Iraqi fighters display new weapons

[marxist_god]

Iraqi fighters display new weapons

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BDC...BB1D10350A5.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BDCB9BD8-4375-4C12-8CA0-5BB1D10350A5.htm)

[img]http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/12/24/1_236284_1_5.jpg' alt='' width='309' height='206' class='attach' /> (http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/12/24/1_236284_1_5.jpg)
The fighters are adapting to the changing nature
of the battlefield [Al Jazeera]

Foreign forces in Iraq are hoping that a much heralded drop in violence in Iraq will continue into the new year.

However, in exclusive images obtained by Al Jazeera, fighters from the Islamic Front for Resistance in Iraq (Jami) say they are biding their time and training hard with an array of new weapons in order to drive foreign forces out as soon as possible.

Al Jazeera's Iraq correspondent Hoda Abdel Hamid reports.

Deep in the groves north of Baghdad, a group of fighters are shown on camera participating in an afternoon workshop on the making and use of weapons.

It includes a step-by-step lesson on how to turn an old tank shell into a roadside bomb. It took only 20 minutes to put together a device powerful enough to blow up an armoured vehicle. Two will destroy a tank, the instructors say.

Countless videos of these devices' devastating effects are shown on military websites.

Roadside bombs are lethal devices that cause the bulk of US soldier casualties to this day.

Iraqi fighters' new weaponry

The Pentagon has upgraded military equipment in Iraq to counter this kind of attack, but the enemy has remained relentless, and is swiftly adapting to the changes on the field.

"We have experts who are in charge of researching and developing new methods continuously," one of the men says.

"We need to find new ways all the time, in case we run out of chemicals."

He also says the Americans are now using jamming devices, but their engineers have already managed to crack the code.

The fighters are part of Jami and describe themselves as a resistance group. They vow that all their firepower is directed at foreign soldiers only.

"One shot, one soldier killed is the rule," says the instructor, a former army officer.

Market for weapons


The fighters want to develop ever more
sophisticated weapons [Al Jazeera]

The disbanding of the former Iraqi army and the controversial de-Baathification law were two monumental mistakes the US is still paying for.

Disgruntled former officers with no future prospects sowed the seeds of the resistance and offered up their knowledge of warfare to young recruits.

They say Iraq is the best market for any kind of weapon, including new Glock pistols which belong to the newly formed Iraqi security forces.

In another set of images, the instructor explains how an old rifle used by the British nearly a century ago was recently upgraded.

"0ur enemies won't take such a weapon seriously," he says, "but with the changes we made, it has become very effective for snipers - equal to the modern sniper guns."

Rocket launchers, now with aiming sights welded on top, are also regularly used to fire at military convoys.

War machines

"Our researchers are developing remote controlled explosive devices, soon we [can] wage a battle with a little as two fighters"

Iraqi fighter

Over the past four years, groups such as Jami have grown into organised war machines, with fighters divided in combat cells, snipers, anti-aircraft gunners, bomb makers and artillery experts.

One man displays a new weapon in the video.

"This has a range of 1.4km," he says. "It is best aimed at bases which are not heavily fortified and individuals because the rounds are small.

He instructs his students to fire the weapon at targets who are training or taking a break.

Long-haul battle

The recent announcement that Washington and the Iraqi government are drawing up plans for long-term US military bases is for many Iraqis proof of an open-ended occupation.

The fighters have every intention of continuing their operations and in an ever more sophisticated manner.

"Our researchers are developing remote-controlled explosive devices," one man says.

"Soon we will be able to wage a battle with as little as two fighters - we will minimise our losses."

Almost five years after the start of the war in Iraq, the US still has not acknowledged the existence of a fighting force hostile to the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil.

And despite a decrease in US casualties over the past two months, the fighters warn they are in this battle for the long haul.

[Lenin II]

I can only hope that when the violence escalated once more, it will be so severe that the occupation will finally end, for just like the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the only way to end it is in a crescendo of violence and brutality. And just like Vietnam, when the ruling classes see the unprecendented surge in violence that comes as the result of their wars of imperialism, they will realize that they cannot maintain their popularity and the war at the same time.

What we have seen so far is nothing compared to the death and misery that is coming. It's the calm before the storm.

