Which side?

[FistFullOfSteel]

1.Which side do you support in Iraq?

Coalition troops or the resistance?

2. Why do you support them?


enjoy

[Commie Girl]

I may not support their methods, but I am rooting for the underdog....the Resistance.

[FriedFrog]

Well, I would have to say that I dont support either cause, but the one that I would most like to see claim victory are the resistance.

They have every right to attack the invaders of their country, and I notice that they have not been branded as terrorists on the news programmes I watch (BBC and ITN), which shows some level of, not support, but understanding for the reasons they fight.

However, if the resistance were to win, it would no doubt go back to being controlled by a ruthless dictator, which is I'm sure is NOT what the Iraqi people want.

It's a 'loose-loose' situation, I think....

[FistFullOfSteel]

I found this article; it shows what the resistance want.


-------------

"Letter from Iraqi Patriotic Alliance addressed to our brothers all around the world

PPs Presentation

Nada Al-Rubaiee


The Iraqi resistance is confronting the illegitimate and brutal

Zionist Imperialist occupation of Iraq. Our resistance is

legitimate according to international law and the UN Charter,

including the right to resort to armed means. We are claiming

our right to national self-determination and a real sovereignty





The different resisting groups in Iraq have developed a network between each other in order to achieve their ultimate goal. This goal was clearly addressed in their political program released after the liberation of Fallujah in April this year (2004). The program of the Iraqi resistance is as follows:



1. End the occupation and liberate the country

2. Transition period of 2 years

3. Iraqi united- National government for all

4. Iraqi constitution written by Iraqis themselves

5. Democratic rules

6. Free election and full participation of the different political parties



To implement the strategy of liberation, the Iraqi resistance is attacking occupying forces and their institutions and those who serve them with food, oil and other supplies. On the other hand, the Iraqi resistance is preventing the occupiers from using Oil as a political means.



Schools, churches, mosques and other civilian places have never been the target of the Iraqi resistance. Besides, we have to be very critical and careful about any kidnapping or killing process of a foreigner-worker in Iraq. The resistance has no benefit in attacking people like Margaret Hassan, two Simona’s or others. These actions are meant to discredit the legal resistance of our people



Here, we would like to share with you some of the heroic achievements of the Iraqi resistance:



The Iraqi resistance was able to cause a high number of casualties in material and soldiers among the occupying forces.


The resistance fighters were able to liberate 30 cities: creating a suitable environment for the resistant fighters by forming a death-zone for the occupying forces and their agents.


The Iraqi resistance has defeated the Spanish imperialism and has forced 9 out of the occupying/ allying countries to leave Iraq. The Netherlands, Hungary and Poland are leaving Iraq next year.


The Iraqi resistance was able to pull plunder companies out of Iraq; the so-called contractors “rebuilding companies”.


The Iraqi resistance has renewed the spirit of resistance in the whole world by defeating the US imperialism in Fallujah, AlSamawa, Najaf and other Iraqi cities.


The heroic resistance in Iraq has isolated UK and US in Iraq, preventing temporary the go-on of the “war on terror” against: Syria, Cuba and North Korea.


The resistance in Iraq is the resistance of the Iraqi people and it is mainly represented by the major political groups; the Patriotic, Islamic and the Pan- Arab groups.



By this, we want to emphasis on the fact that our resistance has an anti-imperialistic profile with Islamic and patriotic elements. Adding on that, the effective participation of members of the dismantled Iraqi army and the Ba’ath party.



We could expect some objections about the participation of the Ba’ath party in the resistance. There are more than three million active Ba’ath party members in Iraq. So, when we mention members of this party we do not mean –only- those who were in the former Iraqi government. But those who believe in the Ba’ath ideology expressed in their slogan: Unity, Liberty and socialism.



The fear of the Islamic character of the Iraqi resistance could be answered by the fact that after the liberation of Iraq, the Iraqi resistance will then be the only legitimized representative of the Iraqi people. A transition period will then give the Iraqi people the chance to choose their representatives to form a united national government with full participation of all parties including the Islamic forces. We have then to accept the choice of the Iraqi people.



