Iraqi "resistance movement"

[James]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1446356,00.html

(I'd like to point out that this supports my earlier position of not blindly supporting the entire "resistance" movement against the coalition.)

It is an incredibly interesting read about how the "resistance" has turned "on itself": in that finally the nationalists are turning on the international islamic fighters in iraq. Some interesting examples of local people turning on and killing such religious terrorists.




You see nothing is black and white.

[Prol]

I would never fully support non-communists. As for them turning on themselves I couldnt really care less.

I think with the Iraqi resistance and the general goings on over there your lookign at a case of the lesser of two evils as they say. Therefore I choose the Iraqi resistance over imprialism.

[dso79]

It is an incredibly interesting read about how the "resistance" has turned "on itself": in that finally the nationalists are turning on the international islamic fighters in iraq.

It’s not really surprising; nationalists and Islamists never get along. There have been several clashes between Iraqi fighters and foreign fighters, even before the elections. Hopefully, they will be able to overcome their differences and focus on the occupation forces again.

It’s kinda hard to tell if the Resistance really begins to crack, though, or if the US are just saying that to win support for the war. I mean, the Russians are still trying to convince the world that the situation in Chechnya is returning to normal, even though everything points to the contrary.


Some interesting examples of local people turning on and killing such religious terrorists.

Where does it say that they were “religious terrorists”? The article says something about hooded men who started shooting at passers-by, but nothing about their background or the reason why they started shooting. It may have been an attempted robbery or a family feud or something, but it doesn’t sound like a resistance operation. The story about townsmen in Wihda killing “militants” sounds pretty vague as well.

Most acts of violence are blamed on “insurgents” by the media, even though many attacks are probably crime-related, or the result of ethnic tensions, tribal feuds etc.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:18 PM
I would never fully support non-communists. As for them turning on themselves I couldnt really care less.

I think with the Iraqi resistance and the general goings on over there your lookign at a case of the lesser of two evils as they say. Therefore I choose the Iraqi resistance over imprialism.
Do you not support the democratic goal in Iraq (regardless of how unjust the war itself is)?

[Severian]

I had that hope at one time, that some element of the resistance might put a stop to the anti-Shia bigoted violence being committed by Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq" and perhaps other groups.

After all, if any of them had the goal of building a national liberation movement, and uniting the various nationalities and religious communities of Iraq against the occupation, that would be a high priority.

But previous suggestions that they might, haven't panned out.

And it's highly improbable that Zarqawi's organization, especially its non-Iraqi members, could operate without the protection and financing of the Ba'athists.

Finally, the incidents mentioned in the Guardian article don't necessarily point in that direction.

For example, this one: "Last week shopkeepers and residents killed three hooded men who began shooting at passers-by in Baghdad's southern Doura neighbourhood."

Here's As it happens I read a more detailed account of this incident several days ago. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/217200_iraq23.html)

It was a group of Shi'a residents defending their neighborhood, maybe their mosque, from intercommunal violence. Not in any sense a conflict among resistance fighters.

There's simply no evidence that any part of the "resistance" has any interest in uniting Iraqis across lines of nationality or religious sect. It's not a national liberation movement at all, but an attempt to restore the supremacy of the Sunni Arab population over other Iraqis.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see James has crawled out from under whatever rock he was hiding under long enough to plug his reactionary ideal. Whatever.

As long as the imperialists suffer a humiliating retreat from Iraq I will be happy.

[aztecklaw]

It's a common practice to divide and conquer the nations. A nation is much easier to conquer if you divide the people.

That has been the problem with the Iraqi resistance. They have divided themselves into so many factions it has difficult to organise the resistance as a whole. If I were to place blame for all these factions, I would blame religion, since religion has the unique ability to divide people with a disagreement on the smallest detail of their religion.

I also believe that Islam is just as dangerous as Christianity. If Islam was as strong as Christianity, I would have no doubt in my mind that Islam would impose their religion on others as Christianity has done.

Regardless, the people in Iraq have a right to govern themselves with their own ideals and should resist the imperialism at all costs.

It's funny how Americans claim they went in there to remove an evil dictator, yet war was waged on all the people of Iraq.

[Prol]

Originally posted by The Apathetic Atheist+Mar 27 2005, 07:15 PM--> (The Apathetic Atheist @ Mar 27 2005, 07:15 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 06:18 PM
I would never fully support non-communists. As for them turning on themselves I couldnt really care less.

I think with the Iraqi resistance and the general goings on over there your lookign at a case of the lesser of two evils as they say. Therefore I choose the Iraqi resistance over imprialism.
Do you not support the democratic goal in Iraq (regardless of how unjust the war itself is)? [/b]
lol democratic goal in Iraq?

yankee puppet state is now a democratic goal?

No I certainly dont support the "democratic goal" in Iraq.

[refuse_resist]

The Iraqi resistance is a popular front. It isn't fighting for any particular ideology, rather it is made up of people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds putting aside their differences and coming together to take on the common enemy, which is no other than the imperialist occupiers and the puppet regime that was handpicked and set up.

The CIA, Mossad and SAS have been conducting many covert operations in Iraq. They are trying to create factionalism amongst all the different groups and trying to make them turn on eachother because they know that when they all unite for the common cause they are using strength in numbers, which of course the imperialists do not like.

[James]

It’s not really surprising; nationalists and Islamists never get along. There have been several clashes between Iraqi fighters and foreign fighters, even before the elections. Hopefully, they will be able to overcome their differences and focus on the occupation forces again.


I know its not. It seemed obvious to me as soon as the war was over.
But the situation on this board at the time was that the "opinion" of the "elite" stated that there wasn't. Because i didn't want to support these religious nutters, i was made out to be an imperialist. I think malte in the end made a post against this "opinion" (if you care to look it up, feel free).

Anyway, thats a different story!

Yes it is obvious. I'm very happy if the majority on here now realize this.


Where does it say that they were “religious terrorists”?

Good point. I infered and was drunk.
:D


Most acts of violence are blamed on “insurgents” by the media, even though many attacks are probably crime-related, or the result of ethnic tensions, tribal feuds etc.


I quite agree: the tribal element was mentioned in the article.

+ + + + +


I see James has crawled out from under whatever rock he was hiding under[/quote

lol, i was at university.

And you realize this irrelevant ranting will get a likewise reaction from me?

[quote]long enough to plug his reactionary ideal.

You become stuck if you don't have all these special words to use don't you! Top of the marxist che-lives class arn't we...

This is the sort of thing which makes me dislike marxists...

Yes we have different opinions - thus i'm a "reactionary". This automatically makes you seem non-reactionary and blah blah blah.
It's pathetic word play.


As long as the imperialists suffer a humiliating retreat from Iraq I will be happy.


And that isn't reactionary??

It seems very reactionary to me. You are simply reacting to what the "imperialists" say and do.

Your concern isn't with iraq and the people with iraq - but with America.
Thus everything that you think about iraq is tainted in this bias.

I think your comment is very naive.
You would like anything to happen in iraq, as long as the coalition are "humiliated"?

You sound like you were once shagging the coalition, only to come back one night to find it in bed with something else! You know what i mean? You don't mind what on earth happens, as long as you can make the other look bad.

geeeeee i really wish i was cool and unreactionary like you!
;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And that isn't reactionary??

It seems very reactionary to me. You are simply reacting to what the "imperialists" say and do.

Nice job taking something literally dimwit. Maybe I should start calling you a scab instead. But then you'd probably make some smart-arsed comment about not being a blood clot on the the skin.
I notice you put the word imperialists in quotation marks. Does that mean you think the US invaded Iraq for something other than control of the oil? It wouldn't surprise me, you know. You'd believe anything.


Your concern isn't with iraq and the people with iraq - but with America.
Thus everything that you think about iraq is tainted in this bias.

Well, being a Marxist I do have a bit of a problem with imperialism you know. Any Marxist worth their salt would like to see imperialism defeated. You however seem to care more about the professional mercenaries. It kinda makes me doubt that your priorities have anything to do with self-determination.


