iraq resistance groups

[jaster]

i read on an earlyer thread that people wanted to know which groups are purportrating attacks on the u.s. and the 'coalition of the willing' in iraq. i'm not sure if it belongs on this particular forum or the learning... so without further ado, i preseent to you the iraq resistance groups.

Active religious seminary (al-sadr)-shia aligned, anti-zionist, not using alot of violence

Abu Hafs Al-Masari Brigades-muslim mujahideen, links to al-qaida, operates in indonesia al well.

Ansar Saddam Al-Jihadi- saddam loyalists, established in 1998

Al-faruq Brigades- 2003, militiant arm of iraq islamic movement, anti-saddam

Al-Madina Al-Munawara Division-former iraq military

Al-Quds Brigade-arab sunni, connections to palistinain intifada

Ansar Al-Islam-aparently defunct, heavy role in early days or war

Armed Islamic Group of Al-Qaida, Fallujah Branch- leaders part of al-qaida from afgahnistan

Armed Vanguard of Mohammed's Second Army (AVMSA)-saddam loyalists

Army of Right-anti-saddam, little else known

Black Banners Organization (Munazzamat Al-Alam Al-Aswad)-arab sunni mujahideen

Army of the Partisans of the Sunnah-little known

Companies of Jihad (Seraya Al-Jihad)-nationaliastic, pro-bin laden, sworn to kill the GC.

General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq-saddam loyalists

General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq-left wing secular anti-saddamists, nationalistic

Hamza Platoon-little known, from falluja

Iraqi Communist Party-Al Cadre (ICP-Cadre/ICP-Alkader)-basiccly anti-everything except themselves.

Iraqi Liberation Army-division of iraqi national liberation army

Iraq Liberation Front-saddam loyalists

Iraqi Liberation Organization-connected to islamic jihad and muslim youth

Iraqi National Islamic Resistance (1920 Revolution Brigades)-anti-saddam, anti-colonial.

Iraqi National Liberation Army-secular, mostly shia

Iraqi National Resistance Brigades-extreme enemies of the baath'ists

Iraqi Patriotic Opposition-connection with baath party

Iraqi Resistance-ideology unknown

Islamic Jihad-iraq incarnation of palistinian group

Islamic Liberation Party-arab sunni

Jihad Brigades of Imam Ali bin Abi-Taleb-najak, and karbala, goal to kill GC

Jihad Cells/Brigades-nationalistic, anti saddam, sunni

Liberating Iraq's Army-little known, ?anti-saddam?

Martyr Khattab Brigade-anti-saddam, chechian, nationalistic

Mohammed's Army-arab, sunni, mujahideen, located in sunni triangle

Mujahedin-sunni muslims, largely forign fighters

Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq (Kataib al-Mujahedin fi al-Jamaah al-Salafiyah fi al-Arak)-connected to bin laden, forign fighters

Muslim Youth:young men (majority) allied w/white flags

Nasserite Organization-non-baathist, pan arab

National Iraqi Commandos Front-no info

National Front for the Liberation of Iraq-compalition of 10 resistanxce groups.

National Front of Fedayeen-anti saddam

New Return- baath party

The Organization of Jihad Brigades in Iraq-forign sunni muslims.

Patriotic Front-no info.

The Political Media Organ of the Ba'ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siyasi lil Hizb al-Ba'ath)-baath party

Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq-no info

Prosperity (Al-Rifah)-former saddam generals

The Return (Al-Awda)-norhtern saddam loyalists

Saddam's Fedayeen-self-explanatory

Salafist Jihad Group-morracan, anti-american

September 11 Revolutionary Group-former saddam fedayeen

Snake Party, Snake's Head Movement (Harakat Ras al-Afa)- arab sunni

Sons of Islam-little known

Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq-anti-saddam, anti-baathist

Wakefulness and Holy War-arab-sunni muhjadeen, calls america and saddam the same

White Flags-sunni triangle, aram sunni, high population of grass roots fighters

[Zak]

what's your source for these?

[Niall]

yeah, where did you get that info. and surely some of these groups must operate under the same banner

[WUOrevolt]

Many don't operate under any group control, just simply as indivuals. There are instances as well of Baathists, Islamists, Jihadists, and communists operating together in the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance.

And what is your source?

[jaster]

jihadunspun.com
or
type in iraqi resistance groups in google and go to the one with the jihad unspun URL

[MeTaLhEaD]

the best resistance movement in iraq

is the
Islamic Army of Iraq

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6651/sss0zw.jpg

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 04:19 PM
the best resistance movement in iraq

is the
Islamic Army of Iraq

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6651/sss0zw.jpg
Why are they the best?

[вор в законе]

/\ Obviously they are the most organized.



Iraqi Communist Party-Al Cadre (ICP-Cadre/ICP-Alkader)-basiccly anti-everything except themselves.

Are they engaged in guerilla warfare ?

Perhaps we can give them a hand. :lol:

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:23 PM
jihadunspun.com
or
type in iraqi resistance groups in google and go to the one with the jihad unspun URL
www.albasrah.net

[WUOrevolt]

Lets also not forget the non violent insurgents, trade unions and workers calling for boycotts and general strikes.

[chebol]

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Iraqi Resistance Issue Joint Press Release

Baghdad, Mar 22 (Prensa Latina) Four self-styled Iraqi resistance groups
issued a joint release in Faluja to establish exactly who is a
collaborator with the invaders so they get the punishment "they
deserve" and avoid shedding "innocent blood."

The signatories: the 1920s Revolution Brigades, Islamic Army of Iraq,
the Mujahidin, and Islamic Resistant Front said they reject taking the
lives of civilians because Muslims "are prohibited from shedding
Muslim blood without irrefutable proof of guilt."

The message, printed by Arab international Al-Hayat daily, also said
it was forbidden to "kill scientists because of their work."

The collaborators are classified into three groups: first, those who
deserve to be pardoned because their work favors the population within
the cabinet, the police and social services (....)".

Second, those who deserve condemnation, but not death, are "they who
please the invaders in exchange for personal gain, but do not work
against the Mujahidin (guerillas of the faith)."

And lastly, "those who work with the invaders against the resistance,
against the future of the country, against the will of the region, are
to be punished" with amputation or death.

hr/ccs/emw/mt

[WUOrevolt]

With iraq getting closer and closer to civil war, it would be adviseable for these resistance groups to not attack anything that isnt the occupying army. If a resistance group were to attack a group of Shia or Sunni police officers, it could be construed as an act of sectarian violence, thus prompting a sectarian response.

[TC]

Most of those resistance 'groups' though are either fronts for the Ba'ath party or legitimate Iraqi government (the army and the intellegence agency), spinnoffs of other groups that operated under different names earlier in the war, or alliance of several groups that are already named.

[WUOrevolt]

Insurgent Groups
Active Religious Seminary
Al-Faruq Brigades
Al-Mahdi Army
Al-Sadr's Group
Ansar al-Islam
Armed Vanguards of Mohammad's Second Army
Black Banner Organization
Hasad al-Muqawamah al-'Iraqiyah
[Harvest of the Iraqi Resistance]
Iraqi National Islamic Resistance
Iraqi Resistance Brigades
Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front (JAMI)
Iraq's Revolutionaries
Islamic Armed Group of al-Qaida, Fallujah branch
Jamaat al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad
Jaysh Muhammad
Jihad Cells
Liberating Iraq's Army
Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq
Muslim Fighters of the Victorious Sect (aka, Mujaheddin of the Victorious Sect)
Muslim Youth
Nasserites
National Iraqi Commandos Front
Salafist Jihad Group
Snake Party
Sons of Islam
Unity and Jihad Group
Wakefulness and Holy War
White Flags

Ba'athist or probable Ba'athist
General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq
New Return
Patriotic Front
Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath)
Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq
Return
Saddam's Fedayeen

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._insurgency.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm)

[WUOrevolt]

Apart from the armed insurgency, there are important non-violent groups that resist the foreign occupation through other means. The National Foundation Congress set up by Sheikh Jawad al-Khalisi includes a broad range of religious, ethnic, and political currents united by their opposition to the occupation. Although it does not reject armed insurgency, which it regards as any nation's right, it favors non-violent politics and criticizes the formation of militias. It opposes institutions designed to implement American plans, such as the former Iyad Allawi government and the U.S.-organized national conference designed as the antecedent to a parliament. [31] Although the CPA enforced a 1987 law banning unions in public enterprises, trade unions such as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) and Iraq's Union of the Unemployed have also mounted effective anti-occupation opposition. [32]

Trades unions, however, have themselves been subject to attacks from the insurgency. Hadi Saleh of the IFTU was assassinated under circumstances that pointed to a Ba'athist insurgency group on the 3rd of January 2005. No trades unions support the armed insurgency.[33]

Another union federation, the General Union of Oil Employees (GUOE) opposes the occupation and calls for immediate withdrawal but was neutral on participation in the election. Whereas the GUOE wants all foreign troops out immediately, both the IFTU and the Workers Councils call for replacement of US and British forces with neutral forces from the UN, the Arab League and other nations as a transition. [34] Many unions see the war as having two dimensions: military and economic. The GUOE has won strikes against both the Governing Council for pay raises and against Halliburton over the use of foreign workers. [35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Insurge...-violent_groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Insurgency#Non-violent_groups)

[TC]

I don't know why Jaysh Muhammad isn't listed as a Ba'athist group considering its Iraqi intellegence so its probably mostly Ba'athist...or why Ansar al Sunnah is listed under the name Ansar al Islam, and why Al Quada in Iraq is still listed as Unity and Jihad. And why isn't the Islamic Army in Iraq listed at all, they are probably the most media savvy group and have been well known for some time. Anbar Revolutionaries is an umbrella group thats been in the news a lot recently.