As to the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, we are proud to inform you that our secretary general in Iraq Mr. Abduljabbar al-Kubaysi was arrested on 3rd of September in Baghdad. The house he had temporarily stayed in was surrounded and stormed by about 50 US occupation soldiers employing helicopters and tanks. Mr. Al-Kubaysi was leading the IPA since the 90’s against the economic sanctions and the Zionistic and imperialistic plans of the US in Iraq. During his latest activities building a united political front of the resistance against the occupation, he was arrested without any charges. At this moment we know nothing about his situation. Even his family is unable to contact hem. We hold the occupying forces responsible for the health and life of Mr. Al-Kubaysi and all other prisoners in Iraq.



We hope for further coordination between you and us in our shared struggle against occupation and imperialism.



Long lives the Iraqi Resistance



In Solidarity,



Nada Al-Rubaiee [on behalf of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA)]"

[FriedFrog]

I take back what I said about them trying to install a dictatorship, I was ill-informed.

And, judging by that letter the obvious choice would be for the IPA. I hope they succeed in achieving their goals.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You have to note that there isn't an unified resistance with a single political view.

Back on topic: I support the oppressed above the oppressor.

[bolshevik butcher]

I support the resistance on principle, but I don't agree with some of their methods, such as targetting civilians and jurnalists. I don't like their leaders either.

[Exploited Class]

This is like chosing between democrats and republicans, let's chose the lesser of two evils.

One group bombs people with indiscrimate cluster bombs that kills anybody and everybody in its path.

The other group blows themselves up killing anybody and everybody in its path.

One group tortures civillians and people they think are guilty of crimes without a trial. Chosing a small margin of people

The other group cuts off the heads of anybody they blame or hold in connection with opposing forces without trial or jury.

One group is from another land wanting to dictate and controll a nation of people for its own corporate needs and strive for profit from the land.

The other group wants to control the land they are from for their own profit and power needs in order to further their own minority agenda.

Both groups kill innocent people not involved with either side.

Fuck that, I don't see reason to pretend this is a football match with scores that need me to root for the team I would like to see win or lose. Unfortunetly the quagmire that has been created by the US if opposition forces win the Iraqi people lose and if the opposition forces lose the Iraqi people lose. While both forces fight it out the Iraqi people lose.

They blew up a fucking hospital, last time I checked I was pretty pissed off when Clinton did that, hell I was just pissed off when Bush's lackies did it in Afganistan with a red cross food center.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, because I sure in the hell don't want to sleep in the same bed as the opposition forces, because they would cut off my head by morning.

Groups of people that will detonate themselves and kill children, innocent people, bystanders, hospitals, are not groups of people you ever want to gain control of a country. People willing to torture enemies slowly and cut the heads off of people are not great leaders of nations. If they ever took control of Iraq, they would make the evils of Saddam pale in comparison to what they would do to accomplish their agenda. Before anybody says, "they are only doing this to foriegn people who do not belong on their soil." if they are willing to do that to anybody to accomplish their goal and they can justify their actions, they can justify those actions for any circumstance for any situation.

Do you know who I would support, an international or even a middle eastern effort to go in and get the US out and then really help the people of Iraq. Drop foreign debt, put international monitors for a real election, assist with getting water and power restored, protect national treasures, protect the people of Iraq who are innocent in all of this, get jobs, socialize their oil and use it only for purpose of the people, prevent a theocracy. They need to restore relations, be alturistic, not expect anything in return, not make a single dime off the nation and its people and restore every internal support structure like hospitals and schools. Get unemployment down to single digits. That is what I would support. Because the people that need to win this would win. Maybe then they could get some resemblance of a functioning nation that doesn't entail being afraid of being blown up by your own people while taking a walk or getting shot and or tortured by US occuping forces.

[Jesus Christ!]

According to that letter I totally root for the resistance. I would also probably have no problem supporting the resistance if they used different methods or means to get what they want. Also if I did not know anyone over there it would be alot easier to support the resistance.

[RedLenin]

I am in complete agreement with Exploited Class. I hate both sides and honestly, the Iraqis are screwed either way. The best we can do is to work to stop this war ourselves.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I support neither.

[dso79]

I support the Resistance. The people who carry out the beheadings and the attacks on innocent civilians are only a small minority (usually foreigners) and don’t represent the Iraqi Resistance. As you can read in their letter, the IR has always condemned such attacks and only attacks occupation forces and collaborators. Furthermore, they intend to hold democratic elections, so there’s no reason to expect another dictatorship.

