Where do we stand on the insurgency in Iraq?

[Vanguard1917]

Is there an insurgency in Iraq? Some on the left have given 'support' to a 'resistance' against the imperialist invansion. The SWP in Britain has compared this resistance to anti-imperialist movements of the kind that were seen in the 'Third World' during the Cold War. But is there such a resistance in Iraq?

Whether there is an organised resistance in Iraq, the imperialists nonetheless seem insecure about their role in the country, and perhaps this insecurity is increasing. The killing of al-Zarqawi, and the imperialist celebration that followed, seems to symbolise that the West does not know precisely what and who it is fighting against. al-Zarqawi was a borderline mythical figure rather than a traditional guerilla leader, and some have noted the almost mythical nature of al-Qaeda itself. (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2/) What exactly is the West fighting in Iraq?

The 'world system' clearly saw some fundamental changes after 1989. What is the role of the Iraq war in the historical context of the post-Cold War period?

[rioters bloc]

i'm going to bed now but a little book called 'fire to the powder keg' is a nice resource.

[Snowbird]

It seems to me that the word "insurgents" in the US invasion of Iraq has been used exclusively to make us, the masses, unable to think of those who are fighting for their homes as people. It's a de-humanizing tactic. If we can't think of them as people, we don't make such a fuss when they kill the women and children throwing stones at tanks or the men making car bombs to stop US troops from coming to their villages. So they give these people a term that undermines their humanity.
Actually it's pretty sick....

[Nachie]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 9 2006, 02:36 PM
i'm going to bed now but a little book called 'fire to the powder keg' is a nice resource.
Is that the one by Wolfi? Great stuff!

To answer the question: I think we should be focusing on things like the Worker-Communist Party's efforts to organize unions of the unemployed and other projects that build independent workers' power rather than guerrilla tactics that professionalize resistance and alienate the proles.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:29 AM
What exactly is the West fighting in Iraq?
Washington et al are fighting forces led by Sunni Arab landlords and capitalists who have lost a privileged position due to the invasion and the fall of the old regime. These elements tend to see the Shi'a as the enemy, even more than the U.S.

They deny that Shi'a are the majority in the country, so they think that the loss of their former minority rule constitutes oppression. It's sort of analagous to the "angry white male" phenomenon - loss of privilege that somebody's very used to, feels like oppression.

They also regard Iraqi Shi'a as foreigners in Iraq, as Iranians or Iranian agents.

It's true that Zarqawi is somewhat mythologized; the Ba'athists are probably much more significant in the big picture and behind the scenes. But as the most extreme exponent of religious sectarianism, Zarqawi has been out front of the political evolution of the "resistance" towards greater and greater sectarianism.

And Washington is well aware of the Ba'athists role, and of religious sectarianism. It's just useful to emphasize Zarqawi for propaganda purposes; he practically demonizes himself.

I don't think it's true that al-Qaeda is mythical. It's an idea more than an organization. But under the right conditions an idea can become a material force in history.

It is overhyped as a force, certainly; as is Islamic fundamentalism generally.

But Washington's well aware that al-Qaeda isn't its sole enemy; maybe aware it's not even its main enemy. In projecting "the long war", now, rather than merely a "war on terrorism", they've made it explicit that the current period of constant conflict is not just aimed against jihadists, but against a range of enemies.

[YKTMX]

I certainly support the Iraqi resistance. I think socialists should give unconditional but not uncritical support to anti-imperialist movements, no matter what their "political" character. The important thing in Iraq now is ending the occupation and dealing a blow to Empire, not pontificating on the WCP-I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq is 95% Iraqi. It cuts across religious and sectarian lines. It lacks a proper "national front" like we saw in Vietnam or Algeria and that is a problem. But simply because the movement is fractured and politically disorganized isn't an excuse for abandoning the Iraqis to the Marine Corps and government death squads.

Muslim people, like the Iraqis, have a right to defend themselves as much as "Communists" or "nationalists".

I stand with the oppressed.

[Body Count]

Hopefully the people of Iraq never stop fighting these imperialist dogs....

Kill em all!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The resistance in Iraq should not be supported. they are religious fundimentalist fascist whackos. They praise the people that blew up my friend and are right wing lunatics who should burn in hell.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:44 PM
they are fascist whackos. They are right wing lunatics who should burn in hell.
And the Americans are...?

[BobKKKindle$]

I stand with the oppressed.

I like your Stance comrade, I agree with you. As someone who supports Kim Il Sung's Juche Idea, which calls for a high level of National independance and resistance to domination by other nations, every victory for the Insurgency movement is a triumph for international anti-imperialism. I can honestly say that when I watch the news every evening and hear about American troops being blown up (note: not civilians) I feel content. Thats the way it is. I hope that the insurgency movement in Iraq will establish a precedent and example for other nations and militant groups around the world - you may occupy a country, but you'l never establish a puppet domination regime!