I think your list is probably quite old.

[WUOrevolt]

I was just providing a different list to show that there is no concrete source concerning Iraqi resistance.

[dasright60]

The Iraqi heroic resistance led and managed by the Arab Baath Socialist Party, has defined its strategic objectives as a national liberation movement "to expel the occupation forces, liberate Iraq and safeguard it united and a homeland for all Iraqis"

Based on these objectives, a political and strategic resistance program has been set and designed for the phase of resistance and liberation.

The Occupied Iraq:

It is the geographical-political Iraq: "The republic of Iraq", the sovereign, the founder and member state of the Arab League, the member state of the United Nation, and whose territories are occupied by the US, British, Australian and other forces, following an aggression contrary to the international Law and United Nations treaties and which was a target of a war on the 19 April 2003. These circumstances led to the removal of its legitimate government and the appointing of a "provisional occupation Authority". Whatever is or has been undertaken by the occupier to establish institutions, ministries, authorities, committees etc. to replace the legitimate government of the Republic of Iraq, after the date of 9/4/2004, is considered as null and illegal and it is un-separable part of the organizational system of the Occupier and the resistance deals with it as it deals with the occupation itself.

The Occupation Forces:

These are the military forces, the departments, the agencies and organizations attached to the US, UK, Australia or any other nationalities which are on the soil of occupied Iraq, and whoever is involved as multinational forces following the Security Council Resolution 1483 which considered Iraq as an occupied country. Whatever decisions taken after the occupation of Iraq, following the US-UK war by the other foreign coalition or multinational forces, authorities, committees will be considered and dealt with as Occupying forces, authorities and committees, and will be legitimate targets for the Resistance in its war of liberation.

The Iraqi Resistance:

The Iraqi resistance is the national armed resistance, led and directed by the Arab Baath Socialist Party, through its militant cadres, the heroic Iraqi army, the Republican Guard forces, the valiant Special Forces, the intrepid Forces of the National Security and the Mujahidins of the Saddam's Fidayyins heroic organization and the Iraqi patriotic resistance, and the dignified Arab voluntaries which act under different mobilization names and titles and formations and act according to the needs of the combat operations, confrontation and attacks against the foreign occupiers, who (the Arab volunteers) are already in Iraq and who will be on the soil of Iraq in the future, whatever their nationalities, names, missions or the duration of their stay. One of the Resistance main missions in its war of liberation, while combating the Occupation Forces and whatever links they have and whatever connections they establish with these forces, is to intervene technically and administratively to jeopardize and prevent the Occupation authority and its ramifications from implementing its political, economical, social and cultural plans. The operation of this resistance cover all the immaculate land of Iraq from one extremity to the other incarnated by the unity of the Iraqi soil, and stressing the Iraqi unity and defending the Arab identity of Iraq targeted by the occupiers or by whomever they may appoint.

Introduction:

In our confrontation with the other parties (Arab, regional or international) we must understand that the ongoing confrontation with the US, since the cease fire announced by the US, in February 1991, was the fundamental pretext chosen by the US, considering the US strategic objectives first in the region and the world. Iraq since then was not a cause of any crises as far as the implementation of the following International resolutions. The ongoing confrontation imposed by the US, gave the Iraqi leadership the maneuvering margin to deal or to manage a series of crises. The mainstream corporate media presented Iraq as the source of the crises confronting the countries in the region and the World.



To the exception of the Iraqi ongoing and practical defiance towards the US-UK No Fly Zones Resolution, the series of what is now known as the successive Crises of the Iraqi Question, was a US attempt to amend, develop, falsify and activate the trajectory of the confrontation imposed on Iraq according to the US given facts linked to its general policy or interests for both successive US administrations into dealing with their internal electorate and international problems. This was clear through the many Security Council successive resolutions which ended by going beyond the precise demands of the mentioned cause fire resolution, and to talk about a US intervention and instigation to set more resolutions to set the basis for targeting the political system of the Republic of Iraq.

The US targeting the political system in Iraq, which led to its occupation is a known and analyzed fact since 1972. It is based on the US (imperialistic) interests, commanded, in that time, by the equation of the cold war, the further consequences of the 1967 aggression, the British military withdrawal from Eastern Suez, "the Arab Gulf" and the policies and the energy crises during last century, in the seventies and eighties.

Today, the confrontation, from the very beginning, when the 30 countries participated in the aggression in 1991, took the form of the National armed Resistance after the occupation. Other elements that command the march of this confrontation could be added, and all are not foreign to the US interests in the region and the world. These added components were formed by:

1 - the familiar end of the Cold War and the political and economical reformation of Europe

2 - The US particular requirements to act unilaterally and to use its overwhelming force.

3 - the dubious coming of the conservative right to the political affairs in the US

4 - The influence of the 11 September strike on the decision making and designing of the US foreign policies led by the (the dim-witted) Bush Jr. Administration and the formation of the US (confrontation) reaction, in the terms of the Administration political discourse in the economical, defense and security fields.

5 - the overexploitation of the "War on Terror" to establish and attempt to impose new alliances and ways of life on other countries, societies and cultures.

6 - the ongoing slowness of the US economy and its entry in the crises phase.

7 - the failure of the US energy policies promised during the election campaign.

8 - The setting for a different "Israeli" role, with an administrative and security link helping the US in its dealing with petrol resources from the East Mediterranean to the farther central Asian regions, and in particular the Arab Gulf, and this important added factor has its dialectical correlation to the means and ways to find a pacifist solution to the Arab-Zionist conflict.

The announced objectives and the true hidden ones:

1 - Targeting the political regime in Iraq is a well aware of and known fact since 1972. This objective was designed and implemented by the US strategic policy planners and mainly by Henry Kissinger (Republican) the national security advisor in that time. However putting the policy into practice was determined / limited by:

- The balance of the cold war.

-The various regional allegiances, and the connections and references of the countries of the region.

-The consequences of the June 1967 and October 1973 wars.

- The wish of some Arab regimes to play a regional role tolerated by the US following the mentioned wars.

Here it is important to analyze the nature of the allocated and played roles (in that time) to and by political regimes such as Syria, Jordan, Egypt and even Iran. According to the analyses above, the objective was rather poorly attainable and requested regional plotting from regional countries and was based on the inheritances or crises of the past political eras, Iraq experienced. Here it is worthwhile to note that the reasons for targeting Iraq were not different as pretexts from what they are today: Security and economical reasons ("Israel" military superiority and domination over the region and petrol interests)

2 - In all situations the US regional plans, including areas from north Africa to central Asia "the petrol sources and routes", Iraq was one of the most distinguished targets as an economical geopolitical unit, considering its geographical situation, its petrol reserves and its population disposition and the nature of its political system. Add to this the roles already or possibly played by Iraq and the range of its influence on the official Arab regime from one hand and the Organization of the Petrol Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the masses reaction on the Pan Arab level.

3 - The United-States since the end of World War II, has linked, both security of the geographical arrow spreading from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean and the Arab Sea, and was for several reasons the only player into the arena of security and policy missions away from the intrusion, or the involvement of other western countries or the NATO. This explains the US military involvement, and for more than once, as a well aware of phenomenon, especially in Korea and Vietnam. This US strategic objectives were, inter - alia, to tighten the control, in different degrees, on the Arab Gulf, by having the upper hands on the Gulf outlets, and for geographical and communication components, targeted Iraq specifically. Iraq orientation towards the East Mediterranean and Red seas during the last twenty years, was a kind of a partial loosening determined somehow by the US influence through its alliances or through its influence on Iraq neighboring countries and those situated on the shores of the above mentioned outlets.

4 -The US; inheriting the British colonialist era, acted in an imperialistic manner and according to the cold war imposed equation, and always considered with suspicion and sensibility, the Indian sub-continent current developments to the point that its historical alliance with Pakistan bore in its essence, intentions to plot against India whose distinguished relationships in that time with some Arab countries and specially Iraq, was confrontation against the US plotting enterprise, linking the Pakistani political, security and economical interests, with the collaborating Gulf Arab and Saudi regimes to face the independent policies of Iraq and its distinguished role in the Non-Aligned Movement.

5 - the period in between September 1980 up to September 2001 has seen important experiences / situations which are not at all strange to the objective of targeting the political system in Iraq. Needless to talk here about the tools and the nature alliances, to tolerate or to shut an eye concerning the role played by the others involved into the direct or the indirect confrontation, according to different interests, In all cases they never crossed the line permitted by the US strategic needs in the region and towards "Israel" security. Here we must note that there were two wars, which targeted Iraq in that period. Both targeted its political system publicly and through different justifications, both were based on that Iraq political system identity and practices were not acceptable, both targeted Pan Arabism and Arab identity from a religious and imperialistic point of view. Thus both wars (and the confrontation is still goes on) speculated and concentrated on dismembering Iraq and disrupt its Arab fabric. The experience showed that in the mentioned wars, both attackers against Iraq and its political system were allied with Iraq neighboring countries due to reasons either to historical collaboration with the West or in the hope to play regional roles allowing them to tolerate and perpetuate the concerned regimes according the international plans for the region, in that period.