[In Search of True Thinkers]

Let's examine the situation:

*The U$ offers Iraq the most reasonable chance for stabilty in the region, however, by stability I mean that the nation will be inder an illusionary Democracy and the Iraqi people will have virtually no control over their economic standings in the world. Further because economic prostitutution often goes hand in hand with a lust for power the U$ puppet leader of Iraq will most likely put the populace of Iraq under some dire social constraints in addition to their economic slavery.

*The Iraqi resistance on the other hand represents the most desirable political environment that we would wish to see in Iraq, however in the complete truth it must be noted that the struggle they face is a long road laced with many difficulties. Further even if they do succeed in driving out the U$/UK invaders they will have to fight out the Islamic extremists whom have been the perpatraitors of the beheadings and strocities that have been so widely displayed on the U$ media. The most significant goals the IR must pursue, though, is uniting their forces under one political ideaology and winning the hearts and minds on the Iraqi people.

I support the resistance, and by resistance I mean only those who wish for true political freedom in Iraq and not Islamic extremists, nor those who are an unknowing tool of imperialistic power.

[Ele'ill]

I support those dying on the battlefield on both sides, and the families of those that have been killed on both sides. They are the resistance so to speak. They are the only ones that can truley say no to war. Resistance fighting imperialism, and imperialists fighting resistance; it's still war. It is not glamorous and 'a means to an end' is one of the most perverse phrases ever thought of; reguardless of which side is using it.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:53 PM
I support the Resistance. The people who carry out the beheadings and the attacks on innocent civilians are only a small minority (usually foreigners) and don’t represent the Iraqi Resistance. As you can read in their letter, the IR has always condemned such attacks and only attacks occupation forces and collaborators. Furthermore, they intend to hold democratic elections, so there’s no reason to expect another dictatorship.
if you can clarify that my support would probably shift towards them. Otherwise, i remain neutral.

[dso79]

The plans, goals and tactics of the IR are described quite clearly in the letter from the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (the one that FistFullOfSteel posted). It seems that the IPA speaks for many of the different resistance groups.

[Iepilei]

I support the people of Iraq. They have to take shit from both the US and the crazed-prophet, fundamentalist nut-bags who are turning their territory into a sparring ground for future conflicts.

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:49 PM
I support the people of Iraq. They have to take shit from both the US and the crazed-prophet, fundamentalist nut-bags who are turning their territory into a sparring ground for future conflicts.
But your going to join the military?

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by crossfire+Feb 25 2005, 02:57 PM--> (crossfire @ Feb 25 2005, 02:57 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 02:49 PM
I support the people of Iraq. They have to take shit from both the US and the crazed-prophet, fundamentalist nut-bags who are turning their territory into a sparring ground for future conflicts.
But your going to join the military? [/b]
Yeah, I suppose I'm not allowed any other mindset outside of that because that's just the way it works.

:lol:

[bunk]

It doesn't matter what mindset you have. The way the military works you just have to do what you're told.

[Anarchist Freedom]

neither

[Colombia]

I support the US led forces. We cannot suport Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. While there are some in the resistance who actually do wish for political freedom, the majority are nothing but religious fanatics.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

[dso79]

I understand why you don’t support Islamic fundamentalists, but why would you support a bunch of imperialist war criminals?

And by the way, even the US have admitted that most insurgents are ordinary Iraqis and that there are relatively few Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq.

[FistFullOfSteel]

Check further down on this page, on the "Iraqi resistance report"Iraqi resistance (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/iraqi_resistance.htm) And click one of those reports.

It seems that U.S has higher number of casualties than CBS is mention.


The questions now:

Do you think those numbers of U.S casualties is true?
Can we trust those numbers on CBS site too?

[Ele'ill]

Why dwell on numbers?

[Thomas]

Both sides are right-wingers, and both are aiming to exploit their people, and both are willing to sacrifice their people to make their ends meet.

Neither.

[Ele'ill]

....and both are aiming to exploit their people, and both are willing to sacrifice their people to make their ends meet.

Neither.

This could also be applied to a present day leftist revolution. Who are they catering to? Their ideology, or the masses? There will always be sacrifice in armed conflict, and armed conflict is always used to make 'their ends meet'

[Thomas]

But with a revolution, the direct target are the counter-revolutionaries, Beurgoisie, and class traitors. The people we would be fighting against we would be fighting for a just cause, for a genuine cause.

The groups fighting in Iraq at the moment are merely fighting for personal advancement, of course many of the foot soldiers they have dieing for them are fighting for a democratic Iraq, but they are merely tools employed by their respective masters. The foot soldiers die in wars, they don't get the benefits of the war.