[Eoin Dubh]

Where to stand on the insurgency in Iraq?

Perhaps we can take direction from Iraqi comrades.

The Iraqi Communist Party
http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/

The Worker Communist Party Of Iraq
http://www.wpiraq.net/english/

The Left Worker Communist Party Of Iraq
http://www.socialismnow.org/


:hammer:

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:17 AM
I certainly support the Iraqi resistance. I think socialists should give unconditional but not uncritical support to anti-imperialist movements, no matter what their "political" character. The important thing in Iraq now is ending the occupation and dealing a blow to Empire, not pontificating on the WCP-I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq is 95% Iraqi. It cuts across religious and sectarian lines. It lacks a proper "national front" like we saw in Vietnam or Algeria and that is a problem. But simply because the movement is fractured and politically disorganized isn't an excuse for abandoning the Iraqis to the Marine Corps and government death squads.

Muslim people, like the Iraqis, have a right to defend themselves as much as "Communists" or "nationalists".

I stand with the oppressed.
Well said.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Body [email protected] 10 2006, 01:27 AM
Hopefully the people of Iraq never stop fighting these imperialist dogs....

Kill em all!
I don't want to see any further US troops killed, because I don't want them in Iraq. They should pull out, the sooner the better, and leave the Iraqi people to get on with it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)Is there an insurgency in Iraq?[/b]

You mean like an organised force that confronts the occupation? Yes, there's one of those.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)What exactly is the West fighting in Iraq?[/b]

A complex social force which incorporates many classes, both capitalist and pre-capitalist, and which has equally varied interests.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
What is the role of the Iraq war in the historical context of the post-Cold War period?

Huh? :huh:

I would have though the "role of the Iraq war" was pretty much the same as any other Imperialist conquest. There's nothing particularly "special" about it, is there?


Originally posted by Severian
Washington et al are fighting forces led by Sunni Arab landlords and capitalists who have lost a privileged position due to the invasion and the fall of the old regime.

Your so full of shit on this....and you that try to cover your ignorance by pretending to know the complex dynamics of the Resistance is even more annoying.

These "landlords and capitalists" you speak of, supported the invasion because, on the whole, Iraqi capitalists thought a post-invasion Iraq with no sanctions would be far more profitable. Not only that, but they "privileged position", other than just normal class privilege, is a figment of your imagination. The only section of the Resistance that had significant "privilege" under the Hussein regime, are the former Ba'athists....and they were not, originally at least, funded by the "Sunni Arab landlords and capitalists".

Plus, of course, there are the Tribal factions who are active in the Resistance. And they were pretty harshly treated by the Hussein regime up until around 1995....and even then, they didn't get a "privileged position".

So, if you bothered to actually begin to comprehend the dynamics involved, you'd see that your simple minded theory of a version of "the 'angry white male' phenomenon" is redundant. But then, maybe CNN's take on social phenomena appeals to you?


[email protected]
These elements tend to see the Shi'a as the enemy, even more than the U.S.

You must really try hard at being ignorant, because you don't half do it well.

As I said above, the only group with significant "privilege" were the former Ba'athists....but they certainly aren't all that fussed with the Shi'a population, at present anyway. The people who are bothered by the Shi'a, are the Jihadists....and not only did they have no "privilege" under the Hussein regime, but they are mainly made up of people who came from Afghanistan. Unlike the main Resistance, the Jihadists aren't "ethnically Iraqi".


LeftyHenry
they are religious fundimentalist fascist whackos.

Why let the facts get in the way, right?

[McLeft]

What I don't like about this "resitence" is that it's based on religion and it's done in the name of "God". That puts me off from supporting it.

[Martin Blank]

We stand with the Iraq Freedom Congress and the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq.

http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm
http://www.uuiraq.org/

Miles

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:12 PM
We stand with the Iraq Freedom Congress and the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq.

http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm
http://www.uuiraq.org/

Miles
We all "stand" with socialists and trade unionists in Iraq.

The question is where you stand on the resistance.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:44 PM
they are fascist whackos. They are right wing lunatics who should burn in hell.
And the Americans are...?

Let's just say the Americans don't run into a crowd of civilians and blow innocents up. There have been 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. I'd say at least 50% are by insurgents, but that's just to try to be fair. It's probably more like 70%



I stand with the oppressed.


I like your Stance comrade, I agree with you. As someone who supports Kim Il Sung's Juche Idea,

Oh yes because Kim Jong Il is a shining example for communists everywhere, right? Nevermind the concentration camps he runs and the fact that people can't vote or speak freely in North Korea.

Oh yeah and the Iraqi resistance are the oppresed :lol: How about the oppressors!? They're fighting for;

A) Relgious fundamentalism. Woman have to cover there faces. Men and woman have to shut their mouths about their views

B)Terrorism. They literally attack civilians

C) Saddam Huissein and dictatorships

You stand with the Iraqi insurgents, You STAND FOR FASCISM!!!