The historical exposé above, was necessary to assert that the publicly announced and the hidden true US objectives into its confrontation with Iraq was not linked to the implementation of the UN Resolutions following the February 1991 Cease fire. They are the same well known and aware of objectives, which targeted the political system in Iraq since 1972. These objectives are narrowly connected and coherent with US regional strategy towards the region first and towards its global strategy in the second place.

Towards the region: the identity, the policies and practices of the political system in Iraq stand and act against the US interests in guaranteeing and insuring the continuity of "Israel" security and superiority. Towards the global strategy: rejecting the hegemony and giving a political and a development identity to the Iraqi petrol, and its well known positions in OPEC, the independent foreign policy of the Iraqi state, the delay of establishing the diplomatic relationship severed since 1967 with the US, and the voluntary orientation to build a scientific and defense equilibrium with "Israel" and with the non Arab neighboring countries looking for an occasion to prey on Iraq or which are allied with the US, and the economical help to Arab and non Arab countries and the interests based on balanced relationships with influent European countries. All these factors created situations that contradict the US global strategy. US confrontation with Iraq, through implementing its regional, and global objectives / strategy as it has been explained above, were always and still are connected. They have a dialectical link to each other which boast the mentioned confrontation and activate it in many situations when the US political, economical and security interests are at stake directly or indirectly because of Iraq or because of someone else. These links were activated and boasted in a clearer and in an incarnated way when the Iraqi action in the1990 Call Day was considered the danger threatening the colonial interests inherited from the Sykes-Picot agreement which commanded and still does (through its dictates and spirit) the Arab Levant up to this instant.

To clarify the above we would like to expose the following elements:

-The nationalization resolution as a patriotic and pan Arab policy was treated and considered as a threat to the US strategy on the regional and the global level.

-The Iraqi unexpected and not accounted for participation into the October 1973 war was taken into consideration and studied to face its future consequences for the same above-mentioned reasons.

-The patriotic initiatives to find political and democratic solutions to the Kurdish question for the same reasons above.

-The Iraqi position and its pan Arab policies towards Camp David first agreement.

- The different political initiatives coming from Iran and the defensive actions and the developments of the military actions in the al Qadissiyah.

Iraq initiatives to activate the Arab multilateral action and the creation of the Arab cooperation Council.

In the same process and when the US national security was hit through the strikes against New York and Washington on the September 11 by a party which was not Iraq, the targeting of the Iraqi political system was activated and concentrated upon by the US higher decision makers. Thus their "war against terror" in its political, and military processes included " it even concentrated" on the political system of Iraq and became the principal title of that war.

Moreover from the very first weeks after the strikes against Washington and New York, and in the middle of the chaos, which followed, the US administration, this Administration has issued a warning to the Iraq leadership. And here the connection above was made and what we explained concerning the situation of Iraq and its political leadership was confirmed as far as the US strategy is concerned on the regional and on the global levels for considerations linked to "Israeli" security, regionally, and to the hegemony over oil, globally.

We add also, by insisting on the Weapons of Mass Destruction question, a the pretext held and used in its confrontation and war against Iraq and its political leadership, the US actual dealing with the north Korean challenge (as a matter of comparison) in the nuclear and ballistic fields (inspite including north Korea in the "axis of Evil" with Iraq and Iran) in that time, and knowing that the north Korean threat due its geographical position and because of its military abilities, is a real one to the US security : threats against US west cities and forces in south Korea and allies in east Asia.

The US dealing with the problem doesn't seem to be at the level of the challenge and the threat coming from the other side. So the comparison between the situation of Iraq and that of North Korea lead us to some paradoxical state of affairs which is in itself a confirmation of the following:

- "Israel" security is more important for the US than South Korean security.

- The Arab Iraq "under blockade" in its time and its oil "chained" capabilities are more dangerous to the US security and its allies than North Korea which lacks petrol and which possesses actual nuclear and ballistic capabilities.

- Iraq neighbors were asked and forced to give facilitations to the US military aggression, but the Korean neighbors behaved according to their regional interests through finding a peaceful solution with North Korea.

The paradoxical assertion mentioned above were necessary to the US strategic buildup, and to any interests evaluations, on political, economical and security levels and to the justification of its conflicts from a geographical, national cultural and of civilization point of view.

Here we have to assert that the management and the leadership of the resistance to expel the occupation and free Iraq, is nothing but a continuation on a higher level of the management of this confrontation. The described situation in its measures and in its dimensions is necessarily, a historical ongoing confrontation. Thus, for analysis purposes, for the organizational components explanation, and for the vision of the future, to confirm what we described and what we said, we must mention the following:

1 - The crises in its described nature since August 1990 goes back to the British inherited colonialist era for Iraq and what has been based upon since the Sykes-Pico agreement in 1917. It was the period, which witnessed a colonialist behavior opposing Iraqi patriotism in an attempt to hurt and undermine the regional sovereignty of Iraq.

Also these policies were long-term targets against the Arab national interests and security in all the Arab Levant.

2 - and it is also necessarily based on paragraph (1) above that the US linked the creation of the situation (crises) historically and it continuation and its intensification in the future to the establishment and the continuation of the existence of the Zionist entity on Palestine soil.

3 - and it is necessarily, i. e. the crisis, could fade or grow with the waning or the renewal of the Iraqi patriotism and the effect and the interactivity of all this with Iraq pan Arab environment.

4 - Last, it is, based on the colonialist and imperialistic understanding, a tool referred to, used and activated according to the interests needs of the US strategic plan implementation (now) in the region and in the world. It can also be forged even to serve the US administration narrow purposes for internal or election purposes.

Thus the confrontation has a past, and can explain what is going on today or in the future. From a historical dimension, it is an ongoing confrontation.

This confrontation between both sides, through its historical dimension, due to its causes and complexity commanded its results depending on the confronting Iraqi level. This confrontation, and particularly since August 1990, and twenty years earlier, was ongoing indeed and its results were not clear-cut. It became for the US imperialism dogma as the modern times confrontation (through confrontations plans and phases, and the stubbornness the various US administrations since August 1990 to stay in their respective trenches) forced through terror or money, other countries of the world and the region; to follow its politics in a confrontation linked to US policy and interests, led and managed by the US itself These politics were most of the time, contrary to the interests of those aligned with the US policy. Considering its management, contents and targets, it is in fact a world confrontation, which required and requires an alliance against Iraq imposed by the US either by terror or through bribes and schemes.

The confrontation, through the US ongoing aggression, is made on behalf of one single regional party "the Zionist entity". This crisis was linked historically, to artificially boosting its superiority with whatever means over the entire Arab nation. The US in its deep involvement and its confrontation management cares only about the Zionist entity security and stability. Thus giving the confrontation a true pan Arab battle.

The ongoing confrontation and the ongoing resistance:

It has been clear, the US strategic objective (the removal of the political system in the Republic of Iraq) was not possible to achieve unless:

1 -The continuation, the intensification and the activation of the political confrontation.

2 -Thwarting any attempt by the Iraqi political leadership to lift the embargo.

3 - Hindering Iraqi political and economical move towards the countries of the region and the world.

4 - arranging the official Arab realignment "if possible" with the US plan to remove the political system in Iraq, which succeeded, agreed upon by many Arab regimes, without daring to talk about the later consequences of this plan for Iraq, for the mentioned regimes, or for the region.

5 - Attempting to directly link the strategic targeting with the legitimacy of the US pretexts and military aggression, insuring the US leadership, determining alone its military dimensions and controlling its known results calculated on the US military size and supremacy in the war, allowing it to impose the nature of the political consequences of the military action which " theoretically" will conciliate the political consequences used to serve its strategic target in occupying Iraq to achieve its regional and global strategy.

The Iraqi political leadership examined in its time, and before the aggression, the following situations and possibilities:

- The confrontation with the US will not remain purely political, because of the quality of the Iraqi political performance in this confrontation incarnated by the Iraqi success into objectively separating between the US and (submissive) UK positions and other permanent members of the Security Council.

This analysis was strengthened on the basis that the targeting of the political system in Iraq is "a declared principal" and goes along with US political strategic plans in the region not only presently but much earlier, and that the confrontation developments will not be controlled by the Iraqi action itself which was trying to avoid its escalation.

- The possibilities of compromise with the US in general, regardless of the White House administration nature, were almost null, and were linked to the change of the geopolitical map in the region designed in 1917 and which led to the actual political and geographical state of affairs of the Arab Levant linked to the imposed creation of the Zionist Entity, which itself determined and controlled: the political-social, the political-economical, and the political-security roles for every geopolitical unit dealing with it (the Zionist entity) or changing it, according to the original roles given to these units (roles given to serve the interest of this Zionist entity. The (imperialist) US inherited from the (colonialist) Britain, developed and activated the right to impose its views on the regional geopolitical components and used this right in different means and ways to achieve its strategic objectives in the region and in the World in a way to help the security and the supremacy of "Israel" and its hegemony and the control of the petrol and the energy policies.