In a Communist revolution we would be fighting for a new world, for a new society, we would be fighting for the masses and our ideology, that is what the very essence of our revolution is about.

[pandora]

I support the Iraqi people, not the mullahs. But I recognize that many people have sided with them out of necessity. I hope that the Iraqi people can regain control of their country.

Iepitei,
Please don't join the military. You will get paid $1-2 an hour to get treated like shit and get shot at. You can work two jobs here and have more time off, get the same discipline, and a heck of a lot more pay.

If you want a skill go to a technical college. But the body bags are increasing every day. And what they don't talk about are the injuries, especially from our own chemical shit.

THe military will fuck you up. Either you go mental or you come out with anger and resentment for civilians for being sloppy and undisciplined.

There is nothing wrong with being lazy when the other option is to work for the status quo.

If you must join the military join the coast guard! :D Their asses aren't being sent to Iraq and they get the same pay to hang out in Alaska and chill.

[codyvo]

I don't support either side but I think that the Resistance should win so that the fate of Iraq can be decided by the people of Iraq.

[Ele'ill]

But with a revolution, the direct target are the counter-revolutionaries, Beurgoisie, and class traitors. The people we would be fighting against we would be fighting for a just cause, for a genuine cause.

Who is to define who the counter revolutionary is? Is it anyone with an opposing ideology?
A real revolution will be nameless, with out an imposing belief system that has an automated guidline with text from one hundred years ago to support it.
Every ideology has it's 'genuine cause'. Even Hitler's.




In a Communist revolution we would be fighting for a new world, for a new society, we would be fighting for the masses and our ideology, that is what the very essence of our revolution is about.

You don't fight for the masses. You fight as a part of the masses. What if the masses have a different ideology to yours? Maybe even an opposing ideology, other than the current capitalist one. The essence of revolution will be interpreted differently by everyone. The masses will not neccisarily rise up for a communist revolution, they will rise up to target certain organizations (WTO) or they will rise up to combat sanctions, and foreign policy. It will not be a fight for an ideology, it will be a fight for their freedom to choose an ideology for themselves.





I don't support either side but I think that the Resistance should win so that the fate of Iraq can be decided by the people of Iraq.

The fate of iraq is currently being decided by the side with the most weapons. The US.
If the US pulls out, this will not change, the religious side with the most weapons, will be dominant. They will decide the fate.

[TheKwas]

Can I ask whoever posted that Article to provide a source, that could prove to be really handy.

[FistFullOfSteel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:34 AM
Can I ask whoever posted that Article to provide a source, that could prove to be really handy.
http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1204/IPA_031204.htm

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:51 PM
I understand why you don’t support Islamic fundamentalists, but why would you support a bunch of imperialist war criminals?

And by the way, even the US have admitted that most insurgents are ordinary Iraqis and that there are relatively few Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq.
Because the question posed was which of the two sides you supported.

Can you check my link again?

[Irish_Bebop]

Im not in favour of the invasion or americas continued policy in Iraq, but i dont believe that the resistence represents the will of the Iraqi people, they are brutal fundimentalists who use Handicapped Children (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1655204,00.html) in their suicide attacks :angry: .

I believe most of them are foreign fundimentalists and members of the insecure Shiite minority, and they are acting to distabalise the whole country completely, and im sure if they had their way they would install another brutal Islamofacist government.


Iraq for ordinary Iraqi's, not the Americans or the insurgents

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:24 AM
I support the US led forces. We cannot suport Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. While there are some in the resistance who actually do wish for political freedom, the majority are nothing but religious fanatics.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm
And you're the same guy who doesn't want to "work with anarchists" and even wants them banned from this site???

The same guy who quotes Engels against Bakunin in one thread and then turns right around and happily quotes an imperialist "think-tank" in this thread???

Your link's homepage...

http://globalsecurity.org/index.html

If those lying bastards told me it was raining outside, I'd go check for myself. I certainly wouldn't believe a fucking word they ever said about anyone fighting U.S. imperialism.

And you call yourself a "communist" and support U.S.-British imperialism in Iraq???

As "the lesser of two evils", perhaps???

To a real communist, it's not a question. The Americans and their lackeys must be defeated in Iraq...no matter who does it or what their motivations are.