I think your comment is very naive.
You would like anything to happen in iraq, as long as the coalition are "humiliated"?

What's bad for imperialism is good for us. You may find that hard to grasp, being a reactionary and all, but that's the truth.


You sound like you were once shagging the coalition, only to come back one night to find it in bed with something else! You know what i mean? You don't mind what on earth happens, as long as you can make the other look bad.

I have never supported the coalition. Only a complete turd like you would make that assumption.

Geeee I wish you'd fuck off and die.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:38 PM
The Iraqi resistance is a popular front. It isn't fighting for any particular ideology, rather it is made up of people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds putting aside their differences and coming together to take on the common enemy, which is no other than the imperialist occupiers and the puppet regime that was handpicked and set up.
No, in fact, there's nothing "popular" about it at all. Or if you're going to use the traditional rather than literal use of the term, it refers to an opportunist coalition between reformist workers' parties and capitalist parties...since no workers' parties are part of the armed resistance, the occupation's Governing Council would be more accurately described as a Popular Front. (The Iraqi CP joined it.) Who knows, maybe the CP will be in whatever coalition government is set up coming out of the newly elected assembly, too. That would be very much in the "Popular Front" tradition.

And the resistance does not come from "people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds". It is made up of Sunni Arabs who kill people for being Shi'a or Kurdish. You might as well say that U.S. white supremacists are "people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds" just because it includes a certain political variety: neo-Nazis, KKK, Church of the Creator, etc.....

I mean, aren't you following the news from Iraq at all? (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2005/03/11/957664-ap.html)

[bolshevik butcher]

The resistance, isn't one group, it's not lke the viet cong. I only support groups that don't kidnap innocents, and bomb civilians.

[dso79]

And the resistance does not come from "people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds".

Yes, it does; there are many Kurds, Shi’ites, secularists etc fighting alongside the Sunni guerrillas. The Mehdi Army, for example, is an important Shi’ite resistance group, that also cooperates with Sunni groups. Those attacks against Shi’ites weren’t carried out by the Resistance; the IR only targets occupation troops and collaborators. Blaming terrorist attacks on the Resistance is an insult to the people fighting against imperialism.

Unfortunately, it does seem that sectarian violence is on the increase:

Fractured Iraq sees a Sunni call to arms (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/03/27/fractured_iraq_sees_a_sunni_call_to_arms/)

[James]

Nice job taking something literally dimwit. Maybe I should start calling you a scab instead. But then you'd probably make some smart-arsed comment about not being a blood clot on the the skin.

Not when put into the context of our posts old boy.

Think about it: a reactionary is someone who simply reacts to something. Thats not taking it "literally" in terms of what you define as being "literal" (your blood clot quote).

It is using dictionary definition.

What on earth does your version mean?
May i suggest when in public debate you use proper words, and if you insist on using specific alternative meanings: that you actuall set out what you mean by it.
You see otherwise it becomes a buzz word that you simply throw around. Like above for example.

May i also suggest you read G. Orwell's essay on the use of english language. It is relevant to this discussion.



And yes: my use of the word isn't pointless. I make a valid point which i develop.

You are a reactionary in that all you have seemed to say and do is simply a reaction to a few people.

Look at iraq: you state yourself that you don't care what happens, as long as the coalition are made to "look bad".

That my dear friend, is reactionary in my opinion.
Maybe not in marxist-speak. But i am not a marxist.
Its like me not writing this post in french. I'm not french: nor speak french.
Going to pick up on that too?



I notice you put the word imperialists in quotation marks. Does that mean you think the US invaded Iraq for something other than control of the oil? It wouldn't surprise me, you know. You'd believe anything.

I did that because it is a wide ranging term which covers an awful lot of people. I didn't mind making this sweeping comment at the time because i didn't want to go into the ins and outs of who you and i actually consider to be "imperialist". Putting it into quotation marks showed that i intend care to be taken with the term in the context of my post.

however...
True: alot of westerners over there are not, in my opinion, imperialists.
I don't think the soldiers are even the actual imperialists - on the whole they are the working class being used like a tool by actual imperialists. Look at who goes into the army. All those that i know didn't join to become imperialists. Mainly it is simply all that they could do in our economy (or so they believed). You and i may think we know better: but that is rather an arrogant assumption in my mind.

Further more; i consider alot of "imperialist action" in iraq to be not imperialist - for example elections; bridge building etc etc

The coalition WOULD leave if the government (elected by the people who voted... i know its not perfect - but i don't consider them puppets. The puppet didn't win the election) asked them to. However they won't ask for a while because they need them for security purposes. I'm all for this because i'm against most foreign "insurgents".

See how it all fits together?


Probably not i imagine. Just call me lots of cool names to impress everyone.


Well, being a Marxist I do have a bit of a problem with imperialism you know. Any Marxist worth their salt would like to see imperialism defeated. You however seem to care more about the professional mercenaries. It kinda makes me doubt that your priorities have anything to do with self-determination.


I'm not in favour of imperialism.
I'm against imperialism.

I'm not a reactionary though.

I'm amazed that you still find this concept mind blowing.


What's bad for imperialism is good for us.

Define "bad for imperialism".
Define "us".

I do not think that the coalition being made to look bad: nesecarily is always in the best interests of the iraqi people.
They are the ones i'm more concerned with.
You are simply being anti coalition in the issue.

Which is fair enough - but i do wish you would see what i mean by how this shapes your view. It is was has led to you believing that i'm in favour of imperialism and am reactionary.
You don't even know me! Please see how silly this all is!!



You may find that hard to grasp, being a reactionary and all, but that's the truth.

There we go again with the lingo.
That's the truth??
Hardly... philosophers have debated what truth is for thousands of years. There are countless contradicting truths everyday.
But you have figured it all out?


I have never supported the coalition. Only a complete turd like you would make that assumption.

Geeee I wish you'd fuck off and die.


I'm sorry: but that made me laugh!. I'm not just saying that either.

I never "assumed" that. Read what i wrote again.

And please.... language.
Its an internet chat page. You shouldn't feel so strongly about it! chances are we have both misunderstood the other!

Its pointless getting so worked up about it mate.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:03 PM
Yes, it does; there are many Kurds, Shi’ites, secularists etc fighting alongside the Sunni guerrillas. The Mehdi Army, for example, is an important Shi’ite resistance group, that also cooperates with Sunni groups.
No, it doesn't. Have you read a newspaper since last April?

When the Mahdi Army rose up almost a year ago, it seemed possible there might be a convergence between the "Mahdi Army" and the Sunni resistance - I hoped so myself - but they've moved in different directions instead.

Even when Sadr's "Mahdi Army" was fighting with weapons against the occupation, there was little coordination. Currently, they aren't. Sadrists participated in the election, both as their own slate and as part of the main Shi'a theocratic slate (the one which won the election.)

Many Shi'a, the "Mahdi Army" and others, sent aid to Falluja during the first U.S. assault on it. Many others protested the assault - the widespread opposition, extending even into the Governing Council, led Bremer to call it off.

Their reward: Falluja became a secure base for mass-murder bombings against the Shi'a population. Not surprisingly, Shi'a gave little aid to Falluja, and raised little protest, during the second U.S. assault.

There is a Kurdish al-Qaeda-like group - Ansar al-Islam - which is part of the resistance, but it also carries out attacks on the Kurdish population generally and is vehemently hated by most Kurds.


Those attacks against Shi’ites weren’t carried out by the Resistance; the IR only targets occupation troops and collaborators.

Is this a statement of fact - in which case, where's your evidence? Or are you just defining those groups which attack civilians out of the resistance...in which case, who's left?

From the article you linked:


For the first time, Sunni Muslim sheiks are publicly exhorting followers to strike with force against ethnic Kurds and Shi'ites, an escalation in rhetoric that could exacerbate the communal violence that already is shaking Iraq's ethnic communities.

''The Americans aren't the problem; we're living under an occupation of Kurds and Shi'ites," Sattar Abdulhalik Adburahman, a Sunni leader from the northern city of Kirkuk, told a gathering of tribal leaders last week, to deafening applause. ''It's time to fight back.