- The official Arab impotency in the best circumstances and the Regimes submission and plotting in the worst situations did not and will never help the possibility to develop a political confrontation with the US forcing it to reach a compromising phase. Above all was the impotent Official Arab selective stand into implementing the International legitimacy as an opening to stop or to call off the political compromise with the US.

- Moreover the beginning of the main Arab roles in the Golf exhaustion either by military occupation and later after the aggression against Iraq in 1991, or after 11 September 2001 and the role given to Iran due to its "special Islamic" fabric, played in accordance to the new expected role which the Iranian Mullahs can play in the future, on the detriment of the Saudi role, politically and Islamic ally exhausted after the collapse of communism and the exhaustion to use the "submissive and collaborating" Islam which led to the birth of the "defiant and resistant" Islam from the womb of the submissive and collaborating one which contradicts the existence and the orientations of the Saudi regime...Iran plays and will play in the future a role due to its " present position" which rejects the defying and resistant Islam born as a result to the US aggressive war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran neighbors.

- The US has put some small Gulf Arab and the official Arab System mainstream Countries forward and in other Arab region to the point that playing a role was linked to the automatic submission, in order to ensure the continuity of the concerned regime, its renewal or its development, to stay in power or to bequeath ruling even in the non royalist regimes. Small country regimes were able to play influential roles to the detriment of large Arab country regimes. This was rendered possible due to their 'normalization' with the Zionist enemy, and the alignment of their regimes, the facilities and support to the US in its war and occupation of Iraq which forced the Arab main stream countries later "as is the case right now" to accept the illegal Occupation decisions and outputs.

- The Leadership in Iraq has examined too and since long time after the reestablishing of the normal relationship with Egypt in the mid eighties, the depth of the Sadat era crises inherited by the actual Egyptian regime, its inability and unwilling to overcome it and its paralyzed stand regarding its consequences; a situation which led to neutralizing Egypt’s capabilities and qualities as an Arab and regional influent country. This has been evident through the hesitation, the fear and the political handicap of the Egyptian regime and its initiatives in the "Arab Cooperation Council" at the time, and both its sensibilities and fear from the Saudi regime and its suspicion of the other Arab roles as individual countries or as axis inspite of Egypt prevailing population, historical, political, cultural and military position in the Arab system.

- When the political Leadership in Iraq activated the principle of the pan Arab national and objective correlation of the Arab Zionist conflict represented "only" by the Palestinian people struggle against the Zionist occupation, with the Iraqi people struggle to break the embargo; the US was advertising for an authorized solution for the Palestinian Cause through of Arab regimes agreement to remove the political system in Iraq as a necessary condition for a solution to the Palestinian Cause and this under the international legitimacy cover in order to implement Security council resolutions???. These resolutions imposed disarmament in Iraq of WMD as a step to clean the whole Middle East from these same weapons. In the end Iraq was right and there was no WMD and now who will ask the Arab regimes to implement the paragraph 14 of the 768 Resolution?

The situations and the analyzed possibilities above were necessary to explain the Iraqi political leadership strategic understanding

1) Concerning the continuity of the confrontation and,

2) The unavoidable internationally rejected illegal aggression and,

3) The complicity of Arab regimes and,

4) The enemy military superiority and,

5) The connivance and the opportunistic stand of some foreign regional countries and,

6) The roles given to the Zionist entity in security, managerial and political fields due to the aggression and to the occupation consequences; and,

7) Threatening and using known Arab regimes and,

8) Stimulating the dismembering and partition elements in Iraq and,

9) The deep political connection of the Iraqi puppet opposition political decisions with the occupation plans and the narrow sectarian, ethnical, fanatical and egoistic interests, and,

10) The readiness and the adoption of the armed resistance line, evolving into a national liberation war with a specific political and strategic program on the national Iraqi and pan Arab levels.

Based on these elements, the objectives of the armed Iraqi resistance led and managed by the Arab Baath Socialist Party as a liberation movement is to expel the occupation forces and to achieve the liberation of Iraq, safeguard the country and hold it unified and a homeland for all Iraqis.

The Resistance choices:

The Iraqi resistance adopts and develops its choices based upon:

1) Its national responsibility and the Iraqi identity of its belonging to Iraq the cradle of civilization.

2) Its pan Arab national identity.

3) Its Islamic civilization sources.

4) Its Jihadi accumulated practices and experiences.

5) Its understanding of the ongoing confrontation nature and its requirements.

6) Its revolutionary implementation taken from its militant day to day actions.

7) Its inspiration from the Baath thought and its message.

8) Its analyses, examinations and evaluation of the achievements phase and the confrontational resistance episodes against the occupation.

9) To follow up and analyze the roles of the inside occupation stooges and collaborators.

10) To follow up and to determine the roles of the Arab regimes either before or after the occupation.

11) To make known the cooperation of the foreign neighboring countries and their collaborating arrangements with the occupation for their proper national interest on the detriment of Iraq and its national unity.

12) To divulge, to reveal and to determine the opportunism of the third parties economic interests under the occupation.

13) To draw attention to the role given to the "Zionist entity" and the developments of this role under the occupation and the collaboration of Arab regimes and/or the interconnection of other regional powers interests.

Based on the above, the Iraqi resistance as a national liberation movement believes in:

1) The continuity of the resistance as long as there is an occupation and under any means or on any parts of Iraq regardless of the international resolutions taken after the occupation.

2) In the legitimacy of the resistance and its right to undertake military or any other action and to combat and fight the occupation forces personnel, equipment and gatherings, bases, military camps, headquarters, departments, management and supply lines and its support services, offices and organizations, occupied building and security support centers. Etc.

3) The legitimacy and the duty to combat the collaborators and the stooges, as individuals or as parties or committees and any other organizations and under whatever name.

4) Destroy and disrupt the Occupation effort to steal, exploit, and profit, in whatever form, the Iraq wealth, possessions and services through military; managerial or technical requirement ways and manners to achieve their objective.

5) In spreading and developing the armed resistance to cover all the soil of Iraq and to involve all Iraqis stressing their equal obligations and right to resist and to liberate Iraq, in whatever name or title.

6) In acting to achieve the formation of the Iraq army of liberation as a further development in the Resistance action for the liberation of Iraq.

7) In the non-existing possibilities to get any help from all the Arab regimes due to causes linked to the nature of the official Arab system as a whole and due to the nature and the roles of some Arab regimes and especially those puppet countries surrounding Iraq, which have lost old roles or which are willing to play new ones designed by the US with Zionist Entity agreement and in accordance with the US regional strategic vision.

8) The duty and the right of the Arab masses to join the Armed Iraqi resistance based on the national responsibility and right, which doesn’t contradict with the Iraqi responsibility and right based on Iraqi patriotism.

In this present phase of the Iraqi resistance struggle and Jihad, and what could later on happen in the light of the confrontation development in its different phases, the Resistance action shall go side by side with the final objective, and considering the achievement of tactical suitable objectives and the phase of the political and ethical impasse experienced by the US administration and its British ally due to the scandalous collapse of the pretexts of their illegal war and occupation of Iraq, the tactical objectives of the resistance are oriented towards the strategic objective which is to expel the occupation forces and to liberate Iraq and to keep it a unified homeland for all Iraqis.

The Resistance through its confrontation and combat actions plays an important and an influential role into deepening the political impasse before the US Presidential and British general elections, to uncover their lies and disrupt the political programs undertaken by London and Washington and to tell the voters in the US and UK and the International opinion that:

- The false pretexts used to wage the war, the illegitimacy of these pretext into targeting and removing the political regime in Iraq and occupy it.

- The impossibility to implement the political, economical and security and any other projects designed by the occupier on the soil of Iraq and hence impossible to generalize it in the region and in the world, to limit it to be considered only; nothing else but a mere aggressive action of an imperialistic nature, to show the plotting plans against Iraq and against the Arab Nation, which allowed to a unilateral use of the tyrannical force due to the global imbalance, and to consider the aggression and the occupation as a model linked only to the US unilateral use of force.

- Disrupt the roles which may be played by some Arab plotter regimes, due to their need to deal with the occupation and its plans, and to compromise and discredit these regimes into their planned and possible dealing with the Iraqi question and to reflect that on their political, economical and security daily crises.

- Increase the crises into the region and its representatives and prevent the achievements of any neighbors interests on the detriment of Iraq and its national unity, and increase greatly the cost of their support to the aggression and their dealing with its plans and programs in Iraq which aim to dismember the Iraqi national unity based on ethnical, sectarian, egoistic and foreign interests enslaved to the occupier and linked to its existence.

Based on the political and strategic program, the heroic resistance continues, gets stronger, spreads and gets involved in the confrontation battles within the continuous confrontation and crosses the phases of the national liberation war and gives a triumphant example as it has done before, other peoples in different times of the humanity age in their struggle against the forces of evil, aggression and occupation.

Long live Iraq free, and defeated be the occupation.

Long live the heroic Iraqi Resistance.

Long live the Baath militants and long live the Secretary General (Saddam Hussein).