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:23 PM
Let's just say the Americans don't run into a crowd of civilians and blow innocents up.
The Americans don't have to because they have laser-guided bombs to do it for them, dude.


There have been 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. I'd say at least 50% are by insurgents, but that's just to try to be fair. It's probably more like 70%
Please don't pull random numbers out of your ass unless you can back them up.


Oh yeah and the Iraqi resistance are the oppresed :lol: How about the oppressors!? They're fighting for;

A) Relgious fundamentalism. Woman have to cover there faces. Men and woman have to shut their mouths about their views

B)Terrorism. They literally attack civilians

C) Saddam Huissein and dictatorships

You stand with the Iraqi insurgents, You STAND FOR FASCISM!!!
The insurgency is not a single monolithic army with clearly-stated tactics and program, but a complex totality of violent action from various sectors - including spontaneous rioting by the working class - against the occupation and Iraqi state. Please update your incredibly simplistic analysis to accomodate this reality.

[Stalin]

Personally my feelings are mixed about the Iraqi insurgency, support the fight against imperialist occupation but I do not support the religious fundamentalism…so I support the insurgency but only to a certain point.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Americans don't have to because they have laser-guided bombs to do it for them, dude.


WHAT?? OMG they use LASAR missiles???!?! Oh well in that case I support the insurgents since they're so much better!



Please don't pull random numbers out of your ass unless you can back them up.

There is no count of iraqi casualties. Just estimates. But in anycase, let's just say when you here '4 killed in a carbombing', '6 killed in suicide bombing', and etc.. it's not US troops because as much as you'd like to believe it, US troops do not target civilians on purpose. Imagine how the press would handle that if that happened.


The insurgency is not a single monolithic army with clearly-stated tactics and program, but a complex totality of violent action from various sectors - including spontaneous rioting by the working class - against the occupation and Iraqi state. Please update your incredibly simplistic analysis to accomodate this reality.

umm... hello? They all have that in common>? The insurgents are fighting and rioting for allah not for communism or socialism or anarchism but for a fundamentalist regime which will restrict woman's rights. You support the insurgency, you support the idea of woman being inferior. Do you think that Nachie?

[The Grey Blur]

LeftyHenry your loved one died in Iraq because they were an Imperialist pigdog, stop conflicting emotion with politics


US troops do not target civilians on purpose
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5587990522549547050

You are wrong on so many levels I almost feel sorry for you

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Jello+Jun 10 2006, 04:08 AM--> (Jello @ Jun 10 2006, 04:08 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 09:44 PM
they are fascist whackos. They are right wing lunatics who should burn in hell.
And the Americans are...? [/b]
The Americans might be right wingers but regardless, most of the men there are simply young men with a passion for things which go bang. They shouldn't be getting blown up by religious fundamentalists.

Polish and British troops are the same. None want to be there but the government makes the decisions not the men in the army.


Don't get me wrong; of course it's wrong for the west to invade their country and kill (whether accidentally or not) their civilians, but without the religious types blowing themselves and their country people up every day the situation would be a hell of a lot better.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Americans might be right wingers but regardless, most of the men there are simply young men with a passion for things which go bang. They shouldn't be getting blown up by religious fundamentalists.

Polish and British troops are the same. None want to be there but the government makes the decisions not the men in the army.

Don't get me wrong; of course it's wrong for the west to invade their country and kill (whether accidentally or not) their civilians, but without the religious types blowing themselves and their country people up every day the situation would be a hell of a lot better.

I second that. Couldn't have said it any better Red Polak ;)

[Nachie]

LeftyHenry, did someone you love die in Iraq? I currently have 3 friends fighting over there (one is on leave at the moment thankfully) and I definitely hope that nothing happens to them. However if something were to happen to them, I would place it in the context of the invasion and really not hold it against whoever was responsible. I am simultaneously in solidarity with those resisting the occupation and my friends who are over there enforcing it because economically they had no other options but to join the military. However as US soldiers, my friends and their fellow occupiers are 100% valid targets.

Now, to deal with your points:


WHAT?? OMG they use LASAR missiles???!?! Oh well in that case I support the insurgents since they're so much better!
Is that what I said?


There is no count of iraqi casualties. Just estimates.
A few minutes ago you said it was 100,000. Actually it was already believed to be 100,000 a long time ago.


But in anycase, let's just say when you here '4 killed in a carbombing', '6 killed in suicide bombing', and etc.. it's not US troops
Right, because the US has much bigger bombs, which tend to kill much larger numbers of people whenever they routinely hit the "wrong" targets.


because as much as you'd like to believe it, US troops do not target civilians on purpose. Imagine how the press would handle that if that happened.
You're living a fantasy where the media is objective and "does its job".

I apologize for perpetuating the spectacularization of single events, (which allows for the "bad apple" defense to be used by the military) but haven't you heard of Haditha?