After that happens, then we can "pick sides" in the civil war that follows. You folks already know my feelings about mullahs and imams...so you can probably guess who I'll support then.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Intifada]

Redstar2000 is completely right.

[dso79]

Because the question posed was which of the two sides you supported.

Yes. And my question was: Why do you support them?


i dont believe that the resistence represents the will of the Iraqi people, they are brutal fundimentalists

The majority of Iraqis want the occupation troops to leave, which is exactly what the resistance is trying to achieve. And the fact that most of the fighters are muslims, doesn‘t mean that they are all fundamentalists. Only a small minority can be considered fundamentalist.


Iraq for ordinary Iraqi's, not the Americans or the insurgents

I don’t really understand why people see “the insurgents” and “the Iraqis” as two different groups. Does anyone really believe that all the Iraqis just accepted the occupation and that all the fighters are from other countries? That doesn’t make sense. The insurgents are ordinary Iraqis from all sorts of different backgrounds who have united to fight against the occupation.

[Rockfan]

None.

I wouldn't ever sopport the couilition and from what I know most of the resistance are fundilentelists. Are there any leftist groups?

[Mitch Flo]

The Americans and their lackeys must be defeated in Iraq...no matter who does it or what their motivations are.


I agree with this answer completley.

[Irish_Bebop]

so you want death fear and instability to continue, even to increase? I dont think that the situation should be allowed to degenerate into full civil war, in the end the only people that will be hurt are ordinary Iraqis, the human beings on the ground, no ideologies would have won or lost, only more innocent people would have died.
American presence in Iraq is shameful, as shameful as the actions of those insurgents who want to lead the country into years of death, destruction and then eventualy religious facism. Both sides are nearly equally as dispicable, the question is which solution will benifit the Iraqi people most?

I dont think it is the insurgents, and i dont like the idea of it being the Americans, but i pick the lesser evil. international politics and squables are not games to played out over the bodies of more dead Iraqis. :angry:

[Phalanx]

The insurgents must use peaceful ways. Not only will they have heavy losses and possibly lose their conflict, but they could get much more world support if they tried to resolve this peacefully. It does not matter if they are left or right wingers, many people on both sides are being killed because they listen to their incompetent leaders. Bombings in crowded civilian areas will not gain the world's support. This is the reason i cannot support the Palestinians.

I remain neutral in both conflicts.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Irish_Bebop+--> (Irish_Bebop)...the question is which solution will benefit the Iraqi people most?

I don't think it is the insurgents, and I don't like the idea of it being the Americans, but I pick the lesser evil.[/b]

I'm going to be charitable here and assume that your comment stems from gross ignorance and not outright sympathy for U.S. imperialism.

What happens to a country that is dominated by U.S. imperialism? If you want to see what Iraq will look like if the resistance is defeated, do some digging. Look at Ecuador, the Philippines, Colombia, etc. What do you see there?

Somewhere around 80% of the population in total and absolute misery.

Perhaps 15% of the population living in moderately civilized conditions...as native employees of U.S. corporations.

And a tiny elite of blood-sucking bastards at the top...kept in power by the U.S. military.

And it stays that way...decade after decade after decade!

Or gets even worse.

Also keep in mind that U.S. imperialists have no principled objection to Islamic fundamentalism whatsoever...as long as the particular fundamentalists in power obey American orders.

Women in Iraq are already worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein...do you imagine that "behind the scenes" the American military are telling their Iraqi quislings to "be nice to women"???

I really think you need to read a lot more about how U.S. imperialism actually works "on the ground".


International politics and squabbles are not games to played out over the bodies of more dead Iraqis.

A noble sentiment...but totally useless in a world of capitalism and imperialism.

At the beginning of the last century, imperialists actually described their deeds as "the great game".

They may no longer use the phrase, but they're still playing to win.

And every time they win, we lose!


Chinghis Khan
The insurgents must use peaceful ways.

As a matter of fact, they did try "peaceful ways" at the very beginning of the occupation. The U.S. military opened fire on several peaceful demonstrations.

And that was the end of that.

Would you have advocated "peaceful ways" to the resistance movements in countries occupied by the Nazi armies???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

As far as i've read into it, the jewish resistance fighters didn't bomb the civilian population.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:46 PM
As far as I've read into it, the Jewish resistance fighters didn't bomb the civilian population.
The "Jewish resistance" in Nazi-occupied Europe was mostly confined to the defensive uprising in the Warsaw ghetto.