Glory and eternity for the dignified martyrs of Iraq.

God is the Greatest.

God is the Greatest.

The Arab Baath Socialist Party

Iraq on the 9th September 2003

http://www.al-moharer.net/qiwa_shabiya/baath9-9-03e.htm

[dasright60]

In the name of Allah the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

The Arab Baath Socialist Party

One Arab Nation with an Eternal Mission

Unity, Liberty, Socialism



"Activating, intensifying and widening the Resistance process towards Liberation objectives and destroying the puppet government"

The was a deadline indicated by the The Baath, during the US elections campaign November 30th 2004 as an ultimate warning and date to the Occupiers to withdraw their forces from Iraq. This deadline which was not given the importance it deserved has its justifications considering that another term for the Republicans or the victory of Democrats-which the Baath didn't think plausible, will give the new US Administration an opportunity to determine its position either in continuing the Republican administration current politics based on occupation and the deepening of its growing impasse or to change positions towards whatever other possibilities. Confronting these two positions, the Baath and the Resistance and Liberation leadership based on their political and resistance programme have determined the principle of activating and widening the Resistance actions towards the objectives of total liberation and their inherent requirements to destroy the infrastructure and the actors of the puppet government.

Now the principle of activating and widening the Resistance action has started towards the objective of total liberation and the destruction of the infrastructure and the representatives of the puppet government, and these who are on the Baath and the armed Resistance opposite side, whatever positions they may have and whatever security, political, administration, economical, or social roles they may play, first in occupied Iraq and second in the occupier logistics and supports arenas on the soil of Iraq. They must be aware of the ongoing, open and permanent confrontation, which have their various frontal forms according to the Baath and the armed resistence and liberation choices where there is no constraints or obstacles on the Resistence targets putting in practice the activation and the widening of the legitimate objective to liberate all Iraq as it requires to destroy in advance the infrastructures and the representatives of the puppet government.



1 - There is no political process in occupied Iraq, rather there is an open and diverse armed confrontation between the Baath and the Armed Iraqi Resistance from one side and from the other the Occupation and its puppet government and their supporters or their allies or the ones who share their political plans.



2 - All the sites, camps, headquarters, supply lines and routes, all the occupation airports and individuals from whatever nationalities are, will always be legitimate "absolute" targets for the Resistance and in whatever confrontation form chosen and decided by the Resistance.



3 - There is no room for spies, agents, procurers, and contractors and mercenary be companies or individuals whatever are their positions, roles or nationalities.



4. There will be no petrol and no petrol infrastructures at any phase of extraction, transport, refining, distribution and exports as they are considered among the legitimate targets for the Resistance.



5. There is no institutions, no parties, no Marjaya's and no cooperating committees with the occupier and his puppet authority and under any form or titles, be political, dealing with security, administration, economy etc.



Political information and Publication Bureau

Baath Arab Socialist Party

Iraq November 2004

http://www.al-moharer.net/qiwa_shabiya/baath-nov-04e.htm

[dasright60]

For more updated Baath statements go to this link. Its in arabic with an english section, i have pasted the link to the english section bellow. You can check back at the site every couple of weeks to a month. Thats when they usually have the statements updated in the english section. Takes time to translate.


http://www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/eng_section259.htm

[Dimentio]

I am curious, are you a member of the Ba'ath party?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2006 09:10 pm
the best resistance movement in iraq

is the
Islamic Army of Iraq

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6651/sss0zw.jpg
And why is that so?

The Baathists and other nationalists are far better than these sectarian nutters.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+July 03, 2007 08:27 am--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ July 03, 2007 08:27 am)
[email protected] 22, 2006 09:10 pm
the best resistance movement in iraq

is the
Islamic Army of Iraq

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6651/sss0zw.jpg
And why is that so?

The Baathists and other nationalists are far better than these sectarian nutters. [/b]
Well, they might be the best fighting group when it comes to training, dedication and fanaticism, but in the same time, they are sectarian nutters. But according to our friend dasright60;s articles, even the ba'athists are semi-islamists.

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:23 am
I am curious, are you a member of the Ba'ath party?
No I'm not, but I do believe in it. It's not as bad as one may hear on the news. Its an arab political party. It's more pan-arab. Like all the Arab countries in the middle east should be one big Arab country untited as one. Secular arab nationalist party with the ideology of Nationalism, Arab socialism, Pan-Arabism. Its kind of close to how Hugo Chavez wants to keep everything latino and unite latinos as well as being revolutionary, if not the same.

You can read this if you like, it's the constitution and principles. This is the link to the first page the links to the Articles are at the bottom. Your going to have to use your back button on your browser to go back so that your able to click on the next link. I also included another link on the founder of the Baath Mike Aflak "one the way to resurection" (his writtings, kind of a book). The rest of the sites are in arabic. There was one site that had a lot of info and really broke it down for you but it's been down for some time now.

http://www.baath-party.org/eng/constitution.htm



http://albaath.online.fr/English/index-English.htm

If I find a site with more info on it I'll paste it for you.

[Dimentio]

The problems with Ba'ath, unlike for example Bolivarianism, is that Ba'ath is inclined towards one ethnicity.

While Chávez has enstrengthened minorities in Venezuela, the Ba'ath governments of Syria and Iraq has repressed and persecuted ethnic minorities. That is just one of the reasons that I am sceptical to Ba'ath.

If Ba'ath was to foster a general middle eastern identity in a positive direction, I would'nt have any complications.

Could you explain why for example Iraq under Saddam, or Syria under Assad, were so progressive?

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2006 09:10 pm
the best resistance movement in iraq

is the
Islamic Army of Iraq

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6651/sss0zw.jpg
I wouldn't say that this is the best. They just have the most videos out. All of the resistance fighters as well as movements fall under the umbrella of the baath. Its all iraqi inteligence officers as well as the iraqi army. The reason for so many groups is to confuse their enemy. In this case the US. Keeps troops as well as american inteligence running around. "UM whats this group? whats that group? damn now this group is attacking?" "Whos the commender in charge? Who are the other commanders and leaders of these 40 groups??"

Not only do hit and run tactics fall under classic guerilla warfare, but so does confusion. It keeps one going in circles.

[Dimentio]

Yes. That also explains why the different groups are killing each-other. To confuse the Americans. Brilliant strategy.

Are you by any chance an Iraqi?

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:56 am
The problems with Ba'ath, unlike for example Bolivarianism, is that Ba'ath is inclined towards one ethnicity.

While Chávez has enstrengthened minorities in Venezuela, the Ba'ath governments of Syria and Iraq has repressed and persecuted ethnic minorities. That is just one of the reasons that I am sceptical to Ba'ath.



Those ethnic minorities your refering to I assume are the Shia and Kurds. Believe it or not a lot of Iraqi shias are Iraqi nationalists as well as kurds.

The Shias that were repressed(whatever the numbers are in that group) are religous fanatics that wanted to and still want to turn Iraq into Iran. They listen to the Ayatollahs, katami, khomeni,sistani etc. A lot of whom who are in power in Iraq today causing trouble. Katami came over to Iraq his own army once the puppet gov was formed.(mahdi army) trained and supplied by Iran. Remember the first bs prime minister Ibrahim Jafari? He's a member of a Shia group called Dawa Party backed by Iran. Which is the same group that tried to assinate Saddam in the 80s during the war with Iran. They recieved help,weapons and inteligence from Iran at the time. They say 162 people were killed in dujail during the Saddam trial. Yet nothing on paper,no pictures or hard evidence. It was a bunch of people testyfying who were 10 years old at the time or an adult that saw someone get arrested. These witnesses are part of that same group.

Any president of any country in the world would have done the same.

Now the Kurds there are two groups of which i forgot the names. One group is Iraqi nationalits. The other group are part of the same group that Turkey has issues with. Saddam had no issues with the Kurds. He felt that Iraqi Kurds were part of the country all Iraqi. The only issue he had was with the one group of Kurds that Turkey has issues with as well. That same group of kurds are the same ones that got support from the CIA of which the CIA does have a base in their area today. Remember gassing of kurds? 180,000 or whatever that BS number was? During the war with Iran a lot of kurds did die but Iraqis died as well. It wasn't Iraq that gassed them but the Iranians. Ever hear how Kurds were forced to leave their homes? Um well DUH!!! The town just got bombed with gas.

They helped the Iranians get in and gave them info on Iraqi troop locations. So in other words they were fighting with Iran against Iraq. Let's just say that everything i just mentioned here about the Kurds is bullshit for a second and lets think logically ok? They say they were gassed and at the same time Iraqi troops forced them to leave their homes. Now there was i don't know couple thousand troops maybe more or less. Does it make any sense to bomb the hell out of a town with gas while troops are there kicking people out? Your troops bombing a town with mustard gas while those same troops are forcing people from their homes??? And keep in mind that your at war with another country here(Iran). These kurds live up in Northern Iraq, bordering Iran and Turkey and they also do live in Turker and Iran along that same border.

