Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops (1 Viewer)

[Calculon]

Note that the Kurds and shi'ites make up in excess of 3/4 of the Iraqi population.

 

[sly fly]

Again read the article, the majority are against them.

The only ones that support the coalition are the kurds/shi'ites who think the Americans will allow them to dominate their areas of interest (oilfields) anyway. Whatever government is produced, it will be too weak to rule since disgruntled factions will always have the option of armed conflict if the government does anything against their factional interests.

The majority of shia's (shi'ites) DO NOT support the coalition.....and the shia's make up approx. 60% of the Iraqi population.

 

[Calculon]

Again read the article, the majority are against them.

The only ones that support the coalition are the kurds/shi'ites who think the Americans will allow them to dominate their areas of interest (oilfields) anyway. Whatever government is produced, it will be too weak to rule since disgruntled factions will always have the option of armed conflict if the government does anything against their factional interests.

The shi'ites didnt take armed conflict to Saddam, did they? But surely since he was a Sunni and not acting in their interests they would have if they could have. Any new government needs an effective military and police force.

 

[tempco]

Comment: Saddam - not Sunni, not Shia but Ba'athist

The international media has portrayed the trail of Saddam as a major watershed in the evolution of the political entity known as Iraq. It has been spoken of in terms of "Shia" and "Kurd" acting as cheerleaders at a spectator sport; revelling in the humiliation of the one who oppressed and taunted them for decades. On the other had the "Sunni" are sitting on the sidelines either angry or ambivalent. We should all get one thing straight from the on set; Saddam was not Shia or Sunni he was Ba'athist. He stood for Arab Nationalism, acted in the name of Arab Nationalism and all or his atrocities were carried out in his capacity as the Ba'athist head of a Ba'athist regime.

He incarcerated, tortured, murdered and made exhibits of Northerners, Southerners, foreigners (non-Iraqis), Takreetis, Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. He killed off members of his own direct family in cold blood, why would he demonstrate any affinity for so called Sunnis merely because they are not from northern or southern Iraq? The Muslims that called for Islam, that the Western media would brand Sunni, were among the most brutalised and humiliated by him. They are the ones that had the least love for him, and now are the most anxious about all this talk of splitting the state up upon racial and sectarian lines.

The trial of Saddam is an irrelevancy. The court room protocol is set up as a hodgepodge of internal law and Iraq law. Both of which are nebulous notions in themselves. Moreover they are both Kufr sources. It is true that Saddam made a mockery of the whole court procedure. What did America expect? It is not difficult to expose the fallacies of the innately farcical. All dictators that faced a show trail, from England's King Charles I court to Slobadan Milosovic, they all invoked the argument of "by which authority do you try me?" For those that did not recognise the legitimacy of the bloody revolt and regicide in England in the 1649-50 the whole trial was a sham. For those that do not recognise the authority of UN's war crimes tribunal the trial of Milosovic is a sham. For those that do not recognise the legitimacy of the current regime in Iraq, or for that matter the previous one – or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that etc, this trial is also a sham.

We Muslims don't need a show trial. We as Shia, Sunni, Iraqi and non Iraqi know only to well the brutality of the Iran-Iraq war, the killing of 148 people in Dujail, the 270 known mass graves established since the 1970s, the 8000 male members killed from the province of Arbil (1983), The "Anfal" of 1988 campaign, designed to depopulate the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq, and the thousands that were massacred after 1991 in both the north and the south of the country.

We consider these all to be crimes against us as an Ummah not crimes against Kurds or Shia. We all loath Ba'athism, in all its guises. We also hate Saddam for what he did and what he represented. No Muslim will shed a tear for him. An American show trial is not going to avenge any of that. It is not going to exorcise the ghosts of that period. These horrific events were the result of Kufr rule personified in Ba'athism. Kufr rule still exists, this time personified in the puppet government established by US. What has changed? Brutality at the hands of the government: no. Suppression of Muslims: no. Subjugation of the economy to western influences: no. So let us understand this trial in the context of what Saddam did to us as an Ummah. Let us put this into perspective and understand that it is true Islamic rule, and only true Islamic rule that can really purge this Muslim body of the filthy ideology that Saddam stood for.

Source: www.khilafah.com

 

[supercharged]

The shi'ites didnt take armed conflict to Saddam, did they? But surely since he was a Sunni and not acting in their interests they would have if they could have. Any new government needs an effective military and police force.