You support the insurgency, you support the idea of woman being inferior. Do you think that Nachie?
I have unfortunately forgotten the specific term for the logical fallacy you're trying to use against me here.

Mostly I would just like you to refrain from accusing me of supporting "the insurgency". I have already given my views and it is clear that I am in favor of above-ground mass organizing around class issues such as unemployment and women's liberation.

I am not defending the insurgency, I'm trying to defend you from yourself. Stop saying things without thinking about them or checking the facts!

With all that out of the way, can I just say that I burst out laughing at the "rioting for Allah" line? :lol:

[Johnny Anarcho]

There is an insurgence, its not united or a single force but ist there none the less. I support it.

[PRC-UTE]

I support legitimate armed resistance, such as attacks on soldiers and oil convoys. I hope they give as good as they get. It would be very helpfu if a united Iraqi front was developed, as was attempted when the resistance to the occupation began. The USUK occupiers and Al Qaeda have both done a good job of preventing that.

I'd like to see Iraqi communists including the ICP and WCPI play a larger role of course, as right now they're on the sidelines mostly. The ICP seem to be biding their time and the WCPI are trying to use methods that are more appropriate for a democratic society than one under occupation. I know their situation is pretty desperate though, and naturally enough they don't want to be killed pointlessly.

[Everyday Anarchy]

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci...itics/Iraq.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Iraq.html)
The article linked to above has a nice section on the Iraqi resistance. It's very important that people do not simply see the insurgency as one force. They may work together at times, but that is only because of a mutual goal of kicking out the Americans.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:28 PM


LeftyHenry, did someone you love die in Iraq? I currently have 3 friends fighting over there (one is on leave at the moment thankfully) and I definitely hope that nothing happens to them. However if something were to happen to them, I would place it in the context of the invasion and really not hold it against whoever was responsible. I am simultaneously in solidarity with those resisting the occupation and my friends who are over there enforcing it because economically they had no other options but to join the military. However as US soldiers, my friends and their fellow occupiers are 100% valid targets.[/QUOTE]

No I didn't. But in a couple of years I'm thinking about enlisting for the same reasons your friends did. Also it'll help me pay for college. Though I am bitterly against the war so if we're still in Iraq and pressuring Iran I won't join.

BTW How could you support the Iraqi insurgents when your friends are there? It's like you're advocating their death.



Now, to deal with your points:



Is that what I said?


No. I said that.



A few minutes ago you said it was 100,000. Actually it was already believed to be 100,000 a long time ago.

right that was an estimate.



Right, because the US has much bigger bombs, which tend to kill much larger numbers of people whenever they routinely hit the "wrong" targets.

Ever wonder why we pay Bush the big buck$? Military.

The weapons we have now can hit a wasps nest directly. Most casualties by US are accidental. Think about it. Why would they kill civilians on purpose. That would piss the Iraqis off even more.




No I'm not. I don't watch the news. I get all the news via internet. I have a phobia against those cheesy anchors. I think they're just really expensive puppets with invisible/edited strings.

[QUOTE]
I apologize for perpetuating the spectacularization of single events, (which allows for the "bad apple" defense to be used by the military) but haven't you heard of Haditha?

Yes I know. Haditha was an isolated innocent. I'm sure there are plenty of others which weren't on tape but look at the insurgents. They kill daily, constantly, and civilians.



I have unfortunately forgotten the specific term for the logical fallacy you're trying to use against me here.

Mostly I would just like you to refrain from accusing me of supporting "the insurgency". I have already given my views and it is clear that I am in favor of above-ground mass organizing around class issues such as unemployment and women's liberation.

I am not defending the insurgency, I'm trying to defend you from yourself. Stop saying things without thinking about them or checking the facts!

With all that out of the way, can I just say that I burst out laughing at the "rioting for Allah" line? :lol:

Fine but the majority of the people on this thread do support the insurgency so this goes to them. I do check my facts, do you? This is a very tricky argument because not only is there no official count of civilian deaths let alone death by americans and death by insurgents, and even if there was you could easily wave off the article as biased.

My postion is this. I Hate the war and hate the insurgency. I largly support the troops over the insurgency but don't really care much about this issue. I just think it's damn offensive when someone criticizes the troops.

[kurt]

Firstly and foremost, I think as revolutionaries, our first "stance" should be one in opposition to imperialism.

I lend my support to any attack on state tools, (this includes U.S. troops, Iraqi police). I obviously do not support the minor fundamentalist elements of the resistance, although the more state equipment they damage the better.


No I didn't. But in a couple of years I'm thinking about enlisting for the same reasons your friends did. Also it'll help me pay for college. Though I am bitterly against the war so if we're still in Iraq and pressuring Iran I won't join.



That's pretty disgusting. If you want to pay for college, get a different sort of job. Unless of course you're good at killing women and children... U.S. imperialism always needs more professional killers.