The only reason why they are so focused on Iraq and not Iran or Turkey is because of a few reasons. They have never had a country and have always wanted one.
First reason is that in the area in Turkey where the live there is nothing, no city no resources. Iran theres no city or oil for them as well plus they get support and backing from Iran. But in Iraq mainly the city of Kirkuk. You have a very rich city with refineries,unlimited oil underground, it's already established. These same Kurds are involved in the puppet gov today. Iraq is one country and has a gov however bullshit and puppet it maybe yet this group of kurds has already been signing deals with american oil companies as we speak.

A few months back or maybe in 2006 i don't remember exactly but this bs gov tried to get a federalism bill do you remember that? You can look it up. Anyway these two BS groups that are part of the puppet gov today were the only two groups pushing for it to pass. It would have given them total power over their area.
During Saddam's time eveyrbody lived as one. They even had Iraqi Jews but who have now fled to Israel because of the war. You have to understand that the baath is very secular, keeps religion seperate from the gov and not only that it believes that women have to be part of the society in order for a country to grow. Meaning education,working etc.

Christians, Sunnis,Shias as well as Kurds are all involved in the resistance today except for those from these two political groups.

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:59 am
Yes. That also explains why the different groups are killing each-other. To confuse the Americans. Brilliant strategy.

Are you by any chance an Iraqi?
Only groups killing eachother are the Mahdi Army an miltias brought over from Iran killing everybody else.

No I'm not Iraqi.

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:56 am
If Ba'ath was to foster a general middle eastern identity in a positive direction, I would'nt have any complications.

Could you explain why for example Iraq under Saddam, or Syria under Assad, were so progressive?
Damn I'm working hard today..

Anyway let me try answering this question for you. Before the first gulf war and the sanctions in the 90s Iraq had a 90% literacy rate. Now what makes them progressive is that the State/nation owns everything and then distributes equally. For example in Iraq you had free school, free medical,free housing. If you were to go and study to become and engineer or you were guaranteed a job with the gov or something. There were no private companies owning anything as to start any competition or say how a pharmaceutical company controls the prices of prescription drugs. It takes all of that BS out of the picture as well as taxes. It keeps the profits and puts a majority of it back into the country as opposed to some bank account in the US or overseas.

Before the first Gulf War Iraq was the richest and most advanced as well as growing country in the middle east. They look at the country growing as a whole and not only just some individuals or ceos profiting or benfiting. The US had a problem with that because chell and chevron didn't own any private fields. Thats now how it worked. Everything is owned and ran by the state. People work for the state. Money is made for the state and the state grows, meaning its people grow.

Just take Microsoft for example piece of shit software that you can't live without that your forced to buy and microsoft sets the prices. Some can afford it and some cannot. Now even though an American owns the company. Billions of dollars are going into Bill Gates's pocket. But how much of that is going back to the country and it's people? NOTHING except for whatever taxes he pays after deductions. The

Baath is more like ok screw you, we own microsoft, everybody gets to afford a copy of windows. The profits go back into the country and gets dispursed to more social programs,technology and developement. It's socialism. But heres where they run into a problem. Because theres a lot of oil there and "SOME" countries want to get their hands on it yet private companies are not allowed to touch. You now have WMDS, supporting terrorism, dictatorships,regime change etc.

Other than that it's basically all about everybody recieves all the social services and as the country grows you grow keepin religion in the churches,mosques and synagogues out of the gov so that everybody may prosper as equals. But at the same time they believe this for every Arab country in the middle east as whole as one country. Saddam did try this a few times in the past but it was shot down by a few other countries until the did come to an agreement. All Arab countries govern their own state and their own affairs but work together as one. The formation of the Arab League.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by dasright60+--> (dasright60)Now the Kurds there are two groups of which i forgot the names. One group is Iraqi nationalits. The other group are part of the same group that Turkey has issues with. Saddam had no issues with the Kurds. He felt that Iraqi Kurds were part of the country all Iraqi. The only issue he had was with the one group of Kurds that Turkey has issues with as well. That same group of kurds are the same ones that got support from the CIA of which the CIA does have a base in their area today. Remember gassing of kurds? 180,000 or whatever that BS number was? During the war with Iran a lot of kurds did die but Iraqis died as well. It wasn't Iraq that gassed them but the Iranians. Ever hear how Kurds were forced to leave their homes? Um well DUH!!! The town just got bombed with gas.[/b]

This is a blatant lie.

One would think though if one was going to tell such outrageous lies that one would at least have some knowledge of the region:


dasright60
First reason is that in the area in Turkey where the live there is nothing, no city no resources.

Diyarbakır has a population of 721,463 according to the 2000 census, which makes it about the same size as Kirkuk(estimated at 755,700 in 2003), and certainly bigger than Iraq's Dohuk*. Also, by the way an estimated 55% of the world's Kurds live in Turkey.


Now the Kurds there are two groups of which i forgot the names. One group is Iraqi nationalits. The other group are part of the same group that Turkey has issues with.

There are two main Kurdish nationalist groups in Iraq. One is called the KDP, the other the PUK. The group that Turkey 'has issues with' is a completly different group called the PKK (variously known as KADEK, or KONGRA/GEL)


Remember gassing of kurds? 180,000 or whatever that BS number was?
The number of people who died in the gas attack on Halabja was apporximatly 5000 people.

Please, next time you want to tell such blatant lies at least do a bit of research into the background information, which will give you at least a hint of credibilty.

*Kurmanji speakers will see the joke.

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:56 am
The problems with Ba'ath, unlike for example Bolivarianism, is that Ba'ath is inclined towards one ethnicity.

I forgot one more thing about ethnicity. Bolivia is a latin country, you have people from all over living there but its still a latin country. So with the Baath let's say in Iraq for example. Anybody could live there and become a citizen but keeping it an Arab country. Say a bunch of chinese went there from China and lived and over time more and more began to move there. There would be no problem with that but its an Arab country first. You would have to be part of the "arab" country.

As another example...Kuwait, which the US worked so hard to defend. Unless your 100% Kuwaiti by blood you could never become a citizen or recieve any of the benfits. Even if you've lived there for 50 years. Baath wouldn't allow that. Doesn't matter what country your from. You can become a citizen. Your non Iraqi living there working, going to school paying your dues you would still be an equal.

[Pawn Power]

Chart showing the groups claiming responsibility for attacks. here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_JNlxgs6qm2M/RooMuHtImSI/AAAAAAAAAlI/o_14LDocwL4/s1600-h/march07claims.jpg)

http://bp0.blogger.com/_JNlxgs6qm2M/RooMuHtImSI/AAAAAAAAAlI/o_14LDocwL4/s1600-h/march07claims.jpg

[dasright60]

Ok devrimankara, i'm pretty new at forums so i have yet to learn how to quote 20 different pieces.

Now whats the blatant lie? That the Iranians bombed Iraq with gas?

Go check out the US inteligence reports of that war as well as a report out by a few retired inteligence agents from that time as well as reports from the US department of defense and the state department. US inteligence even says so and thats besides the "lying Iraqis" saying the same. While your checking here is a word of advice. Don't just click on the first two links that pop up in your search. Dig deep.

Next as far as what you said about Turkey and the population

"Diyarbakır has a population of 721,463 according to the 2000 census, which makes it about the same size as Kirkuk(estimated at 755,700 in 2003), and certainly bigger than Iraq's Dohuk*. Also, by the way an estimated 55% of the world's Kurds live in Turkey"

I DID SAY THAT THERE WAS NO RESOURCES. MEANING OIL. NO OIL NO MONEY. NO MONEY NO POWER. YOU NEED TO RELAX ON YOUR SELECTIVE EYE-SIGHT.


NUMBER THREE....

You mention the number gassed in halabja. I know the number was 5000. But there have been reports from day one that the total number over all was 180,000 OH AND YES I DID IN FACT SAY "THAT BS NUMBER" MEANING BULLSHIT.


I KNOW THE COUNTRY AND THE REGION VERY WELL, BETTER THAN YOU THINK. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH ME. CAN DISAGREE ALL YOU WANT AND THEN SHOW ME. BUT DON'T COME AND ATTACK ME BY CALLING ME A LIAR. YOU DON'T KNOW ME , DON'T KNOW WHERE I'VE BEEN OR WHAT I KNOW. YOU SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH ME AND SHOW ME FACTS OR JUST SHUT UP AND MOVE ON. FIRST DAY ON THIS SITE AND I'M ALREADY BEING ATTACKED.

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY IGNORANCE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by dasright60+--> (dasright60)Now whats the blatant lie?[/b]

That the Iraqi's didn't bomb Halajba.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I DID SAY THAT THERE WAS NO RESOURCES. MEANING OIL. NO OIL NO MONEY. NO MONEY NO POWER. YOU NEED TO RELAX ON YOUR SELECTIVE EYE-SIGHT.


dasright60
First reason is that in the area in Turkey where the live there is nothing, no city no resources. my emphasis

Devrim

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:31 pm
Please, next time you want to tell such blatant lies at least do a bit of research into the background information, which will give you at least a hint of credibilty.

Here is something else for you. Seeing that you may be a bit ignorant from your response. I've made it simple for you by copying and pasting something from a very simple site called Wikpedia. It's so simple even a 12 year old would know how to search. All you have to do is read and then if you like click the link at the bottom and scroll through the page to actually see it for yourself. I would spend 10 minutes on this by searching for other sites with more reports as well as videos of speaches made by inteligence officers as such. But that might be a bit too complicated for you. Who knows you may end up emailing YOUTUBE calling them liars about the play button and trying to say that the play button is in fact volume control. And then explaining to them on how they should do some research on video recording.

anyway read this paste and enjoy........