[Q]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 25, 2007 05:35 pm
I can only hope that when the violence escalated once more, it will be so severe that the occupation will finally end, for just like the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the only way to end it is in a crescendo of violence and brutality. And just like Vietnam, when the ruling classes see the unprecendented surge in violence that comes as the result of their wars of imperialism, they will realize that they cannot maintain their popularity and the war at the same time.

What we have seen so far is nothing compared to the death and misery that is coming. It's the calm before the storm.
You really need a reality check if you think that more violence is going to help anything. Most people that die in the suicide bombings are, surprise surprise, Iraqi's. Violence is only playing in the cards of the Americans, divide and rule... Class struggle, not sectarian agression that borders a civil war, is the only way to end the occupation. I find your guerilla praising sickening actually.

Comparing Vietnam to one of the richest oil grounds on the planet isn't really realistic btw. Also, the Vietnam war didn't end because of the Vietcong resistance, they had years of experience with that and would have continued for years if needed be, but because of the protests at home. Not only among normal citizens, but also among the veterans the discontent was spreading. This was potentially far more dangerous than the whole war in Vietnam.

[KC]

You really need a reality check if you think that more violence is going to help anything. Most people that die in the suicide bombings are, surprise surprise, Iraqi's. Violence is only playing in the cards of the Americans, divide and rule... Class struggle, not sectarian agression that borders a civil war, is the only way to end the occupation. I find your guerilla praising sickening actually.

You apparently don't understand what Jami is about:

A Jami media officer told Al Jazeera: "We want to show the West our suffering and we want to show that the Iraqi resistance is not about the killing of Iraqis and terrorism.

"We want them to understand the situation here and see that we are only fighting occupation forces."

...

In the absence of Iraqi security forces, they provide security by setting up checkpoints in the areas under their control.

Strangers barred

They make sure no stranger enters those areas and establish friendly relations with residents.

In return, the fighters get full support.

The US has not yet to acknowledge their existence as a political force.

Mohamed Ayash, the head of Iraqi Scholars' Council, says: "There is a big deal of development in the political and military wings of the resistance.

"It now has a political council with a clear agenda.

"George Bush mentions al-Qaeda as his only enemy, he doesn't refer to Iraqi resistance groups.

"But they will continue their attacks on American soldiers."

Ending the fight in Iraq will have to include real negotiations with Jami and the rest of the Iraqi resistance.

So far, none of the plans for national reconciliation includes this vital step.
Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23D247D6-4601-43D3-91B7-CF1DE1555FC8.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b23D247D6-4601-43D3-91B7-CF1DE1555FC8%7d)

The group affirmed several times that it only focuses on fighting the American forces and those who directly collaborate with it; they don't target the Iraqi Police or any other Iraqis in general.
The group has also renounced beheadings, saying that they distort the image of the resistance.
Most importantly, the group vowed not to cooperate with any other insurgent group which targets Iraqis.
wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Front_for_the_Iraqi_Resistance)

I'm still not sure how I feel about them, though, and if what they're saying is true, as I haven't heard much about them, nor do I know how much power and support they are garnering from the Iraqi people.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 25, 2007 06:14 pm

You really need a reality check if you think that more violence is going to help anything. Most people that die in the suicide bombings are, surprise surprise, Iraqi's. Violence is only playing in the cards of the Americans, divide and rule... Class struggle, not sectarian agression that borders a civil war, is the only way to end the occupation. I find your guerilla praising sickening actually.

You apparently don't understand what Jami is about:

A Jami media officer told Al Jazeera: "We want to show the West our suffering and we want to show that the Iraqi resistance is not about the killing of Iraqis and terrorism.

"We want them to understand the situation here and see that we are only fighting occupation forces."

...

In the absence of Iraqi security forces, they provide security by setting up checkpoints in the areas under their control.

Strangers barred

They make sure no stranger enters those areas and establish friendly relations with residents.

In return, the fighters get full support.

The US has not yet to acknowledge their existence as a political force.

Mohamed Ayash, the head of Iraqi Scholars' Council, says: "There is a big deal of development in the political and military wings of the resistance.

"It now has a political council with a clear agenda.

"George Bush mentions al-Qaeda as his only enemy, he doesn't refer to Iraqi resistance groups.

