imagine.
Seeing as how you’ve now stirred the waters, it would oblige you to flesh out your points, no?
In particiular, you seem to suggest that ‘liberals on their knees’ were in a mood to ‘beg mercy for their own sins’
Can you support this in any way, shape, or form?
That is; you’ve caught someone’s attention. Now what was the purpose behind you trying to catch it?
No need. I really didn’t think you were snarky at all
I originally failed to see the relevance of this point. I realize now that you are focusing on a morality issue ie., supporting insurgents killing “invasion troops” is not the same as supporting insurgents killing "civilians ", and thereby allowing a moral parity with coalition troops killing insurgents.
Well lets be blunt here. I’ll bet most US troops aren’t killing anybody period. Does that mean we have two groups of US soldiers? I don’t think so, and likewise I see little relevance to parsing the insurgency based on who they’ve targeted or killed.
There are several examples where the US and its allies have violently invaded foreign countries with little vocal opposition from the international community. Most notably the European countries in the two world wars and more recently Afghanistan. There is this matter of justification. For the coalition entering Iraq it is certainly arguable. From my point of view I can still recall how Bush I was criticised by the international community for letting down the Kurd and majority Shiite uprising, by not sending in troops, and the perceived threat to the world from Saddam’s WMDs.
On the other hand, the “Iraqi resistance” is a complete misnomer. They don’t call it that in most of Iraq. That is like calling Capone and his henchman resistance fighters against the federal government. I don’t recall to much objection to the killing on the part of the “Untouchables”. The majority of Iraqi citizens are definitely pissed off at the Americans, but that is because of the ineptitude of American forces. They can’t seem to guarantee a reasonable level of security.
The object of the insurgency is for an Arab Sunni minority to re-take control over the Kurds and the Shiites in Iraq. The only thing that stands in their way is the American soldiers and the impending democracy in Iraq. The Kurds know that and the ultimate leader of the majority Shiites knows that. There is no doubt in my mind that the ultimate power in Iraq is al Sistani who could if he wants can completely embarrass Bush and send the Americans high tailing out of the country. Without a shot fired. There is now a clear de facto invitation to American troops.
Therefore in my opinion anyone who seriously calls for supporting the “Iraqi” resistance is either misinformed, an idiot, a bigot or a troll. (and lest I’m misunderstood, there’s only been one poster in that category)
But does this neutral perspective extend to issue of supporting your local police? Surely you accept qualifications to justify terminating a life.
And I’m not interested in fighting but debating. Essentially you are proposing a moral parity from an international perspective between the insurgency and American troops and I disagree.
grienspace, I hope you can believe that I’m switching back to civil mode now as well.
But since many of the insurgent groups don’t actually share a command structure do you think this is valid?
I can understand that viewpoint, but what about the next invasion/war? Are we going to have to have the admins choose beforehand which will be the morally superior stance? Will it change every time military or political strategies change?
Some are worried that the default moral highground will always be based on supporting the US troops.
Thank you Zoe. I tried that and only got “page not available”.
I don’t know how that system works and don’t want anyone else to read my mail to you either. Not that I’m paranoid, but it is none of their busines.
You made me into a poster while I’am a silent lurker since long before I sucribed to keep the search function. Only to ask you to please contact me.
I’m no admirer who finds the courage to contact you. I’m a woman of almost 55 who wants to ask if she can send you something to read and comment on if you have time
If you open my profile to read my many posts you see where I live. It’s a very peaceful little country with peaceful people and far away from the United States of America.
I am in awe at your encyclopedic knowledge in this matter. Pray, share with us how this definitive knowledge arises in a situation that most of us find confusing. Of course, if your irrefutable facts prove to be the press releases of the Bush Admin, they will be met with coarse derision. And deservedly so, of course.
Well, of course, we are all comparatively misinformed, in comparison to one such as yourself, with your complete mastery of the facts. Permit me to retain a shred of skepticism, until such time as you provide the foundation for your adamant certainty, a certainty that eludes us lesser sort.
Based, we may assume, on your firm grasp of the essential facts. Facts which have eluded so many, find their way to your very fingertips. I am quite sure that as soon as you present us with the rock-solid foundation of your opinion, the irreproachable cites and unimpeachable sources, I may very well be convinced.