Establishing the culprit
An investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.[citation needed]

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [2] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion. [3]

Another extensive analysis of the incident is contained in a post [4] to the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq electronic mailing list by Cambridge political theorist Glen Rangwala. Rangwala describes how the attack followed the occupation of the city by Iranian and pro-Iranian forces, leading to the conclusion that the gassing was an attack on these forces by the Iraqis. Rangwala also cites studies done by non-governmental organizations that concluded different chemicals were used than the ones cited in the DIA study. This included witness testimony gathered by organisations like Human Rights Watch (HRW)[5] and Indict [6].

Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the HRW between 1992-1994, conducted a 2 year study, including a field investigation in northern Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process. This research concluded there were numerous other gas attacks perpetrated against the Kurds by the Iraqi armed forces. This research culminated in Iraq's Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (by G. Black, Yale Univ. Press, 1995). According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of CW use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". (Potter, p.153) He calls these allegations "mere assertions" and adds: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented".(Potter, p.156)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[dasright60]

Originally posted by devrimankara+July 03, 2007 01:09 pm--> (devrimankara @ July 03, 2007 01:09 pm)
dasright60
Now whats the blatant lie?

That the Iraqi's didn't bomb Halajba.
[/b]
They didn't bomb it. And no CNN or FOX or some Kurdish or Iranian news agency is going to convince me otherwise. Like I said your going to have to either show me or just move on.

Anybody can take a picture of a 4 bedroom home and write a million reports on how they own it. But proving ownership as well as identification is something else. GET IT??

[Devrim]

Your quote, My emphasis:

Originally posted by Wiki+--> (Wiki)Establishing the culprit
An investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.[citation needed]

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [2] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion. [3]

Another extensive analysis of the incident is contained in a post [4] to the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq electronic mailing list by Cambridge political theorist Glen Rangwala. Rangwala describes how the attack followed the occupation of the city by Iranian and pro-Iranian forces, leading to the conclusion that the gassing was an attack on these forces by the Iraqis. Rangwala also cites studies done by non-governmental organizations that concluded different chemicals were used than the ones cited in the DIA study. This included witness testimony gathered by organisations like Human Rights Watch (HRW)[5] and Indict [6].

Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the HRW between 1992-1994, conducted a 2 year study, including a field investigation in northern Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process. This research concluded there were numerous other gas attacks perpetrated against the Kurds by the Iraqi armed forces. This research culminated in Iraq's Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (by G. Black, Yale Univ. Press, 1995). According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of CW use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". (Potter, p.153) He calls these allegations "mere assertions" and adds: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented".(Potter, p.156)[/b]

In fact the same page says:
Wiki
Almost all current accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible for the gas attack,

So your evidence for this is US State Department sources from a time when Iran was seen as the principal enemy in the region, and your beloved Ba'ath Party was acting as a tool of America imperial interests as well as those of the Gulf oil Sheikhs.

This is not to say that the event was not used later by the US to justify its aggression against Iraq.

However, I find your source pretty uncredible compared to the great body of evidence which opposes it.

On a personal level an ex-girlfriend of mine from when I was younger was there and survived the attack. She was quite clear about what happened, and who it was.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

The problem IMO is duplicity - the Americans say it was Iran, possibly to spare criticism of their Iraqi allies, then start claiming it was in fact Iraq that carried out the gassing after the invasion of Kuwait.

However most of the evidence from international organisations points to Iraq carrying out the gassing, and even if it was Iran which gassed Halabja (why would they do that btw?) Operation Al-Anfal is a pretty open and shut case of massive repression and chauvinism on the part of the Iraqi state.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by dasright60+July 03, 2007 12:33 pm--> (dasright60 @ July 03, 2007 12:33 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 10:56 am
The problems with Ba'ath, unlike for example Bolivarianism, is that Ba'ath is inclined towards one ethnicity.

I forgot one more thing about ethnicity. Bolivia is a latin country, you have people from all over living there but its still a latin country. So with the Baath let's say in Iraq for example. Anybody could live there and become a citizen but keeping it an Arab country. Say a bunch of chinese went there from China and lived and over time more and more began to move there. There would be no problem with that but its an Arab country first. You would have to be part of the "arab" country.

As another example...Kuwait, which the US worked so hard to defend. Unless your 100% Kuwaiti by blood you could never become a citizen or recieve any of the benfits. Even if you've lived there for 50 years. Baath wouldn't allow that. Doesn't matter what country your from. You can become a citizen. Your non Iraqi living there working, going to school paying your dues you would still be an equal. [/b]
Imagine a European party with that platform. A country that would like to keep Sweden culturally "Swedish". A such party would be condemned by the left as xenophobic and semi-fascist.

[dasright60]

Anyway time for me to go. I'll check back on this thing later.

And for the record devrimankara....

Reports by non-goverment angencies or indivuduals mean nothing to me.

It was the PUK(peshmergas) that were supporters of Iran and ended up going into halabja back by the Iranian revolutionary guards.

It was an Iranian photographer that took the first pictures from an Iranian military helicopter of Halabja after the attack. It was the Iranians who were the first to report it. The majority of the reports out there not made by inteligence or ex-inteligence out there or not made by any goverment agency, were all based on photos and people who have said they looked up and saw Iraqi jets flying above having gass in their eyes. UM YEAAAAAAAAAH OK. I have Mustard and VX gas in my eyes yet i can look up and see Iraqi jets 20,000-25,000 feet up dropping bombs. Oh and not only was i not running for cover while i had these deadly gasses in my eyes i was looking up at the nice Iraqi jets.


"Highly irritating to the eyes, it quickly causes conjunctivitis and blindness.

NOOOOOOOOPE!!! I SAW THE IRAQI JETS DROPPING BOMBS!!!!

gotta go now, i'll check back later

[Dimentio]

And the first who took photos of Auschwitz were really Russians... yeay.

[Andy Bowden]

If the PUK were allies of Iran why would Iran want to launch chemical attacks on their villages and strongholds?

[Devrim]

Reports by non-goverment angencies or indivuduals mean nothing to me.

No, you prefer to trust the CIA.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 03, 2007 02:05 pm
If the PUK were allies of Iran why would Iran want to launch chemical attacks on their villages and strongholds?
Quite, a logical question. I don't think logic really comes into it though, Andy.
Devrim

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:50 pm
Imagine a European party with that platform. A country that would like to keep Sweden culturally "Swedish". A such party would be condemned by the left as xenophobic and semi-fascist.
I agree. But how about this.... When you move to another country you adapt to it over time and not try bring a particular race together say your race for example, and try changing it so that it adapts to you. The country is still Sweeden and it's still Sweedish. Take the state of California in the states for example. Putting whatever immigrant issues the US may be having. The majority of the people in that particular state are mexican. They are still mexicans and still have their culture. Everybody goes to work,goes to school, drives, gets medical etc. But California is America and is still American. It's only when the mexicans begin to try and turn California into Mexico would there be a problem. That's pretty much how the Baath would be when it came to other ethnicities.

Today in a southern city in Iraq which is mostly ran by Iranians or their agents they don't speak Arabic it's not allowed.All books written in farsi nothing Arabic. Iranian products ONLY are being sold in the stores, TV shows and programs are Iranian(signals from Iran) and so on. People there are Arabs but have to go learn farsi just to get by. Everything Iranian and Iranian only is allowed anything else you'd get wacked. So something like this the Baath would have a problem with and it's what I meant by "it being ARAB"

i'll check back on here later on.

peace out

[dasright60]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:08 pm

Reports by non-goverment angencies or indivuduals mean nothing to me.

No, you prefer to trust the CIA.

Devrim
No, I don't trust the CIA. But I would trust chemical tests that prove that the particular gas used came from Iran and not from Iraq because the agents used Iraq did not possess at the time. And I would definitly trust that over some EYEwitness that happend to look up and see Iraqi jets dropping bombs on them while having gas in the eyes.

[Dimentio]

I agree that ethnic discrimination by Iranians upon Iraqi Arabs is deplorable, but that is no defense of the Saddam regime. You are at least consequent in your assimilationist policy. So you would theoretically defend white supremacists who wants to prevent California from becoming a part of Mexicó?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is not a leftist or even progressive point of view, but a statist. The state, no matter if it is a federal state or a national state, is a tool of oppression and control. Some states are worse than other. Saddam's Iraq for example.

[dasright60]

Originally posted by devrimankara+July 03, 2007 02:09 pm--> (devrimankara @ July 03, 2007 02:09 pm)
Andy [email protected] 03, 2007 02:05 pm
If the PUK were allies of Iran why would Iran want to launch chemical attacks on their villages and strongholds?
Quite, a logical question. I don't think logic really comes into it though, Andy.
Devrim [/b]
I wouldn't know, I really didn't see the question i was too busy looking up into the skies watching Iraqi dropping bombs over me from 20,000 feet above. Having mustard gas in my eyes and 20 blisters on my arms and (_)_). Try asking the Kurd that wasn't looking up at the time he may have an answer for you.