That's the social base of the resistance speaking. The resistance say it themselves: it's not an anti-imperialist movement, it's a Sunni-Arab-supremacist movement.

Clenched Fist wrote:

The resistance, isn't one group, it's not lke the viet cong. I only support groups that don't kidnap innocents, and bomb civilians.

Ya got one thing right, it's not like the Vietnamese NLF, who led a revolutionary movement for national liberation and against capitalism.

Do you support groups that aid, finance, and protect those groups that kidnap innocents, and bomb civilians?

If there's some section of the resistance which really opposes these actions, why haven't they put a stop to them? Even verbal condemnations of Zarqawi from other sections of the resistance has been light for the past several months.

Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq", and similar groups, are now one of the most prominent element of the resistance on the ground, and clearly function in collaboration with the Ba'athists with their money and skilled military personnel. The Ba'athists themselves have no objection to indiscriminately slaughtering Shi'a and Kurds, as their record in power shows.

[Andy Bowden]

Heres a good article on the Iraqi resistance,

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=6490

[redstar2000]

Well, it seems that Severian has formally pronounced "the verdict of history" on the Iraqi resistance (Trotskyists like to do that sort of thing).


Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)And the resistance does not come from "people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds". It is made up of Sunni Arabs who kill people for being Shi'a or Kurdish.[/b]


Severian
That's the social base of the resistance speaking. The resistance say it themselves: it's not an anti-imperialist movement, it's a Sunni-Arab-supremacist movement.

Consider the implications of these statements...

1. A whole "new" justification for the U.S. invasion and occupation -- "we're" there to stop "Sunni supremacism.

2. The anti-war movement in the U.S. has no further justification for its own existence; Bush was "right"...and even "progressive".

3. The next step for the Iraqi resistance is to unconditionally surrender to the quisling regime...and get to work building a real Trotskyist party.

It's "what they should have done" all along. :lol:

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

[Severian]

Andy Bowden: The author of that piece doesn't say where he got his info. It's rather out of date in any case, from July 2004.

In fact, the author's changed his pro-resistance views since, and has gone much farther than I have in denouncing the resistance.

His blog, December 2004 (http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_robertlindsay_archive.html)

It begins:

By any progressive standards, the Iraqi resistance seems to have morphed in recent days into one of the most unprincipled, unethical, fanatical, unreasonable, and reactionary resistance factions on Earth.
More highlights:

Although there have been a couple of serious, and commendable, flare-ups of Shia nationalistic Islamism with the 2 Sadr rebellions in 2004, at the moment, the resistance is probably 90% Sunni Arab.

Furthermore, as 2004 wore on, the Sunni Islamists became more and more extreme, with a movement towards Salafism or Wahhabism, the most extreme Sunni Islam with roots in the Arabian Gulf. Through 2004 the Leftist, nationalist, and unified front type groupings gradually seemed to give way to this extreme fanatical Sunni Salafist Islam, which now dominates the Iraqi resistance with its bleak, cruel, medieval, puritanical, theocratic agenda. With each passing month, more and more Shia are alienated from the resistance as the Sunni extremists attack the Shia with increasing regularity. In the areas they control, the Sunni fanatics have imposed the most backwards, insane, brutal and stupid version of Islamic law since the fall of the Taliban.
.....
The Shia are threatened, bullied, humiliated and ultimately ethnically cleansed.
....
At the moment, the Sunni resistance has various goals. The first and only noble goal, from the point of view of an ideal resistance faction, is to throw the US Coalition out of Iraq. Beyond that, the Sunnis increasingly fear a Shia takeover in the coming elections in January. The Sunni Arabs have brutally ruled Mesopotamia, and later Iraq, for many centuries, lording it over the Shia Arabs in the process. This 20% oligarchic elite, the Sunni Arabs, feel somehow entitled to lord it over Shia Arabs and Kurds like the worst feudal overlords. A Shia victory in the coming elections would be the end of the reign of this racist ruling class Sunni elite, the end of their supremacism and domination of the other groups in the nation, and the end to their ill-deserved privileges obtained by brutally exploiting the other groups. The Sunni Arabs need to get used to the fact that they are a minority in Iraq.

If the Sunnis had any sense, they would be negotiating deals with the Shia at this very moment. Instead, like a typical ruling class thrown out of power, they are not giving up the tiniest bit of their illegitimate power and privileges without a vicious fight.

I don't think much of this Robert Lindsay - hey, you linked him first, not me - but....he can notice the obvious on this one.

As for Redstar, he hasn't even tried to dispute the accuracy of my description of the situation. Probably because he can't. (An honest opponent, in this situation, would admit the accuracy of those points before moving on to make his criticisms. Redstar prefers to remain silent, typically.)

Instead, he's thrown up an obvious strawman.

As he's said himself in the past, opposition to imperialism doesn't require you to flop down in homage before every regime it's in conflict with....that logically outa imply the remnants of deposed regimes.

And as I've pointed out in the past, you gotta proceed from what you're for not what you're against.

Increasing numbers of "leftists" are operating solely on opposition to U.S. imperialism - or worse, just Bush and perhaps part of the Democratic Party. This tends to lead towards enlisting in the global anti-American coalition....headed by French and German imperialism, Chirac and Shroeder, the Bourse and the Deutschebank.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 28 2005, 03:42 PM--> (Severian @ Mar 28 2005, 03:42 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 07:38 PM
The Iraqi resistance is a popular front. It isn't fighting for any particular ideology, rather it is made up of people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds putting aside their differences and coming together to take on the common enemy, which is no other than the imperialist occupiers and the puppet regime that was handpicked and set up.
No, in fact, there's nothing "popular" about it at all. Or if you're going to use the traditional rather than literal use of the term, it refers to an opportunist coalition between reformist workers' parties and capitalist parties...since no workers' parties are part of the armed resistance, the occupation's Governing Council would be more accurately described as a Popular Front. (The Iraqi CP joined it.) Who knows, maybe the CP will be in whatever coalition government is set up coming out of the newly elected assembly, too. That would be very much in the "Popular Front" tradition.

And the resistance does not come from "people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds". It is made up of Sunni Arabs who kill people for being Shi'a or Kurdish. You might as well say that U.S. white supremacists are "people from all types of various different political, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds" just because it includes a certain political variety: neo-Nazis, KKK, Church of the Creator, etc.....

I mean, aren't you following the news from Iraq at all? (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2005/03/11/957664-ap.html) [/b]
What are you talking about? Please don't tell me you believe in everything the bourgeois media tells you that the Iraqi resistance is made up of Islamic extremist who want to kill everyone that isn't a Muslim or belong to a certain ethnic group. Besides the ones who work for the puppet government, police and military, no innocents are being targeted. There is absolutely no proof that the resistance is made up of only the Sunni sect of Iraq. It is a blatant lie. Honestly, I don't know why you're comparing the resistance to neo-nazis and kkk members. If anything, it's the occupiers and regimes who imposed sanctions on the Iraqi people for all those years who are the neo-nazis.

As far as no communists belonging to the resistance, you're wrong about that. Many people belonging to various communist parties are party of the resistance against the imperialist aggressors. Haven't you ever heard of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance?

Like I said, there are many mercenaries there who are being trained by the CIA, Mossad and SAS to carry out terrorist attacks on civilians so the resistance can be blamed for them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Increasing numbers of "leftists" are operating solely on opposition to U.S. imperialism...This tends to lead towards enlisting in the global anti-American coalition....headed by French and German imperialism, Chirac and Shroeder, the Bourse and the Deutschebank.

Yeah, you'd think we'd have the patriotic decency to support "our own imperialists" against those French & German bastards, wouldn't you!

Oops! :o

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 12:49 AM
Like I said, there are many mercenaries there who are being trained by the CIA, Mossad and SAS to carry out terrorist attacks on civilians so the resistance can be blamed for them.
Oh! When you said they were playing divide and conquer, it wasn't clear to me you thought they were conducting all these bombings.