BTW How could you support the Iraqi insurgents when your friends are there? It's like you're advocating their death.

I wouldn't consider anyone who kills for a living a friend; the same goes for any so-called blood relatives of mine.



Ever wonder why we pay Bush the big buck$? Military.

The weapons we have now can hit a wasps nest directly. Most casualties by US are accidental. Think about it. Why would they kill civilians on purpose. That would piss the Iraqis off even more.
You already admitted Haditha..

I wouldn't doubt this has happen many more times. Cold-blooded murder is just some of the "baggage" that comes with imperialism.



Fine but the majority of the people on this thread do support the insurgency so this goes to them. I do check my facts, do you? This is a very tricky argument because not only is there no official count of civilian deaths let alone death by americans and death by insurgents, and even if there was you could easily wave off the article as biased.
You can bet the "coalition" forces have contributed to considerably more civillian deaths than the insurgency. They "accidently" drop pretty big bombs all the time, looking for "insurgents".



My postion is this. I Hate the war and hate the insurgency. I largly support the troops over the insurgency but don't really care much about this issue. I just think it's damn offensive when someone criticizes the troops
I think it's just damn "offensive" when someone calls themselves a leftist, yet supports U.S imperialism, and the blood bath that comes with it.

Which came first? The Iraqi insurgency or the "coalition" forces?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:12 PM
BTW How could you support the Iraqi insurgents when your friends are there? It's like you're advocating their death.
I repeat again that I resent you telling me that I am supporting the Iraqi insurgents, mostly because you yourself have such a garbled definition of who they are that any of your assumptions on the matter could not possibly be accurate.

I am not "advocating the death" of my friends or any other members of the US working class who are being sent to Iraq. However I also will not claim to hold moral superiority over oppressed groups who are fighting a violent military occupation. The deaths of my friends would be justified.


Ever wonder why we pay Bush the big buck$? Military.
No, I hadn't really thought about it.


The weapons we have now can hit a wasps nest directly.
Buuuuuuuuullllllllssssshhhhiiiiiiiiiiiittttttt


Most casualties by US are accidental. Think about it. Why would they kill civilians on purpose. That would piss the Iraqis off even more.
Right, like the half a million Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions in the run up to the war. Seems to have pissed them off, alright!

"Collateral Damage" is built into the war machine and is an inevitable part of it. Just like torture.


No I'm not. I don't watch the news. I get all the news via internet.
In that case there is simply no excuse for your ignorance since you have a wealth of alternative media and information literally at your fingertips.


Haditha was an isolated innocent.
Go tell that to the people of Ishaqi.

This "isolated incident" bullshit is exactly what the media is hoping to enforce by sensationalizing the coverage on Haditha and acting just oh-so horrified.


I do check my facts, do you?
Nope!


I largly support the troops over the insurgency but don't really care much about this issue. I just think it's damn offensive when someone criticizes the troops.
What exactly does "supporting the troops" mean to you? A reactionary denial of the legitimacy of resistance to foreign occupation?

Here's some Immortal Technique lyrics for you:

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms

Get it?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Red Polak+Jun 10 2006, 10:06 PM--> (Red Polak @ Jun 10 2006, 10:06 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:08 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 09:44 PM
they are fascist whackos. They are right wing lunatics who should burn in hell.
And the Americans are...?
The Americans might be right wingers but regardless, most of the men there are simply young men with a passion for things which go bang. They shouldn't be getting blown up by religious fundamentalists.

Polish and British troops are the same. None want to be there but the government makes the decisions not the men in the army.


Don't get me wrong; of course it's wrong for the west to invade their country and kill (whether accidentally or not) their civilians, but without the religious types blowing themselves and their country people up every day the situation would be a hell of a lot better. [/b]
Nice piece of casual racism.

The Americans ("us") are "just boys" with feelings, we have lived and loved and are "just doing a job". We're very human.

The Iraqis ("them") are "religious types" who are fucking up the chance of a nice colonial state.

Fucking disgusting.

You disgrace your member title.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:32 AM
Nice piece of casual racism.

The Americans ("us") are "just boys" with feelings, we have lived and loved and are "just doing a job". We're very human.

The Iraqis ("them") are "religious types" who are fucking up the chance of a nice colonial state.

Fucking disgusting.

You disgrace your member title.

Calm down buddy.

I never even said "us" and "them".

Yes, the Iraqi insurgents blowing up their own people are "religious types". The regular citizens are regular citizens. I'm totally against religion, and even more so when it's used to justify killing innocent civilians.

There was no racism in that post. I suggest if you want to see some real racism you head over to the thread on black panthers. :angry:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 10 2006, 03:54 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 10 2006, 03:54 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 06:12 PM
We stand with the Iraq Freedom Congress and the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq.

http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm
http://www.uuiraq.org/

Miles
We all "stand" with socialists and trade unionists in Iraq.