So please don’t hesitate! Bring them forth toot sweet!
elucidator, your post is all smoke and no fire. If you seriously want to challenge my assertions please be specific.
If you doubt something I said please challenge me on it. But lets keep it one point at a time as I think I have ADD. And please only challenge me if you think I was wrong on that particular point. My only motive here is to try and make you look stupid.
These are bald assertions, unencumbered by cites and references. To put it another way, “Sez who?” For instance, you know that the insurgency is a single entity, with a single object. From whence do you derive this extraordinary assertion? To my mind, the suicide attack is generally the mark of the religious fanatic, who has his focus on the next life, and much less regard for his fate in this one. The secular insurgent, focused on political power and its benefits, is very much a creature of the “here and now”, and presumably less likely to be enticed by visions of virgins or sugar raisins. But I don’t know. My sources of information are both limited and compromised.
You, on the other hand, suffer no such doubt, no cloud of uncertainty mars your grand vision. If this is a leap of faith on your part, fine and dandy. If it based on verifiable facts, produce them. Pretty simple.
Yet again, I’m struck with slogans against the ‘Iraqi puppets on the leash of president Bush’ crap I’ve heard over and over again regardless of what ordinary Iraqis might actually think, such as they might welcome (even though they regard the occupation as bad) the chance to have free elections, a representative government, the actual promise of being able to try out and test this new form of government to this country which hasn’t seen such an election for generations.
Anyway disregarding that racist b.s yet again, I want Iraq to succeed with our help, it will be a great beacon of democracy to the other oppressed Arabs within the region, and provide hope to people who want to change their governments to be more representative and accountable. Just because we invaded a country to bring about this change doesn’t mean its doomed to failure.
Laughable.
Just like the United States and the Iraqi government. Scare mongering tactics as usual. I would say the increased violence by the insurgents is a sign of desperation on their part, as they know any sort of free elections would sign the deathknell for any more legitimacy they have left.
Oh look, seems to be something you overlooked as you try to portray the picture of Iraq as utterly hopeless.
But of course anything the American military says is truely false isn’t it?
Oh look, a change of perspective.
and…
Oh my, some people actually sick of the violence the terrorist scumbags bring. :eek:
Besides, even if they do, what makes you think the Americans and the Iraqi Government forces aren’t?
Which if gain no legitimacy from the local populace or national population, will eventually have something of a negative impact on their cause? Shit, if you’re going to at least start a cultural and regional religious crusade, at least have support from some important Islamic scholars, such as these.
The insurgents? Otherwise they lose legitimacy and kinda start losing the war.
Exactly what have I said that is racist towards Iraqis? If I belong to a minority who would rather search and research what was going on in Iraq with the least amount of bias, then so be it. I want Iraq to be free and democratic, and this is the only way it can happen unfortunately.
Why should I have to be condemned as some heretic because I support the Iraqi government in trying to bring about elections, democratic ideals, a constitution which secures peoples rights etc, why is that such a bad idea that I have to be condemned? I want to know.
Well there is a shared command to some degree. But your example really goes in my favour: the British did NOT get the direct fallout from the Abu Ghraib torture or the unarmed Iraqi shooting caught on tape. Maybe all insurgents shouldn’t also share the fallout for murdering aid workers…
Well I agree with that sentiment but that’s not what I meant there. I’m talking here about what is allowable to discuss on this MB. If one side of a conflict is successfully characterized as “evil” in mainstream Western thinking, will support for that “evil” side be allowed equal latitude.
So my answer to my point is a morally neutral stance and focus on content. If we are allowed to advocate violence here in any manner, moderating should be based on what they say - not which side they support.
I understand that if the SDMB was hosting posts calling for an invasion of the US it could get in some federal government trouble. I hope the admins can come to a policy they are comfortable with. Even if I end up being disappointed I doubt I’ll complain much. This world has limits, I know all too well.
) should you decide to take me into your confidence.
Thanks for still not being stingy on the love.
Exactly what have I said that is racist towards Iraqis? If I belong to a minority who would rather search and research what was going on in Iraq with the least amount of bias, then so be it. I want Iraq to be free and democratic, and this is the only way it can happen unfortunately.