"But they will continue their attacks on American soldiers."

Ending the fight in Iraq will have to include real negotiations with Jami and the rest of the Iraqi resistance.

So far, none of the plans for national reconciliation includes this vital step.
Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23D247D6-4601-43D3-91B7-CF1DE1555FC8.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b23D247D6-4601-43D3-91B7-CF1DE1555FC8%7d)

The group affirmed several times that it only focuses on fighting the American forces and those who directly collaborate with it; they don't target the Iraqi Police or any other Iraqis in general.
The group has also renounced beheadings, saying that they distort the image of the resistance.
Most importantly, the group vowed not to cooperate with any other insurgent group which targets Iraqis.
wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Front_for_the_Iraqi_Resistance)

I'm still not sure how I feel about them, though, and if what they're saying is true, as I haven't heard much about them, nor do I know how much power and support they are garnering from the Iraqi people.


Hello my friend, we live in a world with lack of solidarity and lack of love. I don't believe in nation-borders, the only thing i believe in is helping people. Well what i am trying to state is that if this world was full of humanism, solidarity and love, other governments from other countries whould finance the Iraqui fighters, would give weaponry to Iraki fighters in order to expel out of Irak, the US Imperialism forces

But you know we live in an egocentric world, and US Imperialism is not the only evil government of this world, the other governments, from the other countries are evil, egocentric, materialist and capitalists too in the sense that they are not helping at all, i mean they are being negligent and apathetic with the Iraqui people.

The Moral thing to do would be for the other armed forces from the other countries is to supply the Iraqui resistance army with airplanes, submarines, etc. to beat the shit out of the US Marines (The few, the proud the marines)

marxist_god

[dso79]

Originally posted by Q-collective
You really need a reality check if you think that more violence is going to help anything. Most people that die in the suicide bombings are, surprise surprise, Iraqi's. Violence is only playing in the cards of the Americans, divide and rule... Class struggle, not sectarian agression that borders a civil war, is the only way to end the occupation. I find your guerilla praising sickening actually.

Lenin II was obviously talking about violence against the occupation troops, which is indeed the only way to end the occupation.


Comparing Vietnam to one of the richest oil grounds on the planet isn't really realistic btw. Also, the Vietnam war didn't end because of the Vietcong resistance, they had years of experience with that and would have continued for years if needed be, but because of the protests at home. Not only among normal citizens, but also among the veterans the discontent was spreading. This was potentially far more dangerous than the whole war in Vietnam.

It’s true that public protests and discontent within the military played an important role in ending the Vietnam war, but those were a direct result of Vietcong/NVA operations. Initially, most Americans supported the war and if it had gone well and the number of casualties had remained low, they would’ve continued supporting it. Public opinion only turned against the war because of the continuing resistance and the growing casualty lists.

The same thing is happening in Iraq: at the start of the war public support was very high, but as the Iraqis kept resisting and Americans kept dying, support steadily declined and opposition to the war increased.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:57 pm
Lenin II was obviously talking about violence against the occupation troops, which is indeed the only way to end the occupation.
What you, and Zampan� for that matter, fail to realise is that average Iraqi people do die because of these tactics. If you're going on the tour of terrorism, you're also hurting the people that have nothing to do with it. This kind of thing is bound to take a life and logic of its own, killing many innocent people in the process. This is what you are defending. You can't just cheer for the pyromaniac but close your eyes to the fires he causes.


It's true that public protests and discontent within the military played an important role in ending the Vietnam war, but those were a direct result of Vietcong/NVA operations. Initially, most Americans supported the war and if it had gone well and the number of casualties had remained low, they would've continued supporting it. Public opinion only turned against the war because of the continuing resistance and the growing casualty lists.
Yes, the war did cause many casualties, if it was caused by the vietcong or noot is nt really of importance. What was of pivotal importance in ending the Vietnam war is that the working class at home was organising more and more aaginst the goveernmnt, creating a very dangerous situation for the rulingclass. The White House made a simple cost-benefit analysis: "continue this war in which nothing of strategic importance is to gain and risk a revolution at home for it?" We all know the answer to that one now.