And that's because he smashed dissent with an IRON FIST. They did try to overthrow him afer Gulf war one and they got pwned along with the Kurds.

Any new Iraqi government needs to do the same in order to maintain control. So much for democracy and other bullshit

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Any new Iraqi government needs to do the same in order to maintain control. So much for democracy and other bullshit

Yes but if you are elected into power then you have the right to use force etc to maintain control (to some extent), however when you were not elected you are merely a dictator and have no such right.

 

[katie_tully]

I agree.

The Iraqi people have every right to support suicide attacks against the occupying forces there. There attacks are definately justified. Obviously the US and British forces haven't won their hearts, why are they so surprised? Look at what they're doing to their country.
I hope their armies get bombed.

Yeah...Suicide attacks are totally justifiable and all. I can see the justification in murdering thousands of innocent civilians because you're unhappy with foreign intervention. It doesn't matter whether the innocent civilians agreed with the foreign occupation of Iraq or not, because they deserved to die right? Like, exactly! Look at what the allied forces are doing to Iraq! It's completely horrible! I mean, Saddam plundering Iraqs wealth and leaving his people to starve was pretty bad, but actually trying to give the Iraqi people a democratic government? Unthinkable stuff.

 

[supercharged]

Yes but if you are elected into power then you have the right to use force etc to maintain control (to some extent), however when you were not elected you are merely a dictator and have no such right.

Right to use force? Won't the bleeding hearts start crying about human rights abuses like they did with Saddam?

Also only those of your faction will vote for you, those belonging to other tribes will see you no different to a foreign installed dictator. Just as Saddam was popular with the sunnis but not with the shi'ites or kurds.

At the end of the day, Iraq will not become democratic, the most likely scenario will be a bloody civil war ending with the installation of a shi'ite theocracy.
Pro-American democratic governance in Iraq is just the imagination of crack smoking US government warlords.

 

[supercharged]

Look at what the allied forces are doing to Iraq! It's completely horrible! I mean, Saddam plundering Iraqs wealth and leaving his people to starve was pretty bad, but actually trying to give the Iraqi people a democratic government? Unthinkable stuff.

Democracy is not something which can be 'given'. If the vast majority of people in a country want a democratic government system, they will naturally develop it by themselves over time.

The Americans trying to 'give' democracy to other countries by overthrowing and invading them, is the same the Russians 'giving' communism to neighbouring countries during the cold war. Both are attempts at social engineering as stupid as the other.

And this is what you get if you try: CHAOS and BLOODSHED

LatelineNews 2005-10-23] BAGHDAD, Iraq - With the grim milestone of the 2,000th U.S. military death looming in Iraq, many wonder about the direction of the insurgency that killed most of them.

Experts think the country's increasingly regional-oriented politics will fuel the insurgency and even spread it further inside Iraq.

Others put forward a simple, disquieting scenario: So long as U.S. and other foreign troops remain in Iraq, the insurgency will continue.

``It will become more chaotic,'' predicted Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm, Sweden. ``It is obvious that the United States is in Iraq to stay. If this is the case, the Shiites will likely join the Sunnis in the fight.''

The 2,000 mark in U.S. military deaths is approaching at a time when Iraqi and U.S. officials are congratulating themselves that the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum and the start of Saddam Hussein's trial four days later passed without major bloodshed and destruction.

They also are upbeat about the growing efficiency and number - 200,000 at present - of Iraq's security forces, although some U.S. commanders say the Iraqis need 18 months to two years before they can fight the insurgency unaided.

Recent operations in western Iraq, especially in towns along the Euphrates River close to the Syrian border, are said to have been effective in disrupting the insurgents' supply lines and reducing the number of car bombs.

Stepped-up security has forced insurgents in recent weeks to largely abandon using car bombs and resort to indirect fire, such as lobbing mortar shells from afar, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said troops captured more than 300 foreign fighters and killed 100 members of al-Qaida in Iraq the past six months. Other successes include the detention of 600 insurgents in the two weeks before the referendum, said Maj. Gen. William G. Webster, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad.

But no official predicts a quick victory.

``The insurgents are still there,'' Lynch cautioned. ``They still want to derail the democratic process. They still want to discredit the Iraqi government, so operations continue.''

Last week proved to be one of the bloodiest for U.S. troops, with 23 killed, many in restive Anbar province. That raised to 1,996 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press Count.

The insurgents are made up of disparate groups of Sunni Arabs, who lost the privileged status they held under Saddam. But the motives driving them are many, from a nationalist anger over the presence of foreign troops to an urge to create an Islamic state to a desire to regain perks.