Who knew the CIA had such dedicated agents, willing to blow themselves up for the greater glory of the almighty dollar?

Anyway, please forgive my misunderstanding. If I'd known you were such a conspiracy theory, I woulda left you alone in your dreamworld.

[refuse_resist]

It's no more of a conspiracy than COINTELPRO.

Honestly, if you don't think they're trying their hardest to try and create factionalism between them then I really don't know what to tell you.

Similar things are currently going on in other parts of the world and are well known to have happend in the past.

[iffiness]

We must focus on the goals of the American government to decide whether the invasion of Iraq is a good or bad thing. Americas main goal is too of course gain the rich oil fields that Iraq populate. Without these oil field America wouldnt give a crap about the middle east, it would basically be the equivlent to Africa where their are many civil wars and people are killing each other but America does not want to spread democracy there cause there is no oil their. Now have a look at the Goals of the Iraqi resistance, no matter who they are, they wish to defy America and gain control of Iraq, basically gain power for themselves. These two sides can not live together, now i ask the question westerners continue to critcise governemtns of the past that have forced their ideology on other people now this is the case of America and Iraq. NO MATTER THE CAUSE your own idealogy should not be forced on another society. American no matter how you look at it from the percpective of achieving democracy or oil they are killing people to fill their own pockets full of wealth. Now i support any resistance to America not because it is a popular front, not because i am a reactionary because i believe truely that this war is wrong and i wish all fighting to cease, this war was created by America their is no doubt about that., Their are no weapons of mass destrucction and the likely hood is that an Islamic country will form and thus creating more of a threat to America than Sadam ever did. Now about the puppet leaders, well if America do prevail which they wont, a puppet government will be setup. Do any of you honestlky think theyll invade a country and then go yeh well here u go now u can elect your own leader who may be anti american and i wont be able to exploit you. NO i dont think so, look at this from Americas perspective look at it not just from a marxist view but from a capitalist view, They have invested millions in this war and they need to be paid back in some way or form. Now anyone who ever supports the invasion of Iraq or anyone who claims that people only follow the resistance because of popularity should take a look around the world and see what America has created, a world where whole continents are engulfed in poverty and they wage a war on the ideal of deomcracy, i spit at the concept of democracy because i look aorund and poverty, un fair spread of wealth and exploited people fill my eyes. I will always support any resistance to America cause hardly anyone dares do it.

[Intifada]

James

I'm all for this because i'm against most foreign "insurgents".

The claim that the Iraqi resistance is largely made up of a significant faction of "foreign fighters" is a myth that has been enforced and reiterated by the bourgeios Western media.

The fact is that the Iraqi resistance is a force made up of many groups including the Baathists, who want to restore the old regime, the Islamists, who want to create an Islamic fundamentalist state, and the nationalists, who are against the old regime and are secular but want the US out of their country

All groups, however, are fighting against the US invaders.

There probably is a small number of "foreign fighters" in Iraq, who are fighting alongside the Iraqis, against the US imperialists, but there is no evidence that they are the driving force behind the resistance as a whole, or that they make up more than a minority of the insurgency.

Major General Jasim Mohammed Saleh, who was named to lead the US-backed security force in Fallujah, said that "the reasons for the resistance go back to the American provocations, the raids and abolishing the army, which made Iraqis join the resistance" and that "there are no foreign fighters in Falluja and the local leaders have told me the same."

In fact, most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from the US!

While the supporters of the US occupation justify the apparent clamp-down on the "foreign terrorists" who are against the idea of "democracy", they conveniently forget that there are more than 100000 foreign troops who are controlling Iraq, on the orders of their bourgeios masters.

Anyway, the whole concept of people from surrounding nations flooding into Iraq to help their brothers in the fight to gain control of their own country, should not be frowned upon.

During the American War for Independence, the US received considerable assistance from foreign fighters, particuarly from France. Many historians argue that without foreign assistance to the resistance, the English would have won the war, yet nobody argues that this discredits the independence movement.

Moreover, the "foreign fighters" who allegedly commit acts of terror against the Iraqi population, have been criticised by the Iraqi resistance.

Sunni cleric, Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, condemning a wave of car bombs that killed many Iraqis, last June (allegedly carried out by al Zarqawi), stated that "We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq. Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses? Who says so? Who are those people who do this? Where did they come from? ... It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer."

The resistance has openly condemned such acts.

People seem to think that the US is some kind of benevolent Uncle of Iraq. It is not. It is an invading force that should be defeated like all other invaders.

[Andy Bowden]

Lindsay's blog claimed Zarqawi was the leader of the resistance, but I read an article from Pilger claiming that Zarqawi carries out only a few of the attacks on the coalition. They are given more reporting because they are targeted at westerners and are "spectaculars", to borrow a phrase used in relation to terrorism.

[acg4_9]

Oh! When you said they were playing divide and conquer, it wasn't clear to me you thought they were conducting all these bombings.

Who knew the CIA had such dedicated agents, willing to blow themselves up for the greater glory of the almighty dollar?

Anyway, please forgive my misunderstanding. If I'd known you were such a conspiracy theory, I woulda left you alone in your dreamworld

commrade severian, all these things that are happenning in iraq and there's no conpiracy?!! all this american iranian israelian jordanian syrian saudian ...etc contribution and there's no conspiracy, all this media silent and there's no conspiracy, all this contribution from emperialic oil, weapon and construction companies and there's no conpiracy.

do you know that the rebuild of iraq is called the largest act of stealing in history?.

about the resistance remember that:
1- iraq has before the invasion about 50 million piece of weapon.
2- 8 million iraqies were members of the quds army which was made to free palestine and these millions were from all iraq cause what unites most of the iraqies is the hate of israel
3- more than 40 intellegent agencies are working in iraq
4- the u.s, iran, israel and the united oil of arabian gulf all want a weak iraq
5- the multi-national imperialic companies see iraq as a once in a life time chance
6- iraq is a country of many ethics religions tribes and parties.
7- alqaeda always searchs for battle fields to fight the u.s
8-there's no controlling goverment in iraq. no truely trained iraqi national force.
so you have money weapons people targets and a reson to fight with no law and no order what's the result : lebanon+vietnam+yougslavia. so you have islamics and you have iranian and you have hopless people which are recruited by the cia mussad. but you have also freedom fighters fighting not for reputation or money or position but for a united independent strong iraq and those people are 100% iraqies one of them is a commrade of mine who was killed in iraq he was killed in an operation done with his friends whom were all iraqies not sunnies shia'ats or kurds but iraqies he died knowing that his party betrayed him and a lot of his commrades betrayed iraq betrayed the working class by joining the american train. so don't just talk the sh.. from the media and try learning from che .

[James]

intifada...

The claim that the Iraqi resistance is largely made up of a significant faction of "foreign fighters" is a myth that has been enforced and reiterated by the bourgeios Western media.



I don't know if you are implying that this is what my statement (which you quoted and then posted after) equates to.

If so, then you are mistaken. I do not think that it is "largely made up of a significant faction". I'm sorry if my comments seemed to imply this.





I think the main thing with the movement is that it is made up of countless groups and people. It is foolish and unhelpful to make broad generalisations. Having said this, i will now do exactly that!
I personally have come to the conclusion, from the evidence that i have seen, that it is made up of nationalists, supporters of the old regime, ethnic minorities/majorities, tribal elements, religious elements (plus lots more)

And then in addition an equally diverse foreign element - ranging from mercenary to islamic fundamentalist.

But i'm no expert.
(and i don't even think the "experts" know 100%)

My point was simply: due to the coalition's disbandment of the old army (which has its various pro's and con's), there is a security vacuum which makes it very unlikely that any government of iraq will ask the coalition to leave in the fore seeable future.