The same thing is happening in Iraq: at the start of the war public support was very high, but as the Iraqis kept resisting and Americans kept dying, support steadily declined and opposition to the war increased.
There is a different cost-beenfit picture now though; the rich oil grounds will make the people in the White House think several times before they give in, besides the protests aren't nearly as threathening as it was at the end of the seventies.

[Zurdito]

You really need a reality check if you think that more violence is going to help anything.

So you want the Iraqis to just put down their weapons and let the occupiers walk all over them do they? "oh we're against the invasion but please don't resist it!" Is that the message we give to Iraqis now? That's worthy of Gandhi.:rolleyes:

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:05 am

You really need a reality check if you think that more violence is going to help anything.

So you want the Iraqis to just put down their weapons and let the occupiers walk all over them do they? "oh we're against the invasion but please don't resist it!" Is that the message we give to Iraqis now? That's worthy of Gandhi.:rolleyes:
Where and when did I argue for a pacifist route?
I'm defending class struggle and a collectivist approach here and attacking any reactionary terrorist tendencies.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 05:11 pm
Where and when did I argue for a pacifist route?
I'm defending class struggle and a collectivist approach here and attacking any reactionary terrorist tendencies.
The collectivist opinion of most anti-sectarian Iraqis since the invasion has been to resist the occupation. Concentrated attacks on the coalition is not terrorism unless civilians are in danger.

This struggle may not be seen through a class lens by the Iraqis, but as the imperialist aggression and puppet regime is not willing to listen to the voice of the people resistance has its own progressive fervor.

As for the religious sectarian divisions it's highly exaggerated to make it seem like that's the source of the conflict. People married regardless of what Islamic sect they belong to. Most of the Iraqi resistance has collaborated in an effort to root out the Iraqi al-Qaeda.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:25 am
The collectivist opinion of most anti-sectarian Iraqis since the invasion has been to resist the occupation. Concentrated attacks on the coalition is not terrorism unless civilians are in danger.
Even if you just igore my earlier argument that this will lead a life and logic on its own and innocent people will get killed, what if you are the "perfect" terrorist and kill only the american soldier? What impact will that exactly make?

None at all. The soldier will be replaced, business continues as usual.


This struggle may not be seen through a class lens by the Iraqis, but as the imperialist aggression and puppet regime is not willing to listen to the voice of the people resistance has its own progressive fervor.
That's the point: this is not "the peoples voice", but the voice of a very small group.
Let me quote:

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more 'effective' the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.

Read more here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm).
Written almost a century ago and still very much accurate and up to date.

[Zurdito]

Even if you just igore my earlier argument that this will lead a life and logic on its own and innocent people will get killed, what if you are the "perfect" terrorist and kill only the american soldier? What impact will that exactly make?

None at all. The soldier will be replaced, business continues as usual.

The war has been a disaster for the US precisely because of the death toll.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:48 am

Even if you just igore my earlier argument that this will lead a life and logic on its own and innocent people will get killed, what if you are the "perfect" terrorist and kill only the american soldier? What impact will that exactly make?

None at all. The soldier will be replaced, business continues as usual.

The war has been a disaster for the US precisely because of the death toll.
At what cost exactly? Ok, the terrorists blasted about 4000 American soldiers, in the process and wake of it killing another few hundred thousand Iraqi's... For what exactly? Have the Americans disappeared?

But let's take this logic a step further: what if the Americans were to leave? Would the Iraqi's then be free? Of course not. Will the acts of terrorism suddenly stop? Not in the least. They'll look for new enemies to be blasted out of this world, probably the puppet regime.

In the end, what does it solve?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Q-collective+December 26, 2007 02:01 am--> (Q-collective @ December 26, 2007 02:01 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 01:48 am

Even if you just igore my earlier argument that this will lead a life and logic on its own and innocent people will get killed, what if you are the "perfect" terrorist and kill only the american soldier? What impact will that exactly make?

None at all. The soldier will be replaced, business continues as usual.

The war has been a disaster for the US precisely because of the death toll.
At what cost exactly? Ok, the terrorists blasted about 4000 American soldiers, in the process and wake of it killing another few hundred thousand Iraqi's... For what exactly? Have the Americans disappeared?

But let's take this logic a step further: what if the Americans were to leave? Would the Iraqi's then be free? Of course not. Will the acts of terrorism suddenly stop? Not in the least. They'll look for new enemies to be blasted out of this world, probably the puppet regime.