The domestic rebels are aided by foreign fighters brought into Iraq by leaders like al-Qaida in Iraq's Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to participate in a self-styled ``holy war.'' The foreign contingent, said by U.S. officials to be mostly Arabs, is widely blamed for dozens of devastating suicide bombings targeting Shiite Muslims and Iraqi security forces.

Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Kurds - the two communities most oppressed under Saddam - have been empowered by the former dictator's ouster and are cooperating with the Americans.

Their areas, in the south and north, are almost entirely free of the violence that grips regions with significant Sunni Arab populations.

But experts contend the fighting could soon begin to take dramatic turns, more heavily influenced by outside events and possibly bringing new factions into the fight.

 

[katie_tully]

Personally I don't think the average Iraqi is going to be terribly intelligent given their lack of formal, if any, education. They're going by a poll of Iraqi's, which does not account for the beliefs of all Iraqis.
I think the billions of dollars wasted on this operation could be put to better use, but Saddam needed to be kicked out of Iraq. We're all happy to go off into Lala land and donate millions in aid to these kinds of nations, aid meant for the construction of infrastructure, not for buying weapons as so many of them do. Then it gets thrown back in our faces with statements like "terrorism is justified". Whether you want to admit it or not, Saddam had to be removed with force. It's up to debate as to whether foreign forces needed to remain in Iraq after he was removed, but from the American POV, they're staying until they rid Iraq of any extremists who may jeapordise a democratic government.

Democracy is not something which can be 'given'. If the vast majority of people in a country want a democratic government system, they will naturally develop it by themselves over time.

No shit sherlock, nobody is saying in a literal sense that America is "giving" them democracy. Democracy is the form of government seen by these people as "evil", and seeing as how they've had drilled into them the evilness of democracy, of course they're going to object it. It is not however, justification for terrorist attacks. They cannot naturally develop a sense of democracy if they have radical insergents blowing people up, objecting to a foreign form of government. That is why America is there, to mediate the tranisition.

 

[katie_tully]

That said, I wouldn't trust anything you say as far as I could kick it.

 

[Sepulchres]

Yeah...Suicide attacks are totally justifiable and all. I can see the justification in murdering thousands of innocent civilians because you're unhappy with foreign intervention. It doesn't matter whether the innocent civilians agreed with the foreign occupation of Iraq or not, because they deserved to die right? Like, exactly! Look at what the allied forces are doing to Iraq! It's completely horrible! I mean, Saddam plundering Iraqs wealth and leaving his people to starve was pretty bad, but actually trying to give the Iraqi people a democratic government? Unthinkable stuff.

They are doing an awesome job too, nearly keeping up with Saddam's death tally and all. I cannot see the logic in condemning the killing of innocent civilians while simultaneously justifying the killing of innocent civilians for the cause of democracy. Also, I cannot see why people justify this war because of Saddam's tyranny, its just as worse. People are still dying, suffering, starving. So put youreslf in an Iraqi's position, would you see yourself being liberated if everything around you is STILL the same as it was under Saddam? No, the troops in their eyes are just as worse.

You may say that this bloodshed is due to insurgents and quite rightly so. However, the US took this problem into their own hands by invading Iraq and only they are to blame. I mean Jesus, they should have forseen this with their "superior" intelligence and military and all. So, you justifying the killing of innocent civilians makes you no better than someone justifying suicide bombers.

 

[katie_tully]

I can totally see the link between the unfortunate human losses sustained during a war, and the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

 

[Sepulchres]

I can totally see the link between the unfortunate human losses sustained during a war, and the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

When these "unfortunate human loses" (gawd I love euphemisms) have been occurring for nearly 3 years and theres no end in sight, you have to wonder how "unfortunate" is it really? Could it have been avoided? Who started it? Think.

 

[rink]

They are doing an awesome job too, nearly keeping up with Saddam's death tally and all. I cannot see the logic in condemning the killing of innocent civilians while simultaneously justifying the killing of innocent civilians for the cause of democracy. Also, I cannot see why people justify this war because of Saddam's tyranny, its just as worse. People are still dying, suffering, starving. So put youreslf in an Iraqi's position, would you see yourself being liberated if everything around you is STILL the same as it was under Saddam? No, the troops in their eyes are just as worse.

You may say that this bloodshed is due to insurgents and quite rightly so. However, the US took this problem into their own hands by invading Iraq and only they are to blame. I mean Jesus, they should have forseen this with their "superior" intelligence and military and all. So, you justifying the killing of innocent civilians makes you no better than someone justifying suicide bombers.