This isn't just due to "the resistance": but the threat posed by other states; drug trafficing and other illegal cross border activity; etc etc

[viva le revolution]

We can all learn about standing up to imperialism by looking at the Iraqi resistance.Here is a group of people fighting imperialists who have waged a war upon their country based on lies for the sole purpose of raping the country of it's resources.
A pure guerilla war is taking place there. The media is projecting them as terrorists, not surprising as most if not all of the american media is owned by rich businessmen who profit from the hardships of others.
Throughout history guerilla movements have been labelled "terrorism". the imperialistic americans themselves were born out of a guerilla war against the british imprialists, they have forgotten the sacrifices of their forefathers to ape the empire! (perhaps they thought they had grown out of banana trees).
The war is a win-win situation for the coffers of american bussinessmen. They pounce like vultures picking up the scraps of what was once a proud country.What we need now is demonstrations of solidarity with the Iraqi resistance, media and imperialists be damned!
Turn Iraq into a second Vietnam, it certainly has all the ingredients.Let the imperialist be shamed!Let him turn to a corner and find no refuge, let the masterminds be labelled thieves! let the soldier of imperialism lose faith in his commander!make him turn around and call the american business monster what it really is ..a pimp!willing to sell even it's mother to the highest bidder!
LONG LIVE SOCIALISM!

[Intifada]

I do not think that it is "largely made up of a significant faction". I'm sorry if my comments seemed to imply this.


Fair enough.

Though I do believe my points were valid and should be in this thread.


I think the main thing with the movement is that it is made up of countless groups and people.

This is true.

The resistance is not monolithic. The problems stems from this, as it results in a lack of organisation and direct leadership.


My point was simply: due to the coalition's disbandment of the old army (which has its various pro's and con's), there is a security vacuum which makes it very unlikely that any government of iraq will ask the coalition to leave in the fore seeable future.


Even though the majority of Iraqis wish for an end to the occupation, and a withdrawal of all foreign troops.

This is not very democratic, is it?

[dso79]

Or are you just defining those groups which attack civilians out of the resistance...in which case, who's left?

I believe that there are still more resistance fighters than terrorists. Compared to the number of attacks against US forces (about 50 a day) the number of terror attacks is relatively low. They just get more attention because they cause more casualties. But in order to defeat those terrorists, and the imperialists, we need to distinguish between legitimate resistance and terrorism.

[redstar2000]

Now that Severian has rendered his official verdict that the Iraqi resistance is "Sunni Supremacism", perhaps you might be curious as to "the next step" for Iraq.

Well here's an idea that the American ruling class is kicking around: partition.

The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government (http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16)

The idea seems to be to concede the "Sunni triangle" to the oil-less Sunni while setting up Kurdish and Shi'ite mini-states in reliable hands (quislings) who will place no obstacles in the way of western plundering.

The intransigent Sunni can simply be left to rot while Kurdish Kirkuk and Shi'ite Basra become the sparkling capitals of the new oil-rich mini-states...much like Kuwait or the Gulf mini-states. Those "states" have been "successful" because of their on-going docility in the face of American oil-lust.

The beauty of the "dismember-Iraq project" is that it can be presented to the world as "self-determination"...and who could be against that?

Surely not Severian. :lol:

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

[iffiness]

Yeh i heard about that session plan but America dont have the guts to do it. Even letting the Sunni have a state would be dangerous for America as it would breed "terroists" and be another output for Iran and other anti-American organisations. It would be a danger to those new states the fighting would never stop you have continual insurgents trying to bring back the old "Iraq". America are too arrogant to concede a piece of land to any "terroist" because for anyone with half a brain would see they are retreating or comprimising with "terroists". It is a smart idea, but i just cant see it happening.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:42 AM
The claim that the Iraqi resistance is largely made up of a significant faction of "foreign fighters" is a myth that has been enforced and reiterated by the bourgeios Western media.
That's true.

Well, really it's a myth promoted by the Bush administration. A fair bit of the (more liberal parts of the) bourgeois media has actively debunked it. (While promoting their own myths, mostly aimed at arguing that Bush has mismanaged the occupation and done a bad job of representing U.S. imperialism's interests.)

To some extent the "foreign fighters" play a role out of proportion to their numbers: they seem disproportionately represented among suicide bombers for example, and Saudi "Wahhabi" are known for extra-rabid hatred of the Shi'a (who they consider infidels, not just heretics.) But I'd guess, offhand, that even Zarqawi's "al Qaeda in Iraq" is mostly Iraqi; it just happens to be headed by a Jordanian. And why not? The problem with Zarqawi is his politics and actions, not his place of birth.

Actually, if there was a popular anti-imperialist movement in Iraq, it likely would have much more of a cross-border pull, especially with several nearby countries having cultural and language similarities and a common Arab identity...


Sunni cleric, Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, condemning a wave of car bombs that killed many Iraqis, last June (allegedly carried out by al Zarqawi),

Alleged by Zarqawi among others. Really, why anyone would cast doubt on his responsibility...

But anyway, the Samarrae condemnation was among a number of others...last June. This Washington Post article mentions a number (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5662-2004Jun25?language=printer)

Now, when I read that - last June - I hoped that perhaps there was some element of the resistance which would at least make a serious effort to put a stop to this crap. I now wonder if that was just a myth promoted by the more liberal section of the bourgeois media.

Anyway, if there was, clearly they lost the fight, 'cause the indiscriminate attacks on Iraqi civilians has greatly escalated. Even verbal condemnation - especially from armed resistance groups, as opposed to civilian sympathizers like Samarrae - seems to have declined if anything.

One article I saw at the time said that a Sheikh favoring alliance with Zarqawi, whose name I can't remember, had become the main mujahedeen leader in Falluja around this time. Be that as it may, it seems that "Tawhid and Jihad" concluded a closer alliance with the Ba'athists roughly around last September.

Andy Bowden wrote:

Lindsay's blog claimed Zarqawi was the leader of the resistance, but I read an article from Pilger claiming that Zarqawi carries out only a few of the attacks on the coalition. They are given more reporting because they are targeted at westerners and are "spectaculars", to borrow a phrase used in relation to terrorism.

Hey, Lindsay was your guy not mine. I agree that Zarqawi's not the leader, rather an ally of the Ba'athists who are.

Zarqawi's biggest attacks are NOT targeted at the occupation, but rather at Shi'a who he considers "infidels".

Dso79

I believe that there are still more resistance fighters than terrorists. Compared to the number of attacks against US forces (about 50 a day) the number of terror attacks is relatively low. They just get more attention because they cause more casualties. But in order to defeat those terrorists, and the imperialists, we need to distinguish between legitimate resistance and terrorism.

The so-called legitimate resistance doesn't seem to be making this distinction. There's no reason to think that different forces are responsible for the attacks on military targets and the terrorism.

Consider that clearly "al Qaeda in Iraq" was able to operate freely in Falluja, run factories for making truck bombs, etc, when it was under mujahedeen control. Consider where the money comes from to conduct these operations. Consider that suicide bombings which need the "Wahhabi" to provide martyrs have been immediately followed up by coordinated military attacks which require the Ba'athists to supply the trained soldiers (ex-Republican Guard and Saddam Fedayeen.) Consider the whole situation.

And the spectacular attacks are not the whole of anti-Shia and anti-Kurdish violence; much more probably occurs on a low level committed by mujahedeen foot soldiers and little reported by the Western media 'cause they're just Iraqis y'know, and besides the reporters are scared to leave their hotel rooms except to go to Centcom briefings.

One incident that did make it is this Agence France-Presse story (http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=March2005&file=World_News2005032821426.xml)

Lindsay - the former pro-resistance writer - claims in his blog that this kind of thing is very widespread.

Redstar wrote:

he beauty of the "dismember-Iraq project" is that it can be presented to the world as "self-determination"...and who could be against that?


Uncle Sam.

Not me, you're right about that, I support Kurdish self-determination. I've been for an independent, united Kurdistan for 15 years and I see no reason to change.

U.S. policy is to oppose an independent Kurdish state, though. Washington's not as big on "stability" as they used to be, but that would set way too many uncontrolled forces in motion.

The guy you've linked, in an effort to show the opposite, is in reality part of the so-called antiwar right, a regular columnist on antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com/eland/) and works for various libertarian and quasi-libertarian think tanks, including the one hosting your link. Definitely not reflective of any major component of U.S. ruling-class opinion, such as might actually make policy.