In the end, what does it solve? [/b]
thanks for pointing out that the Iraqi resistance is not socialist. those of us who support it were surely labouring under the illusion that when the troops leave, Iraq will be a workers state. :rolleyes:

[KC]

Even if you just igore my earlier argument that this will lead a life and logic on its own and innocent people will get killed, what if you are the "perfect" terrorist and kill only the american soldier?

Killing occupation forces isn't terrorism. :rolleyes:


What impact will that exactly make?

None at all. The soldier will be replaced, business continues as usual.

The attacking of occupation forces by a resistance movement is a very crucial element of an anti-imperialist resistance movement (just like terrorism has its place in anti-imperialist movements).

This is elementary anti-imperialism. Go read some Fanon.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:06 am
thanks for pointing out that the Iraqi resistance is not socialist. those of us who support it were surely labouring under the illusion that when the troops leave, Iraq will be a workers state. :rolleyes:
You aren't answering the question.


Killing occupation forces isn't terrorism. :rolleyes:
Sure it is, it's just "good terrorism", in your opinion of course.


The attacking of occupation forces by a resistance movement is a very crucial element of an anti-imperialist resistance movement (just like terrorism has its place in anti-imperialist movements).

This is elementary anti-imperialism. Go read some Fanon.
Go read the link I posted earlier.

[KC]

Go read the link I posted earlier.

I don't need to; I know the Marxist position on terror. I don't think anyone here ever claimed that this resistance held a Marxist character.

[Q]

Originally posted by Zampan�@December 26, 2007 02:19 am

Go read the link I posted earlier.

I don't need to; I know the Marxist position on terror. I don't think anyone here ever claimed that this resistance held a Marxist character.
So, does it deserve our support then? Are these acts of terrorism actually improving the situation for the working class in Iraq in any way?

I thought it was this what we were talking about, since we seem to disagree on this crucial question.

[KC]

So, does it deserve our support then? Are these acts of terrorism actually improving the situation for the working class in Iraq in any way?

I thought it was this what we were talking about, since we seem to disagree on this crucial question.

I didn't come into this thread to discuss such things; I merely came in to correct your assertion that Jami was about killing Iraqis.

Jami and groups like it are the next development in the Iraqi anti-occupation movement, if it is to succeed in freeing itself from occupation.

[Great Helmsman]

Here's an al jazeera story on female resistance fighters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQE6grECSL0&feature=user

This is exciting news! Hopefully we will see more flag-draped coffins coming back this way soon.

[Q]

Originally posted by Zampan�@December 26, 2007 02:28 am
I didn't come into this thread to discuss such things; I merely came in to correct your assertion that Jami was about killing Iraqis.
So, you're now creating an abstraction from the discussion by saying you only came inhere to correct me on the viewpoint of the terrorists. I don't give a shit about the excuses that the terrorists came up with really and if you paid attention you would have noticed that such excuses aren't particularly new or original. The narodniki already claimed to do the bombings "for the people", but that didn't change anything about the matter.

The question for us remains: are the tactics used by the terrorists bringing any good to the people of Iraq and therefore worthy of our support? This is the central question of this topic because you all really seem to defend and cheer for these methods, including you. You fleeing from this discussion with your tail between your legs is saying more than enough though.


Jami and groups like it are the next development in the Iraqi anti-occupation movement, if it is to succeed in freeing itself from occupation.
Oh, how was this supposed to happen again? If anything, it will only demoralise the working class in taking action for and by itself and give the state apparatus more tools for oppression.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Q-collective+December 26, 2007 02:16 am--> (Q-collective @ December 26, 2007 02:16 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 02:06 am
thanks for pointing out that the Iraqi resistance is not socialist. those of us who support it were surely labouring under the illusion that when the troops leave, Iraq will be a workers state. :rolleyes:
You aren't answering the question.

[/b]
Do the Iraqis have a right to resist the occupation, yes or no? Do you support them when they do so, yes or no?

[Xiao Banfa]

What you, and Zampano for that matter, fail to realise is that average Iraqi people do die because of these tactics.