The question is where you stand on the resistance. [/b]
Wrong, YKTMX. Either you stand with one or with the other. They are two of the three opposing forces in Iraq (the third being the imperialist occupation). The IFC, through its alliances with the independent labor movement and its developing armed force, is fighting both the imperialists and the reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists".

When we say we stand with the IFC, we are saying that we stand with the armed and organized working class, against imperialism and internal reaction.

As for the average Iraqi who has picked up the gun to fight the occupation, we believe they deserve better than the Ba'athists and the mullahs, and echo the call of the IFC for them to join the workers' army.

Miles

[YKTMX]

I never even said "us" and "them".

Didn't you say "their country" and "their civilians". Whereas you waxed lyrical about the poor American boys, just out for a good time.


Yes, the Iraqi insurgents blowing up their own people are "religious types".

So? James Connolly was a "religious type". Many fighters in Central and Latin America have been "religious types". What's your point?

People who believe in God can't wage national liberation struggles?


I'm totally against religion, and even more so when it's used to justify killing innocent civilians.


You seem to think that killing civilians is somehow particular to the Iraqi resistance.

The FLN planted bombs in cafes and prams - have you seen the Battle of Algiers? Their campaign was hardly pretty.

And when the Vietnamese bombed cafes in Saigon, don't you think they knew that innocent Vietnamese woudl die? Of course they did.

I'm not a pacifist, I don't know about you. The question for me is not whether struggles are waged by "saints" who have no blood on their hands. The question for me is what forces are represented in the struggle. And at the moment, in Iraq, there are two forces (discount Miles' fantasies about an Independent Labour movement for the moment):

1) Agents of Big Capital, who are in Iraq to further their Empire and steal Iraqi resources so that domestic exploitation becomes more profitable.

2) The starving poor of Sadr City, Baquba, Fallujah, Basra etc. who fight the biggest army in the world with kalashnikovs and Improvised Explosive Devices.

Anyone who's "neutral" in this conflict is a traitor.

I'm not not going to sugar coat it for you.

Lenin said, those who expect to see a "perfect social revolution will never live to see one". We have to make decisions based on an analysis of the real situation. And the situation in Iraq has TWO clear poles: the Iraqi resistance and the American Empire.

Pick one.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:08 AM
And at the moment, in Iraq, there are two forces (discount Miles' fantasies about an Independent Labour movement for the moment)...
This is no fantasy. This is reality. It may not fit into your mechanical "either-or" conception of the world, but it nevertheless exists.

Miles

[Nachie]

It may not fit into your mechanical "either-or" conception of the world, but it nevertheless exists.
True that.

This is the lamest thing I've ever witnessed: self-proclaimed revolutionaries denying the existence of an independent radical workers' movement in Iraq and insisting that everyone confine themselves to the false categorizations imposed by the US government's propaganda.

Also: I have heard about armed Islamist groups attacking WCPI offices and stuff like that. Does anyone know to what degree the party has been able to organize effective self-defense?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jun 11 2006, 02:40 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jun 11 2006, 02:40 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:54 PM

[email protected] 10 2006, 06:12 PM
We stand with the Iraq Freedom Congress and the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq.

http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm
http://www.uuiraq.org/

Miles
We all "stand" with socialists and trade unionists in Iraq.

The question is where you stand on the resistance.
Wrong, YKTMX. Either you stand with one or with the other. They are two of the three opposing forces in Iraq (the third being the imperialist occupation). The IFC, through its alliances with the independent labor movement and its developing armed force, is fighting both the imperialists and the reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists".

When we say we stand with the IFC, we are saying that we stand with the armed and organized working class, against imperialism and internal reaction.

As for the average Iraqi who has picked up the gun to fight the occupation, we believe they deserve better than the Ba'athists and the mullahs, and echo the call of the IFC for them to join the workers' army.

Miles [/b]
Does the IFC use armed resistance against the US forces?

[Janus]

I stand against imperialism and the US occupation as I think most revolutionaries should as well.

No how revolutionary some of these insurgent groups are is left up to debate. I definitely don't support the fundamentalist groups in Iraq though I do support the Iraqi struggle against US dominance and their right to decide things for themselves.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:17 PM
I certainly support the Iraqi resistance. I think socialists should give unconditional but not uncritical support to anti-imperialist movements, no matter what their "political" character. The important thing in Iraq now is ending the occupation and dealing a blow to Empire, not pontificating on the WCP-I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq is 95% Iraqi. It cuts across religious and sectarian lines. It lacks a proper "national front" like we saw in Vietnam or Algeria and that is a problem. But simply because the movement is fractured and politically disorganized isn't an excuse for abandoning the Iraqis to the Marine Corps and government death squads.

Muslim people, like the Iraqis, have a right to defend themselves as much as "Communists" or "nationalists".