The idea of a separate Arab states, Sunni and Shi'a, is particularly divorced from reality. Each group wants not independence, but supremacy: one as the traditionally dominant group; the other as the majority. And of course those are religious sects, not nationalities.

Stronger Kurdish nationalism is one of the unintended, and from Washington's viewpoint unfortunate, consequences of the invasion. It's greatly increased frictions between the U.S. and its Turkish client regime, and is currently derailing efforts to form a coalition government in Baghdad...two months from the elections, and counting.

****

Numerous posters seem to be making a false assumption: that you must support U.S. imperialism or else the Ba'athist-Wahhabi resistance.

Revolutionary Marxists have never accepted that our options are limited to supporting one gang of capitalists or another. We reject the idea that one must vote for either Republicans or Democrats. In WWI, we rejected the idea that one must choose either the Allies or Central Powers. (I'd suggest a similar policy was correct towards the Axis and western Allies in WWII, but many will disagree, I'm sure.)

Revolutionary Marxists reject lining up with the US or EU in their increasing rivalry for world domination. (That's part of how you can tell who can be accurately described as revolutionary.)

In Iraq, the occupation and the "resistance" are not the only forces. There is also the Iraqi working class, which has taken advantage of certain postwar openings to expand its organization and fight for its rights.

I've had some posts about some concrete details of this in the past, which I'd link if the search function was working right...

Here's the Union of the Unemployed's site, which is a beginning. (http://www.uuiraq.org/) If you look around a bit, I think y'all will find they ain't real big fans of the "resistance."

Lemme suggest if you want to support and aid somebody in Iraq, help Iraqi workers, (http://www.uuiraq.org/english/129%20Fund.htm) not capitalist gangs who all have a long history of bloody repression against workers' rights.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:06 PM
Yeh i heard about that session plan but America dont have the guts to do it. Even letting the Sunni have a state would be dangerous for America as it would breed "terroists" and be another output for Iran and other anti-American organisations. It would be a danger to those new states the fighting would never stop you have continual insurgents trying to bring back the old "Iraq". America are too arrogant to concede a piece of land to any "terroist" because for anyone with half a brain would see they are retreating or comprimising with "terroists". It is a smart idea, but i just cant see it happening.
Actually, I think you've put forward some excellent reasons why it would not be smart at all for the U.S. ruling class to adopt any such plan.

Why it would be incredibly stupid, and contrary to their interests, for them to carry out any partition of Iraq.

To recap:

1. Their credibility. As any gangster knows, you gotta maintain your rep.

Calling off the first assault on Falluja was an incredibly stupid mistake for this reason, as everyone in the U.S. ruling class now recognises.

Letting Hussein remain in power was a problem for the same reason, as Kissinger explained before the war. I could go on.

Anytime they back down, it encourages others to fight them. Their client regimes to be disobedient. Etc.

2. With the Cold War over, the U.S. ruling class is no longer immune to attack on its own home soil. Such attacks can be launched from any piece of territory, so every piece of territory must be controlled by some state which will make sure not to allow them.

During the Cold War, the USSR gave aid to anti-US fighters with conditions attached, including the condition that attacks not be launched on U.S. territory. No more USSR = no such guarantee. They know this - it's an analysis you can even find in U.S. government publications....oughta lead to some rethink on whether they really won the Cold War. But anyway.

The U.S. ruling class is not proceeding from stupidity or insanity, and it's a serious mistake for any revolutionary to think they are. They make errors and tactical mistakes, of course. They delude themselves by believing their own propaganda, etc.

But more fundamentally, they are advancing their interests and their survival in the only way they can. All their actions flow from the nature and necessities of their system.

For all the venemous tone of their internal squabbles, the entire U.S. ruling class, Republican and Democratic, agrees on the basics of the course which the Bush administration has adopted since September 2001.

[James]

Though I do believe my points were valid and should be in this thread.


Oh yes, i quite agree. I was just trying to clear up some confusion :)


Even though the majority of Iraqis wish for an end to the occupation, and a withdrawal of all foreign troops.

This is not very democratic, is it?


Well i suppose it depends on how you approach it really. It can be described as democratic: and undemocratic. Partly it depends on your definition of democracy.

I do not think that it is pointless challenging the concept and practise of "representative democracy". At the same time though, i think it is important to recognise that in reality, this is what the iraqi "democratic" system aims to be. It doesn't aim to be a direct majoritarian democracy (as far as i'm aware).

Therefore it could be argued that it is democratic that the people's elected (elections are another area of debate i suppose - and how valid they were) representatives choose to keep the coalition there.

And from here the debate moves into the realms of paternalism; and whether those in "the know" and who are ultimately "responsible" (the government) are more "responsible" than "the masses". This isn't an area of debate which is really for here (or maybe it is?), but all i'll point out is that there has been a tendency for candidates to reflect the public completely whilst in opposition/seeking election - only to change once actually in office.

Personally, i'd say the coalition is required for security purposes.
But this is, in my opinion, part of the timeless idealism Vs praticalism (requirements) debate.

I think socialists can choose either side at the moment. Despite what some on here would argue.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Numerous posters seem to be making a false assumption: that you must support U.S. imperialism or else the Ba'athist-Wahhabi resistance.[/b]

For a very good reason. No matter how "reactionary" the Iraqi resistance is, its victory will constitute a major blow to American imperial ambitions.

On the other hand, a victory by U.S. imperialism in Iraq will demoralize resistance everywhere...especially in the United States.

We need the U.S. to lose this war!

Otherwise, things are going to get much worse for us everywhere.


Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)In Iraq, the occupation and the "resistance" are not the only forces. There is also the Iraqi working class, which has taken advantage of certain postwar openings to expand its organization and fight for its rights.[/b]

But who are the people in the resistance, if not mostly Iraqi workers?


Union of the [email protected]
The backbone of this "resistance" (despite denials by many on the left) is made up of groups of political Islamists and Baathists. This "resistance" is extremely reactionary, backward and right wing. It is a bourgeois resistance which has nothing to do with the interests of the Iraqi people. When we classify this "resistance" as a right wing, as bourgeois, we do not mean, as many leftist groups claim, that the individuals involved in it are not workers or deprived people. What we do mean is that the organised, armed "resistance" as a social and political movement is a bourgeois movement. It pursues extremely reactionary objectives, it offers a very reactionary alternative to the current bourgeois authority and uses very reactionary methods to realize its objectives. -- emphasis added.

http://www.uuiraq.org/english/109.htm

Would it be unreasonable to conclude that these folks -- however "proletarian" they claim to be -- reject "organized armed resistance" to the occupation?

Would it be unreasonable to conclude that they prefer the existing occupation to a victory by the "reactionary" resistance?

Would it be unreasonable to conclude that they favor "peaceful forms of struggle" against the occupation (strikes, occupations, conferences, etc.) as opposed to armed resistance? (To their credit, they did call for workers not to participate in the occupation's fake "elections".)

Let's face it...these people have formed "quasi-legal" unions and are obviously "tolerated" by the occupation -- whose attention is elsewhere at the moment.

If the resistance were defeated, what do you think would happen next? Would not these unions either be co-opted by the usual suspects or simply crushed? What happens to unions in other countries where U.S. hegemony is uncontested?

I'm certainly not "opposed" to these folks...but they are not yet serious players -- their national newspaper circulation is not much larger than this board's membership (around 10,000).

It would not surprise me to learn that many employed Iraqi workers are, at one and the same time, members of some "quasi-legal" trade union and also part-timers in the armed resistance.


Severian
Revolutionary Marxists reject lining up with the US or EU in their increasing rivalry for world domination. (That's part of how you can tell who can be accurately described as revolutionary.)

No one here has suggested that besides yourself; supporting the victory of the Iraqi resistance is hardly the same as handing over a blank check to European imperialism.

On the other hand, suppose World War III is an inter-imperialist war between the U.S. and the E.U.?

If we have the resources, then we can and should follow Lenin's advice: turn the imperialist war into a civil war!