[dasright60]

One last thing before i go serpent. The problem that Saddam started to have was after the first war and the sanctions the religous fanatics(the ones that did not rebel) started jumping around saying ok the state has failed. So to satisfy them he began building more mosques and then added the words "allahu akbar" in arabic on to the Iraqi flag. He was forced to tweak out the Baath ideology a little bit. I'm sure he was a punk some times but when your dealing with... A) a bunch of tribes B) people supporting Iran causing uprisings C) religous fanatics D) a Kurdish group that not only wants to create their own country but supports your number 1 enemy(Iran) E) your own people the rest of the pupulation.... He would be forced to slap some people around and put them in check or else all hell would break loose.

Syria on the other hand things worked out a lot better. They don't have the same issues arising from inside the population as Iraq.

And a little extra info here although it may be a bit off subject. The Baath party flag is the Palestinian flag

[Devrim]

All the stuff about eye witnessess, and looking up into the sky is somrthing that you brought up.

I said:
Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)She was quite clear about what happened, and who it was.[/b]

People who were there at the time were aware of the general situation, and what was happening. Actually, my friend was temporarily blinded, and lived in a refugee camp in Iran for two years. It is funny that isn't it. First the Iranians bomb them, and then they take them in as refugees. I remember when all of the Iraqi Kurdish refugees were pouring over the Turkish boarders in the war. Presumably, it was the Turks who were attacking them, and forcing them to flee there homes.


Originally posted by Serpent+--> (Serpent) I agree that ethnic discrimination by Iranians upon Iraqi Arabs is deplorable,[/b]

Hang on a minute Serpent, you are just accepting this at face value. Let's look at it again:


Originally posted by dasright60
Today in a southern city in Iraq which is mostly ran by Iranians or their agents they don't speak Arabic it's not allowed.All books written in farsi nothing Arabic. Iranian products ONLY are being sold in the stores, TV shows and programs are Iranian(signals from Iran) and so on. People there are Arabs but have to go learn farsi just to get by. Everything Iranian and Iranian only is allowed anything else you'd get wacked. So something like this the Baath would have a problem with and it's what I meant by "it being ARAB"

Let's just look at this:


Originally posted by dasright60
Today in a southern city in Iraq...
No mention of where. It makes it difficult to argue against.


Originally posted by dasright60
Arabic it's not allowed.
I doubt this. Can we have a source please.


[email protected]
Iranian products ONLY are being sold in the stores,
Again, I really doubt this. Every shop is only selling Iranian goods. It sounds like nonsense.


dasright60
TV shows and programs are Iranian(signals from Iran) and so on
This I believe. It tends to happen when you live near a border. Boarders don't block TV signals you know. I am sure you can watch Iraq TV too though.

It is very clear that 'dasright60' is an Arab nationalist. How would you react if an English nationalist posted something like this?


Today in a Northern city in England which is mostly ran by Pakis or their agents they don't speak English it's not allowed.All books written in Paki nothing English . Paki products ONLY are being sold in the stores, TV shows and programs are Paki (satellite from Pakiland) and so on. People there are white but have to go learn Paki just to get by. Everything Paki and Paki only is allowed anything else you'd get wacked. So something like this the BNP would have a problem with and it's what I meant by "it being BRITISH "

Maybe you would be less likely to accept it at face value. In fact we may even go as far as to say that it was right wing racist anti-working class nonsense.

The only thing that surprises me about this guy is that he hasn’t said that the Kurds deserved it…yet.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On this, it is worth checking this out:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/ins...ry-devices.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/insurrectionary-devices.html)

[Entrails Konfetti]

Well it was nice for the friend of the workers to pop by! :lol:

Theres your socialism, there your liberation, theres your resistance!

VIVA LA REVOLUTION! :hammer:

[Severian]

The posts about an administrative matter (DasRight60's restriction) have been moved to the RevLeft Members Forum. I'll comment there.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I didn't get many responses from the proponents of the armed insurgency in this thread that I made.

The Worker's Movement in Iraq: The True "Third Way"? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67823)

I personally think that the working class in Iraq has revolutionary potential; that it can wage the class struggle as well as a movement for national-liberation at the same time.

[Severian]

So how about new developments in the "resistance"? There have been a lot of media reports similar to this one in the Washington Post:

BAQOUBA, Iraq --
....
Now hundreds of fighters from the 1920s Revolution Brigades, an erstwhile Sunni insurgent group, work as scouts and gather intelligence for the 10,000-strong American force in the fifth day of its mission to remove al-Qaida gunmen and bomb makers from the Diyala provincial capital.
....
Each U.S. Army company in Baqouba, an hour's drive northeast of Baghdad, has a scout from the Brigades, others have become a ragtag intelligence network and still others fight, said Capt. Ricardo Ortega, a 34-year-old Puerto Rico native of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The Army has given some of the one-time insurgents special clothing _ football-style jerseys with numbers on the chest _ to mark them as American allies.
....
Al-Maliki complained that the U.S. was turning them and other Sunni insurgent groups into nothing but better trained and armed Sunni militias that will torment the Shiite population and turn their guns on Iraqi troops and police once U.S. forces leave the district.
full article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062300786_2.html?tid=informbox)
[/b]

[socialistfuture]

watch al jazeera and read tariq ali's books and articles to get a clearer picture of what is taking place. from an iraqi and anti imperilialis perspective.

also can be interesting to read iraqi blogs on it.

http://www.tariqali.org/

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55A...6BBE2A36665.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:53 pm
I didn't get many responses from the proponents of the armed insurgency in this thread that I made.

The Worker's Movement in Iraq: The True "Third Way"? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67823)

I personally think that the working class in Iraq has revolutionary potential; that it can wage the class struggle as well as a movement for national-liberation at the same time.
Bump.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by RecDali
I personally think that the working class in Iraq has revolutionary potential; that it can wage the class struggle as well as a movement for national-liberation at the same time.

Yes, it is just a shame that the nationalists have this rather nasty anti-working class habit of murdering workers, isn't it.

Devrim

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by devrimankara+July 04, 2007 09:58 pm--> (devrimankara @ July 04, 2007 09:58 pm)
RecDali
I personally think that the working class in Iraq has revolutionary potential; that it can wage the class struggle as well as a movement for national-liberation at the same time.

Yes, it is just a shame that the nationalists have this rather nasty anti-working class habit of murdering workers, isn't it.

Devrim [/b]
I don't think an alliance of the armed insurgency with the trade unions would be a proper strategy in furthering the goals of the working class in Iraq.

As a matter of fact, the insurgency, composed of these former Baathists, Shi'a mullahs, and Sunni nationalists, have all been in united opposition against secular and progressive forces; most notably, they have targeted the trade unions, which I have mentioned are still illegal even after the fall of Saddam.


Pinkertons at the CPA, by Matthew Harwood:

"On Jan. 4, labor union leader Hadi Saleh returned to his Baghdad home after work. Five masked men laid in wait. After he entered, they jumped him, blind-folded him, and bound his hands and feet. The intruders beat and burnt Saleh on his torso and head and then choked him to death with an electrical cord. Before they left, the men strafed Saleh's body with bullets. His membership files were ransacked. This wasn't everyday violence. Saleh was, at the time of his death, international secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) and a strong player in Iraq's born-again labor movement once crushed by Saddam Hussein. The labor leader's killers are widely suspected to be remnants of Hussein's secret police, the Mukhabarat. Saleh's slaying was the most high-profile attack on Iraqi labor officials, many of whom continue to be kidnapped and killed with impunity by the insurgents. In recent months, two more trade unionists have been murdered, one while he was walking home with his children.

There is good reason for insurgents to take on the trade unionists. The IFTU supports a secular state, representative of Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. Its leaders have called for the insurgency to end."

But, not to downplay their anti-imperialist character, they have also experienced attacks from the coalition forces.

U.S. military targets Iraqi trade unions (http://www.pww.org/article/view/4516/1/193/)


"A U.S. occupation force involving 10 armored vehicles and dozens of soldiers attacked the headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Baghdad, Dec. 6. They arrested eight of its leaders and members, who were handcuffed and taken away to an unknown destination. The eight were released the next day with no explanation. Without giving any reason, the U.S. troops ransacked and destroyed the IFTU’s possessions, removing documents including minutes of union meetings. They tore down union banners and posters that condemned acts of terror. They smashed windows on the front of the building and smeared black paint over the name of the IFTU and that of the General Union of Transport Workers, which provides temporary office space to Iraq’s new national labor federation."

Iraq is experiencing a revival of class struggle; in this last month alone, there was a strike of Iron, steel, paper, fertilizers and petrochemicals factories across Basra, there was a strike of university staff there also, there was a massive oil workers strike in response to government efforts to privatize the oil supplies, there was a strike of postal workers at the town of Kut Wasit, rubber workers in Diwaniyah have been fighting the police, and towards the end of May, there was thousands of railway workers engaging in a national strike that brought the entire transportation system to a virtual standstill.

As membership in these unions increase, and strike action has became more concurrent, I think we should seek an alternative in the labor movement. It is the solidarity and class allegiance of millions of Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite workers that will truly create a secular, progressive Iraq.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Bump, can anyone who supports the armed resistance check this out and give me feedback?