I stand with the oppressed.
Excellent.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:23 AM
A) Relgious fundamentalism. Woman have to cover there faces. Men and woman have to shut their mouths about their views




There are women in the insurgency.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:11 PM
Does the IFC use armed resistance against the US forces?
Yes, they do. For example, one of the under-reported tasks the occupation troops is breaking strikes on behalf of the "reconstruction" superexploiters. The unions involved in the IFC, with the assistance of the rest of the Congress, have organized armed pickets to keep the soldiers from breaking the strike and letting in the scabs.

In neighborhoods organized by the IFC, neither occupation soldiers nor reactionary fundamentalists dare to enter. These are often neighborhoods that are composed of Sunni, Shi'a, Chaldean, Jewish, Kurdish, etc., Iraqis, living together and not wanting anything to do with the communalist violence committed by both the imperialist occupiers and the reactionary "resistance".

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:00 PM
Also: I have heard about armed Islamist groups attacking WCPI offices and stuff like that. Does anyone know to what degree the party has been able to organize effective self-defense?
The WCPI has had a party-based self-defense organization throughout most of its existence (they especially needed it during the years when they were having running battles with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan). Recently, these armed self-defense units have united with the workers' self-defense groups organized by the FWCUI, and are the core of the new workers' army being organized by the IFC.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:17 PM
I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq.....cuts across religious and sectarian lines.
Now that's a fairytale.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 19 2006, 01:51 AM--> (Severian @ Jun 19 2006, 01:51 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 06:17 PM
I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq.....cuts across religious and sectarian lines.
Now that's a fairytale. [/b]
There are instances of ex baathists working with sunni and shiite extremists in the insurgency, as well as left wing groups working with islamists.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by WUOrevolt+Jun 18 2006, 05:56 PM--> (WUOrevolt @ Jun 18 2006, 05:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:51 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 06:17 PM
I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq.....cuts across religious and sectarian lines.
Now that's a fairytale.
There are instances of ex baathists working with sunni and shiite extremists in the insurgency, as well as left wing groups working with islamists. [/b]
"Working with" is not the same as "cut[ting] across". There is no group involved in the insurgency that is really composed of more than one of the religious or ethnic groups in Iraq. Just because they work with each other to get rid of the occupation doesn't mean they won't be fighting each other once the imperialists are gone -- with the people of Iraq stuck in the middle.

Miles

[Severian]

There are Ba'athists, Sunni fundamentalists, and other Sunni Arab sectarians. That's it.. Sure, they work together. Maybe they belong to the same groups in some cases, I don't know.

The Sadrists were in some sense part of it....briefly. Now? The Sunni insurgency is targeting the population of Sadr City. In retaliatiion, the Sadrists are in the forefront of killing Sunni Arabs en masse.

So Miles (Communist League) is seriously behind the times in saying "Just because they work with each other to get rid of the occupation doesn't mean they won't be fighting each other once the imperialists are gone -- with the people of Iraq stuck in the middle." That's happening now.

Anybody who still believes in this fairy tale of a united diverse resistance hasn't read a newspaper in the past 2 years.

Or maybe they misunderstood "Don't believe everything you read" as "Don't believe anything you read." That way lies conspiracist madness.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:05 PM
So Miles (Communist League) is seriously behind the times in saying "Just because they work with each other to get rid of the occupation doesn't mean they won't be fighting each other once the imperialists are gone -- with the people of Iraq stuck in the middle." That's happening now.
Actually, the Sadrists are in the new "unity" government now. I wouldn't classify them as a part of the insurgency.

Miles

[Severian]

Right, some of the Sadrists are in the government. And as I just said, "The Sadrists were in some sense part of [the insurgency]....briefly" (in 2004 IIRC)

So the insurgency's virtually all Sunni Arab now.

Some Sadrists have been fighting the British in Baghdad recently. But that doesn't reduce their active sectarian hostility to the Sunnis, or make them part of anything together with the Sunni insurgents.

[Xiao Banfa]

I support attacks on troops and police.

Imposition of shariah law and wasting Shias is pretty dodgy, however.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jun 19 2006, 06:54 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jun 19 2006, 06:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:51 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 06:17 PM
I or telling fairytales about "Sunni landlords".

The resistance in Iraq.....cuts across religious and sectarian lines.
Now that's a fairytale.
There are instances of ex baathists working with sunni and shiite extremists in the insurgency, as well as left wing groups working with islamists.
"Working with" is not the same as "cut[ting] across". There is no group involved in the insurgency that is really composed of more than one of the religious or ethnic groups in Iraq. Just because they work with each other to get rid of the occupation doesn't mean they won't be fighting each other once the imperialists are gone -- with the people of Iraq stuck in the middle.

Miles [/b]
True, I was just saying the insurgency is not just sectarainism.