But if we can't manage that, then by all means, victory to the E.U.!

Unconditional opposition to U.S. imperialism trumps all other considerations in the present era.

The world's fortress of reaction must fall!

(And that's how you tell "who can be accurately described as a revolutionary" at this time.)

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

[redstar2000]

And here's one for James, whose heart-felt "concern" for the Iraqi people has led him to support the imperialist occupation and its quislings...


Originally posted by BBC
Children 'starving' in new Iraq

Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.

Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led intervention - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says.

UN specialist on hunger Jean Ziegler, who prepared the report, blames the worsening situation in Iraq on the war led by coalition forces.

When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, his report says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/4395525.stm

Sounds like a great opportunity for Christian missionaries, doesn't it? :angry:

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

[James]

How is that relevant to anything i have just been saying redstar? Please explain the link.
Oh and you bring my religion into it!

I fail to see any of the links.

I'm not waving the coalitions flag here (despite what you may argue). Just as i'm not waving the flag for every/anyone who attacks (in anyway - not just with guns) the coalition.

I'm failing to fit into "us Vs them mentality" (thus why you try and depict me as being in the "them" camp? hence why you mention my religion. Religion! A big "no no" on che-lives - nice to see nothing has changed here)

Boy am i bad...

[red_orchestra]

...well, I think everyone here has it correct. Yes, there are Sunni extremeist who are taking to extermination policies as well as resistance members who are tied to cells battling US soldiers. Its one big bloody ugly mess...that the US along with its 'helpers" is completely to blame for.

Hatred fuel hatred, violence fuels violence.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:42 AM
Personally, i'd say the coalition is required for security purposes.
That's a strange argument, since the occupation forces have never shown much interest in providing security for Iraqis. That's been true since they first rolled into Baghdad, and Rumsfeld declared that looting was a "sign of freedom." Iraqis continue to experience amazingly widespread violent crime, with the occupation barely noticing, let alone providing security for them.

And then increasing political violence against Iraqis has been added to that.

Clearly the occupation is providing a great mobilizing issue for the Sunni-Arab-supremacists of all stripes, and "al Qaeda in Iraq" particularly. It becomes much easier to promote hatred for Kurds and Shi'a when they can be painted as "servants of the occupier". And the occupation itself has a great interest in deepening the divisions; divide and rule and all that.

Just as with the conflict between imperialism and the al-Qaeda-type groups in other countries, the adversaries have a symbiotic relationship and feed off each other. "With enemies like this, who needs friends" to invert the cliche.

That's on the practical side, and quite aside from the many reasons of principle for opposing all imperialist interventions.


I think socialists can choose either side at the moment.

I disagree; socialists can choose neither.

[James]

That's a strange argument, since the occupation forces have never shown much interest in providing security for Iraqis.

So you argue that they do not provide any security?


That's on the practical side, and quite aside from the many reasons of principle for opposing all imperialist interventions.


The practical issues i raised in my last post.
Your's seem to revolve around the issue of stimulation of disturbance and hatred. Whilst i agree with your points - i do not think they make the points i raised "untrue".

Remember the context of my post please: i was merely pointing out how and why the iraqi government probably won't be asking the coalition to go in the near future.

I don't think it ideal that they should stay - but i think it is nesecary at the moment, coming from the perspective of iraq as a nation state. i'm merely trying to understand the situation as "they" (the government) see it - the iraqi government is not going to be primarily socialist, so i think it is pritty irrelevant to get cought up in concepts and ideologies which the government probably doesn't court.
I believe that the governments first priority is going to be security and a return to normality.
Thus there is going to be a role for the coalition.

Is that ideal? No - but i was against the war, so in my ideal world none of this would have happened. Especially so - because in my ideal world saddam would not have been supported by the west. And further more - there wouldn't have been british imperialism in my ideal world! there wouldn't have been any. blah blah blah

idealism doesn't really help us in this conversation.


I disagree; socialists can choose neither.

Well i guess that's your opinion.
HOWEVER: Personally i think you have chosen the "ideal" side of the debate.

[bolshevik butcher]

From what I've seeen most of the resistance seems to be made up of young men, pissed off that the imperiali$ts are still in the ountry, but glad that saddams gone.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:17 AM

That's a strange argument, since the occupation forces have never shown much interest in providing security for Iraqis.

So you argue that they do not provide any security?
Not exactly...but I'd argue the net effect is negative. Undeniably, there's far less security than when the occupation wasn't there.

Incidentally, there's zero chance that the resistance could overthrow the new Iraqi government with guerilla tactics, let alone terrorism, if the occupation withdrew.

Guerilla tactics are sometimes very effective in bleeding a foreign army and making it give up; by themselves they have never overthrown a government.

That hopelessness would have to have a discouraging effect. The "al Qaeda" types are certainly aware of their ineffectiveness against the Arab governments; that's the whole reason they decided to attack the U.S. directly. There was a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden where he complained about this problem bitterly and warned that they had to act quickly before the U.S. consolidated an Iraqi client regime.



Remember the context of my post please: i was merely pointing out how and why the iraqi government probably won't be asking the coalition to go in the near future.

I agree there. Despite the fact the "United Iraqi List" campaigned on that promise (a "timetable").

I think the various leaders have their own reasons for wanting the occupiers to stay; but basically they all boil down to a recognition of the U.S. still being the real power and wanting to curry favor with it in order to get its support for their particular goals. I recently saw an interview with some Kurdish nationalist leader, who was hoping the U.S. will eventually go along with Kurdish independence if the rest of Iraq keeps going downhill, and protect them from Turkey's inevitable reaction. I think that's an illusion.


but i think it is nesecary at the moment, coming from the perspective of iraq as a nation state.

See, as a Marxist that's not where I'm coming from; I try to start with the world working class. That may be irrelevant to the Iraqi interim government; but their interests are just as irrelevant to me.

"Realism" sometimes turns out not to be so realistic.

Redstar's basically making a realism over principle argument about the relative size of the resistance over the new workers' organizations in Iraq. But nothing could be less realistic than thinking disunited groups, with a reactionary program to the extent they have any program, based among a minority of the population, can beat not only U.S. imperialism but a large majority of the Iraqi population.

Unless...it's thinking that a declining, crisis-ridden U.S. imperialism is going to build a stable and peaceful nation-state in Iraq.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:49 AM

Like I said, there are many mercenaries there who are being trained by the CIA, Mossad and SAS to carry out terrorist attacks on civilians so the resistance can be blamed for them.
What an absolute load of bollocks where do you get your bullshit information from? Your own head probably.

[Intifada]

What an absolute load of bollocks where do you get your bullshit information from? Your own head probably.

Such organisations, in particular the Mossad and CIA, have done such things before.

[h&s]

Originally posted by James+--> (James)So you argue that they do not provide any security?[/b]
Are you arguing that they do? This is a force that has created so many ethnic tensions with their presence that were not there before. They may be maintaining security to a certain extent, but their very presence is destroying it .


Originally posted by [email protected]
There was a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden where he complained about this problem bitterly and warned that they had to act quickly before the U.S. consolidated an Iraqi client regime.

Proof of not just al-Zaqawi being al-Qaeda and in contact with Bin Laden all in one letter? Stinks of US propaganda to me....


Intifada
Such organisations, in particular the Mossad and CIA, have done such things before.
But its not a very good idea to go around saying these things without any proof is it?

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:26 PM

What an absolute load of bollocks where do you get your bullshit information from? Your own head probably.

Such organisations, in particular the Mossad and CIA, have done such things before.
Still no evidence though?

[Intifada]

But it is not "a load of bullshit" that has come from someone's head.

It is a possibility.

[James]

severian

in answer to my question you replied:

Not exactly...but I'd argue the net effect is negative. Undeniably, there's far less security than when the occupation wasn't there.


Yes - i quite agree. But i'm not talking about the net effect. I'm simply talking about security and the new iraqi government: see my previous posts if you don't believe me.

