More Annoying -- and Stupid -- Insurgent Attacks

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: I may have mentioned this before Timber, you'll need to stop thinking like an American for a while if you want to understand why they do this. And until you understand you will never find solutions.

Well, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by that, and how I am to accomplish that. Nevertheless, so long as we keep killing more of them than they do of us, there will be solution someday -- so long as we can stomach the war of attrition. Maybe I don't want to think like them -- maybe I just want to see them dead. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]

[ 06-11-2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: I may have mentioned this before Timber, you'll need to stop thinking like an American for a while if you want to understand why they do this. And until you understand you will never find solutions.

Then by all means, please do enlighten us.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Whilst I completely agree with your views on the futility of these actions and I also wish they'd just give it a rest and let us get on with rebuilding, from the point of view of the regime loyalist, its actually very sensible. If they allowed America to rebuild and get out, that would represent a symbolic victory for the US. They want to see America brought to its knees over this, and the easiest way to do that is to attack targets like powerstations. Sure, it reduces the living standards of Iraqi civilians, but that's incidental for people with an agenda like this. It's all about manipulation of public opinion, and it seems to be working as opinion has certainly hardened against the occupation since a year ago. The average Iraqi just knows they don't have electricity or water for example, is caught in the middle of the military clash in retaliation and can't help thinking that things weren't like this in Saddam's day. As long as you joined the Ba'th party, kept your head down, life sort-of went on. Plus it creates great anti-coalition publicity: we've all seen the anguished cries of "is this freedom?" [EDIT] for clarity before I get a ton of angry replies: yes, mass graves have been discovered, yes Saddam was rather ruthless in purging political opponents, yes he massacred kurdish villages. But in a country the size of Iraq, most citizens were generally left alone if they kept their nose out of trouble and politics. And the kurds have never really been a proper part of Iraq since the Ottoman days so can't really be representative of the Iraqi people. Not seeking to make excuses for his regime, i think its great its gone, just trying to put local feeling in context.[/EDIT] It's probably also worth distinguishing the insurgents from the ululators. Without wishing to make sweeping statements, asides from a visible street presence in places like Najaf and Falluja, the average ululator is just a politically active citizen; the street has long been the forum for political expression in the middle-east. So, bloody annoying? Indeed. Bad for the Iraqi people? Undoubtedly. But stupid? I think they're playing a dangerous game extremely well... [EDIT 2] Also worth considering that in effect its an 'all or bust' situation for them. If America is successful, there is no future for them in Iraq in any case, so from their mindset I suppose allowing a successful reconstruction is unthinkable and impossible[/EDIT] [EDIT 3] But I agree that a rising up and flogging, or any expression of public anger directed against these insurgents would indeed be welcome, if only to make the 'liberation' agenda sit easier on TV screens in the western world. However as i don't think they act for the Iraqi people, i'm not certain whether it would have an effect on insurgent operations though.

Good post, shamrock_uk. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I think you did a good job of explaining the situation from the Iraqi insurgent's POV.

Skunk - you also deserve a "thumbs up" for explaining how these attacks are more damaging to the American military than the local inhabitants. Don't know if I agree with your assertion about large cities like Baghdad surviving on well and river water, but you still added good insight as to why the attacks make sense from the insurgent POV. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 06-11-2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Masklinn]

Well, my grand mother, who was 12 and living in Paris during the german occupation explained me well last time how seeing a foreign army controlling and ruling your country can bring pure hate in the most pure and clean heart (hers for example).

She said that she was too young at that time, but were she older, she would have done anything, hear me well there : *anything* to harm the occupying army, and even more to make the whole french population rise against them for good.

That is exactly what the insurgents are trying to do in Iraq at the moment.

And that's most likely what most of you would do if your country was occupied, no matter by who, no matter why.

[Masklinn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Donut: I may have mentioned this before Timber, you'll need to stop thinking like an American for a while if you want to understand why they do this. And until you understand you will never find solutions.

Then by all means, please do enlighten us. [/QUOTE]Try to think like an Iraqi for a minute ?

Or, if you can't, just imagine a foreign army controlling your city ! Imagine a bunch of guys, well armed, and speaking french or chinese, or whatever, walking in your streets, acting like policemen and trying to tell you what to do. Imagine that. Can you ?

And can you tell me for sure that you wouldnt be hateful toward them ?

EDIT : I know that, beyond all my crappy pacifist ideas, I would. Oh yeah, I would...

[ 06-11-2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: I know that, beyond all my crappy pacifist ideas, I would. Oh yeah, I would...

Weird how quickly those highly moral, pacifistic ideals that we aspire to and seek to judge others by simply dissolve when things get personal isn't it?

[Ronn_Bman]

Not to disrespect your grandmother, but for you to say " no matter by who, no matter why" oversteps her experience and assumes too much.

Did you ever ask her if she hated the Allies who landed and occupied France starting on June 6th of 1945 were as hated as the Nazi's? Were they only cheered as they entered Paris because DeGaul was allowed to lead to parade, or would they have been cheered anyway for evicting the Nazis? Did the fact that they were there to liberate from an oppressive regime and restore French leadership factor into the "hate" equation?

To say "no matter who, no matter why" is far too simplistic. In fact, it is silly.

[Dreamer128]

Al-Sadr offers conditional support

Fresh from negotiating a truce with US forces in Najaf and Karbala, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr lends conditional support to the Iraqi transitional government.


Al-Sadr said he would cooperate with the new government on the condition that it provide a deadline for the end of the US-led occupation of Iraq.

"I support the new interim government...help me take this society to the path of security and peace," he said in a statement read by an aide before a Friday prayer congregation in Kufa.

"Starting now, I ask you that we open a new page for Iraq and for peace," his statement read.

Al-Sadr had earlier vehemently opposed the nomination of Shia secularist Iyad Allawi as Iraq's interim prime minister but appears to have bowed to pressure from other Shia leaders.

Najaf clash

Meanwhile, AFP reported that Friday prayers in Najaf were halted when rival Shia factions allegedly threw stones at one another.

Witnesses said Al-Sadr supporters clashed with members of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) as they entered the Imam Ali mosque.

In Baghdad, Sunni cleric Ahmad Hassan al-Taha used the Friday sermon to criticise the new transitional government as a by-product of US occupation.

He accused unnamed members of the transitional government of acting as proxy agents for the US State Department and Department of Defence.

"Iraq is heading to chaos," he said.

(AlJazeera)

[Masklinn]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Not to disrespect your grandmother, but for you to say " no matter by who, no matter why" oversteps her experience and assumes too much. Did you ever ask her if she hated the Allies who landed and occupied France starting on June 6th of 1945 were as hated as the Nazi's? Were they only cheered as they entered Paris because DeGaul was allowed to lead to parade, or would they have been cheered anyway for evicting the Nazis? Did the fact that they were there to liberate from an oppressive regime and restore French leadership factor into the "hate" equation? To say "no matter who, no matter why" is far too simplistic. In fact, it is silly.

Don't mix everything up. Allied came to free us, and they did exactly and only that. They freed us and left. I see a huge difference there with the Iraq problem, don't you ?

I am pretty sure that if they did free us then stayed for a year or more, ppl would have started to hate them as well.

Instead of that they freed us and left, and for that we are forever grateful. And that is the correct way to free a country from a brutal opressor. Sometimes history should repeat itself. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And don't dare tell me that a foreign army, with different culture, religion and language, occupying your country wouldnt piss you off. C'mon Ronn, I know it would. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Masklinn]

And you may not agree with my point of view, you may explain why, but please don't say it's "silly". Especially in this case.

You just can't imagin US being invaded, can you ?