[Cheung Mo]

The only people in the Middle East who aren't mentally ill are the left-wing feminist groups. Others are either agents of Islamism or agents of American imperialism.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, I do not support the Iraqi insurgency. If they win, Iraq will not suddenly be a magical fairy land where nobody is oppressed, it will return to the insane control of the fundamentalists, who are just as bad as the U.S, if not worse.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, I do not support the Iraqi insurgency. If they win, Iraq will not suddenly be a magical fairy land where nobody is oppressed, it will return to the insane control of the fundamentalists, who are just as bad as the U.S, if not worse.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, I do not support the Iraqi insurgency. If they win, Iraq will not suddenly be a magical fairy land where nobody is oppressed, it will return to the insane control of the fundamentalists, who are just as bad as the U.S, if not worse.

-Alex

[ziyadfaisal]

Comrades, it is a mistaken position to assume that the insurgency in Iraq is composed entirely of Islamists and sectarian elements.

In fact, most of the insurgency is carried out by nationalist groups who are quite secular in their approach. The Islamists are mainly foreign, non-Iraqi elements, such as the recently-killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (he was from Jordan).

As communists, its only natural that we sympathise with the nationalist elements. A nationalist struggle represents the first step along the route to class consciousness. As such, the insurgency ought to be viewed as an Iraqi national liberation struggle.

Long Live Iraqi Freedom!
Long Live the Revolution!

[ziyadfaisal]

Comrades, it is a mistaken position to assume that the insurgency in Iraq is composed entirely of Islamists and sectarian elements.

In fact, most of the insurgency is carried out by nationalist groups who are quite secular in their approach. The Islamists are mainly foreign, non-Iraqi elements, such as the recently-killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (he was from Jordan).

As communists, its only natural that we sympathise with the nationalist elements. A nationalist struggle represents the first step along the route to class consciousness. As such, the insurgency ought to be viewed as an Iraqi national liberation struggle.

Long Live Iraqi Freedom!
Long Live the Revolution!

[ziyadfaisal]

Comrades, it is a mistaken position to assume that the insurgency in Iraq is composed entirely of Islamists and sectarian elements.

In fact, most of the insurgency is carried out by nationalist groups who are quite secular in their approach. The Islamists are mainly foreign, non-Iraqi elements, such as the recently-killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (he was from Jordan).

As communists, its only natural that we sympathise with the nationalist elements. A nationalist struggle represents the first step along the route to class consciousness. As such, the insurgency ought to be viewed as an Iraqi national liberation struggle.

Long Live Iraqi Freedom!
Long Live the Revolution!

[SocialistGenius]

Let's not forget that the ruling classes of the world routinely divide the proletarians and propagandize them into identifying with their own rulers, instead of with other proletarians from other nations. They do this in order to exploit them, to do their bidding, militarily, around the world. Most of the time these proles have little political knowledge and are just looking for a way to put food on the table or get an education.

We should be supporting all proletarians in Iraq, both the US soldiers and the Iraqi population. Proletarians must identify and unite with their own class, transcending imaginary borders, race, skin color, and religion, in order to get out of the current situation of exploitation.

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:04 PM
Comrades, it is a mistaken position to assume that the insurgency in Iraq is composed entirely of Islamists and sectarian elements.

In fact, most of the insurgency is carried out by nationalist groups who are quite secular in their approach. The Islamists are mainly foreign, non-Iraqi elements, such as the recently-killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (he was from Jordan).

As communists, its only natural that we sympathise with the nationalist elements. A nationalist struggle represents the first step along the route to class consciousness. As such, the insurgency ought to be viewed as an Iraqi national liberation struggle.

Long Live Iraqi Freedom!
Long Live the Revolution!
As a socialist I am an internationalist. Nationalism is something common among right-wingers, reactionaries, and fascists, which I do not support.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:04 AM
As communists, its only natural that we sympathise with the nationalist elements. A nationalist struggle represents the first step along the route to class consciousness. As such, the insurgency ought to be viewed as an Iraqi national liberation struggle.
These are not nationalists like Gandhi and his Congress movement, or Mandela and the ANC. These are disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism demanding their old jobs back. They do not deserve any support.

Miles

[Ian]

As an anti-imperialist I support attacks on the occupying forces.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:04 PM
Comrades, it is a mistaken position to assume that the insurgency in Iraq is composed entirely of Islamists and sectarian elements.

In fact, most of the insurgency is carried out by nationalist groups who are quite secular in their approach. The Islamists are mainly foreign, non-Iraqi elements, such as the recently-killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (he was from Jordan).

As communists, its only natural that we sympathise with the nationalist elements. A nationalist struggle represents the first step along the route to class consciousness. As such, the insurgency ought to be viewed as an Iraqi national liberation struggle.

Long Live Iraqi Freedom!
Long Live the Revolution!
He's totally right.

A secular national liberation movement which is capable of resisting an Imperialist power is something which we should support, even if we do not adopt its ideology.

[*[email protected]*]

I say: Go the Insurgents!! :star:


According to the Geneva Convention country's occupied by foreign rule have the right to resist so what the insurgenceys are doing is perfectly normal.