As i said before: i'm not waving the coalition's flag here. I was simply stating why the government probably won't ask the coalition to leave for along time (although whilst in opposition nearly all politicians run on a "pull out now" platform... according to a recent BBC democracy and the expert who spoke at my seminar) because they provide extra security.

I could well be wrong of course: but i don't pretend to know the truth 100%. I was merely putting these arguments forward (on such a left wing board [not a bad thing in itself!], "left wing" views are given ALOT: "other" views, or views deemed "other" are therefore not. it is important to put these points acorss. in my opinion...).

We don't disagree mate!

(
Incidentally, there's zero chance that the resistance could overthrow the new Iraqi government with guerilla tactics, let alone terrorism, if the occupation withdrew.


Read my post again! i didn't say they could!)


I think that's an illusion.


i completely agree - security was just one reason i gave: it was, in my opinion, the most common reason (or reason given to the public).


See, as a Marxist that's not where I'm coming from; I try to start with the world working class. That may be irrelevant to the Iraqi interim government; but their interests are just as irrelevant to me.


again i agree with you. And i agree with the rest which i have not quoted.

However: i have quoted this because it is in reply to my post.
My posts are simply coming from the "government's side": as in hoping to explain "why" they won't be asking the coalition to leave.

I don't like the coalition! Trust me! i'm mearly putting "the other side of the debate across".

[iffiness]

Well it isnt beyond the cia and mossad to do that. But their is no evidence. There are past incidents that show that the CIA was trying to incite violence between two groups. I remember their was talk that CIA shot into a crowd in venezuela and made it look like it was the police in venezuela. So anything is possible

[redstar2000]

Sunnis urged to join Iraqi police

Senior Sunni Muslim clerics in Iraq have urged their followers to join the country's security forces.

Sunnis form the bulk of the anti-US insurgency, which frequently attacks the police and army.

Until recently, many Sunni clerics had branded the security forces as US collaborators.

The army and police are largely dominated by Shias and Kurds.

Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai of the Association of Muslim Scholars said Sunni membership was necessary to prevent the forces falling into "the hands of those who have caused chaos, destruction and violated the sanctities".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/4403337.stm

This is not just a good illustration of the slimy opportunism of all religious figures everywhere...but I think it will also greatly strengthen the secular forces in the resistance.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by h&s+Apr 1 2005, 07:34 AM--> (h&s @ Apr 1 2005, 07:34 AM)
Severian
There was a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden where he complained about this problem bitterly and warned that they had to act quickly before the U.S. consolidated an Iraqi client regime.

Proof of not just al-Zaqawi being al-Qaeda and in contact with Bin Laden all in one letter? Stinks of US propaganda to me.... [/b]
Naw, actually, it proved the opposite.

In the letter, Zarqawi was asking bin Laden for an alliance and for al-Qaeda to get involved in Iraq. If they'd been allied all along, and al-Qaeda present in Iraq, as Washington had claimed, he wouldn't have needed to request that.

So I think it's genuine; if Washington was gonna forge a letter, they woulda forged one that actually supported their propaganda claims.

And of course nobody can deny that Zarqawi and bin Laden are allied now, when Tawhid and Jihad has renamed itself 'al Qaeda in Iraq" and bin Laden has endorsed them in a videotaped statement.

***

OK, James - a bit of devil's advocate, huh?

About the article Redstar posted - the Association of Muslim Clerics has been the main legal expression of the forces behind the insurgency. They were consistent in calling for an election boycott - unlike some Sunni Arab parties which vacillated. If they're calling for Sunnis to join the client regime's armed forces, it's a recognition that the client regime is here to stay, and that Sunni Arabs better get in on it if they don't want to be totally disenfranchised.

A real loss of confidence in the prospects of the insurgency, from its closest supporters in the legal political life of Iraq.

Update: Lemme emphasize that if. The organization is now denying they're responsible for the call. Nevertheless, it's signed by Samarrae and other Sunni mullahs prominent in the AMS, as well as the Iraqi Islamic Party. 64 mullahs total.

***

Al-Jazeera: electric power workers hold protest against resistance attacks which have killed dozens of their coworkers (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80DC639D-0A03-4304-A6BE-F22FA5CD5E48.htm)

Basra students protest, strike over thug attack by Sadr's "Mahdi Army" on 'immoral' picnic. (http://www.aina.org/news/20050329154649.htm) They may have even made 'em back off a little.

Neither the Iraqi police nor British troops have lifted a finger to protect 'em. As Iraqi leftists have pointed out in the past, they act against "Islamic fundamentalists" only when they attack the occupation, not when they attack Iraqis and their democratic rights.

[James]

h and s


Are you arguing that they do? This is a force that has created so many ethnic tensions with their presence that were not there before. They may be maintaining security to a certain extent, but their very presence is destroying it .


h and s, you will get very confused if you take people's points out of context.
Read what i wrote again.

Then post again if you still can't figure out what i actually said!

[redstar2000]

With all the mindless yapping about "Sunni Supremacism", how about a look at what the U.S.-British quislings are up to these days...


Death at 'immoral' picnic in the park

Students are beaten to death for playing music as Shia militiamen run amok

The students had begun to lay out their picnic in the spring sunshine when the men attacked.

“There were dozens of them, armed with guns, and they poured into the park,” Ali al-Azawi, 21, the engineering student who had organised the gathering in Basra, said.

“They started shouting at us that we were immoral, that we were meeting boys and girls together and playing music and that this was against Islam.

“They began shooting in the air and people screamed. Then, with one order, they began beating us with their sticks and rifle butts.” Two students were said to have been killed.

Standing over them as the blows rained down was the man who gave the order, dressed in dark clerical garb and wearing a black turban. Ali recognised him immediately as a follower of Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric. Ali realised then that the armed men were members of Hojatoleslam al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army, a private militia that fought American forces last year and is now enforcing its own firebrand version of Islam.

The picnic had run foul of the Islamist powers that increasingly hold sway in the fly-blown southern city, where religious militias rule the streets, forcing women to don the veil and closing down shops that sell alcohol or music.

Far from disavowing the attack, senior al-Sadr loyalists said that they had a duty to stop the students’ “dancing, sexy dress and corruption”.

“We beat them because we are authorised by Allah to do so and that is our duty,” Sheik Ahmed al-Basri said after the attack. “It is we who should deal with such disobedience and not the police.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1537512,00.html

As the resistance continues, I expect the secular forces will move to the forefront of the struggle. And if that means "mostly Sunnis", then so be it!

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

[James]

redstar - what is your point?
I don't think anyone argues that it is one "group" completely.

[Severian]

Gee, I just posted about that, Redstar. And about the student protests in response, which is an example of the actually progressive and secular forces in Iraq. Are you reading the thread?

What the "quislings" are up to? Are you seriously arguing that the Sadrists -who've suffered heavy casualties fighting the occupation, and still call for it to leave Iraq now - are quislings? I don't see how you've earned the right to say that. Or maybe you're agreeing with Zarqawi that Shi'a = quisling?

"I expect the secular forces will move to the forefront of the struggle. And if that means "mostly Sunnis", then so be it!"

What the heck does this mean? The resistance is already virtually all Sunni Arab, whether "secular" or fundamentalist. Supposing there was some dropout of Islamists, that would have nothing to do with the Sunni-Arab character of the resistance.

"Secular" in the context of the resistance means...the Ba'athists. Who, in power, were increasingly supporting the same kind of policies and laws called for by fundamentalists. The Ba'athist regime was "secular" only in that they thought they should control the mullahs rather than the mullahs controlling the state. A misnomer really.

And "al Qaeda in Iraq", "Ansar-al Sunna" and similar groups are the last ones who will follow Samarrae's example and attempt to find some place in the new regime. The Ba'athists are a more likely to do so. So it's a fantasy that the dropout of fundamentalists will make the resistance "secular."

Samarrae was the one quoted earlier in this thread condemning the bombings aimed at Shi'a civilians. (quoted by someone attempting to show the resistance was not responsible for them.)

So if he, and others like him, are dropping aside, that just makes the resistance even more narrow, even more openly the enemy of most of Iraq's population....