A Jami media officer told Al Jazeera: "We want to show the West our suffering and
we want to show that the Iraqi resistance is not about the killing of Iraqis and terrorism.

The group affirmed several times that it only focuses on fighting the American forces and those who directly collaborate with it; they don't target the Iraqi Police or any other Iraqis in general.
The group has also renounced beheadings, saying that they distort the image of the resistance.
Most importantly, the group vowed not to cooperate with any other insurgent group which targets Iraqis.

The whole point of those arguing for this particular group is that we don't condone terrorism, that is we support the Islamic Army in Iraq- they engage in legitimate resistance.

Surely you're not saying that Iraqis don't have the right to militarily resist the US.
How the fuck else will the US leave?

[bolshevik butcher]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0abBkX3J8&NR=1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zJyhzC6J4Qo&feature=user
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DQE6grECSL0&feature=user

I think these are all part of the same report, the second one is the television report of the article marxist god posted.

[dso79]

Originally posted by Q-collective
What you, and Zampan� for that matter, fail to realise is that average Iraqi people do die because of these tactics. If you're going on the tour of terrorism, you're also hurting the people that have nothing to do with it.

I find it slightly disturbing that you keep referring to Iraqis who actively oppose the occupation as ‘terrorists’. That’s the sort of terminology the US army and the neocons use. Even the bourgeois media (well most of them) use more neutral words like ‘insurgents’. Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians, a tactic that most Iraqi resistance groups oppose.

Resistance doesn’t necessarily lead to civilian casualties. Some groups use sloppy tactics which result in civilians getting killed, but most of them take great care to avoid hitting civilians. Weapons such as IEDs and snipers are extremely effective and can be used without endangering non-combatants.

Also remember that most of the Iraqis killed so far were killed by the occupation (or their stooges) or by sectarian violence, which is an entirely different conflict.


What was of pivotal importance in ending the Vietnam war is that the working class at home was organising more and more aaginst the goveernmnt

Yes, but do you think that the anti-war movement would have been so successful if the resistance hadn‘t been so effective? I don’t think so. As long as a war is going well, most people will support the government.


There is a different cost-beenfit picture now though; the rich oil grounds will make the people in the White House think several times before they give in, besides the protests aren't nearly as threathening as it was at the end of the seventies.

There may be less people in the streets, but the anti-war movement is definitely having an impact. More and more politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, are now calling for an end to the war and several presidential candidates have promised to bring the troops home.


Even if you just igore my earlier argument that this will lead a life and logic on its own and innocent people will get killed, what if you are the "perfect" terrorist and kill only the american soldier? What impact will that exactly make?

None at all. The soldier will be replaced, business continues as usual.

The goal of a guerrilla army is not to win a quick decisive victory, but to gradually wear the enemy down. They try to make the war as costly as possible for them, so that eventually the leaders decide it’s no longer worth it or the people force the government to pull out.

This strategy is obviously working in Iraq.


But let's take this logic a step further: what if the Americans were to leave? Would the Iraqi's then be free? Of course not. Will the acts of terrorism suddenly stop? Not in the least. They'll look for new enemies to be blasted out of this world, probably the puppet regime.

In the end, what does it solve?

The situation would improve instantly: the Iraqis would be able to drive around without being shot at by passing convoys, being stopped at random checkpoints or getting caught in the crossfire between the occupation and the resistance. They wouldn’t have to worry about marines storming into their homes, being hit by a stray bomb from a plane etc. It would make a huge difference.

The Iraqis would also be free to choose their own destiny again: they can start rebuilding and developing their country, build worker movements etc.

Of course there’s no guarantee that they will actually do that. Maybe they’ll just continue fighting amongst themselves. That would be a shame, but unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about it. We can only help them make things better, we can’t force them to.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 26, 2007 02:19 am

Go read the link I posted earlier.

I don't need to; I know the Marxist position on terror. I don't think anyone here ever claimed that this resistance held a Marxist character.


Zampano: But don't let yourself be decieved by words and twisting of words. For example we all know that US government is a state-terrorist. However, the US government (biggest terrorist of the world) would label you as a real terrorist, if you start a revolution in USA. So don't worry if the US government labels FARC, Che Guevara, and rioters terrorists, coz we all know that the real terrorists are the US government, NATO and allies

marxist_god