The "patriotic" resistance movement in many of the Nazi-occupied countries certainly did target German civilians when they could...as well as their own nationals who collaborated with the Nazis.

In British-occupied Palestine, the Jewish resistance forces likewise targeted British civilians...most notably by blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

I realize that some folks here may find the realities of resistance movements "uncomfortable"...and I can't help that any.

But I repeat: ask yourself what things will be like if the American Empire wins??? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

The "patriotic" resistance movement in many of the Nazi-occupied countries certainly did target German civilians when they could...as well as their own nationals who collaborated with the Nazis.

Were these german civilians collaborating with the nazis, were they openly prosecuting jews? I would imagine they were, and thus a greater part of the problem. Targeting particular 'civilians' is not really the same as setting off car bombs. Anybody could be walking by when they go off. That includes non us collaboraters, being civilian men women and children.



I realize that some folks here may find the realities of resistance movements "uncomfortable"...and I can't help that any.

But I repeat: ask yourself what things will be like if the American Empire wins???


I am not uncomfortable with resistance movments at all, only those that target random civilians using sloppy tactics such as car bombs. As for the empire, they win when they say they win. It isn't a matter of physically winning anything as there will never be a cease in resistance after an invasion. This iraq election was a sham due to the fact that it didn't prove america had won, it proved that they had to come up with a quick plan (the election) to get out. They had to save face and 'let the iraqis vote for a logical pullout operation' rather than pull out slowly on their own; as that would have been a massive victory for the resistance.

[dso79]

I am not uncomfortable with resistance movments at all, only those that target random civilians using sloppy tactics such as car bombs.

Even though the media call every bomb attack an act of terrorism, most bombs target (and hit) soldiers or collaborators. I don’t think car bombs are a sloppy tactic; they are quite accurate, especially suicide car bombs, since they can be driven right into the target. On some occasions, though, the bombers put others in danger unnecessarily (for example by attacking a police station next to a busy market).

You also have to look at it from a tactical point of view. The guerrillas prefer to fight in an urban environment, because if they attack the enemy in open terrain they will be defeated very quickly and there aren’t any jungles for them to hide in. The cities offer many advantages, but urban combat does increase the risk of civilian casualties.
And because the US army is much stronger than they are, the guerrillas also try to avoid direct confrontations; therefore they use tactics like roadside bombings and car bombings.


As for the empire, they win when they say they win. It isn't a matter of physically winning anything as there will never be a cease in resistance after an invasion.

I’d say that they’ll win when the benefits of the war outweigh the costs.

[Ele'ill]

Even though the media call every bomb attack an act of terrorism, most bombs target (and hit) soldiers or collaborators

Many of the bombs do target soldiers, i'd argue the 'and hit' part of it. I believe many of those iraqi civilians were killed by guerrilla car bombings and the like. If they were all collaborators, how much were they collaborating? Were they conversing with soldiers? Were they attempting to stay politicaly neutral? What were the reasons they were killed? I can understand that urban warfare is brutal, and 'accidents' happen. However i'd like a clear number on the number of iraqi civilians killed by insurgents, as i'd imagine the number is quite significant and should not be put off as colateral damage. www.iraqbodycount.net (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) apparently has been keeping track of civilian deaths via media outlets willing to care/cover the civilians deaths. I have not checked out that site and I could very likley be wrong in my assumption. I will check it out later and post a reply if need be.

[bolshevik butcher]

Car bombing civilian targets is wrong, it's far more effective to target the oil pipelines anyway.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:44 PM










If those lying bastards told me it was raining outside, I'd go check for myself. I certainly wouldn't believe a fucking word they ever said about anyone fighting U.S. imperialism.Alright then, show me a website that accurately describes all the resistance groups in Iraq since you don't beleive my source.


And you call yourself a "communist" and support U.S.-British imperialism in Iraq??? Why would the government they put forth in Iraq not be better than Islamic fundamentalism? If Iraq was to fall to religious fanatics, it would just be like digressing.


As "the lesser of two evils", perhaps???Sure


To a real communist, it's not a question. The Americans and their lackeys must be defeated in Iraq...no matter who does it or what their motivations are.Who are you to define as real or not? Not every communist out there thinks like you.

Redstar why would an islamic fundamentalist state be better than the one the Iraqis would live under by US imperialism. At least they will beleive that they are free and then they can work from there to improve their situation but if another Taliban came into existance, it would be horrible.