Very very well said.....you can never justify killing innocent people

That said, anyone who believes that the American's invaded Iraq to liberate them or out of their 'goodwill' or whatever, really needs to be educated

 

[supercharged]

That said, anyone who believes that the American's invaded Iraq to liberate them or out of their 'goodwill' or whatever, really needs to be educated

Sounds like you should educate some of the BOS posters on this thread

 

[Comrade nathan]

We're all happy to go off into Lala land and donate millions in aid to these kinds of nations, aid meant for the construction of infrastructure, not for buying weapons as so many of them do.

US backed sanction make any aid useless.




You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You may say that this bloodshed is due to insurgents and quite rightly so. However, the US took this problem into their own hands by invading Iraq and only they are to blame. I mean Jesus, they should have forseen this with their "superior" intelligence and military and all. So, you justifying the killing of innocent civilians makes you no better than someone justifying suicide bombers.

I think you will have a hard time proving that the US is to blame for the violence in Iraq. I could point to the fact that the only reason the US brought violence upon Iraq was due to Saddam Husseins refusal to leave the nation, or due to the hatred of Saddam Hussein they had for his prior acts. Even if I consider that you may be able to prove that the US installed Saddam hussein it could be argued that that was done for different reasons... So I will leave that argument there and just point out that I don't believe it is particulary easy to blame the US for the current violence.

Also, I cannot see why people justify this war because of Saddam's tyranny, its just as worse. People are still dying, suffering, starving. So put youreslf in an Iraqi's position, would you see yourself being liberated if everything around you is STILL the same as it was under Saddam? No, the troops in their eyes are just as worse.

Well the idea is that the current violence will die down where as the Saddam's Tyranny could have lasted for years, even beyond his death. The Argument is that although there is much violence now, the iraqi people have already gone a long way into becomming a democratic people, and further progress is made every day.

I pose the question to you, of if Iraq ends up a free, democratic and prosperous nation (as it should be) will the war have of been worth it? I am aware that there were several other solutions which have been proposed, and that it is quite possible that the war will not result in such an outcome, but this is the ideal that I believe alot of supporters of the war believed in.

That said, anyone who believes that the American's invaded Iraq to liberate them or out of their 'goodwill' or whatever, really needs to be educated

It is not always a matter of believing that the Americans had only pure intentions, or that their purpose was to do such a thing.

US backed sanction make any aid useless.

Yea, but some nations have no excuse...
If you are wanting aid, you should not have such an expensive military unless you believe you are under some sort of direct threat which warrents that military for your security.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Right to use force? Won't the bleeding hearts start crying about human rights abuses like they did with Saddam?

Of course, and they should be aloud to cry about the use of force because it should be challenged whenever it is used. The use of force by the executive against its people is one of the fundamental ideals of what we call 'democracy', and when it is used, the justification should be strong and the people should fight it.

Also only those of your faction will vote for you, those belonging to other tribes will see you no different to a foreign installed dictator. Just as Saddam was popular with the sunnis but not with the shi'ites or kurds.

I am aware that there are significant cultural differences in Iraq, however there are many examples of countries with cultural differences that have managed to create systems that while causing some strife (as you would expect) manage to respect the rights of each cultural group while treating them somewhat uniformly under the one nation. The view you just proported is that of proponants of the white Australia policy.

At the end of the day, Iraq will not become democratic, the most likely scenario will be a bloody civil war ending with the installation of a shi'ite theocracy.
Pro-American democratic governance in Iraq is just the imagination of crack smoking US government warlords.

I think your civil war idea is just a fantasy, while it may have some justification to it, because you want to see america fail so miserably. I believe there will be religious law enshrined in Iraqi law, but not enough to warrent labelling it a 'theocracy'.

 

[supercharged]

I am aware that there are significant cultural differences in Iraq, however there are many examples of countries with cultural differences that have managed to create systems that while causing some strife (as you would expect) manage to respect the rights of each cultural group while treating them somewhat uniformly under the one nation. The view you just proported is that of proponants of the white Australia policy.

Many examples of countries with significant cultural difference? Yes, but are these different cultures just merely existing side by side, or do they have significant conflicts of interest (control of oil revenue, control of government)?

And are these groups in other countries heavily armed with military weapons with no hesistation to use them, or respect for law enforcement for that matter?

Compare apples with apples ok?