Iraq

uranium_235 · December 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">The other side...</div> How do you guys feel / what do you think about the geurilla fighters in Iraq?

I respect them for it. They are a peoples that for the longest time were fed anti-American propoganda, they had very little news from the outside world, and suddenly we show up in tanks, oust their leader, take over their oil fields, and tell them they have to live a new way. They're doing the exact same thing I would do if someone annexed Colorado (Why in gods name anyone would do that, I have no idea). Fight them for every inch.

The media, hell, everything is telling us that we're the 'good' guys and they're the 'bad' guys, but it's 100% opposite on the other side. And if you think about it, we ARE the bad guys. The enemy we're fighting has no motive except to liberate their lands from a powerful invader.

TIME magazine did two articles, and they're quite amazing: A reporter was able to interview some of the Freedom Fighters, as well as observe their plans and how they attack. They start every assault with a prayer, praying that they themselves, and their families would be safe, before the move out. When asked, "Ahmed" said that he doesn't fight just to kill Americans, he fights to defend his family, his home, and his way of life.

RyoOhki · December 2003

Right with you there on that one Uranium. I think that many people in the Western world are still believeing the US propaganda that all these guerillas are Saddam loyalists or foreign terrorists, when the truth is emerging that most of these fighters are just ordainary Iraqis who don't want their country occupied. In their situation, I believe I'd do much the same thing; just because we think democracy and capitalism are fantastic doesn't mean that everyone else thinks the same way.

X_Stickman · December 2003

meh... there's reasons for this war that we haven't been told. "Liberate the people" my butt, no one starts a war that p**ses off the rest of the world to "save" people from their leader.

I'm in agreement with you though. They're just defending their country. But then, America (and it's allies) are doing what they believe is right, so you have to respect them too. But there's definatly motives beyond "Help the defenceless citizens"

Snidely · December 2003

I dunno. I guess I can understand their actions on the one hand, but I can't say I like it or respect it. Same goes for the invaders, though, except I'm not so sure about the true motives of Bliar (I'm not sure how Bush justified it, but Blair put a ****-poor excuse for war forward).

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

Uhhh, considering that the majority of their targets are civillians, aid workers, contractors, and the country's infrastructure, I'd say they warrant about as much respect as you would give to most common criminals that pick on the weak and defenseless.

Sirus · December 2003

Actually, the real problem is that these "fighters" and guerillas are just perversed idealogues. You don't protect your families by killing Red Cross workers and diplomats, the very people who are trying to make their life better.

I'd try and cross reference your information too. Time magazine doesn't favor the war, or the President. Have you read about the vigilantes who are upset that the US isn't being fast enough in prosecuting war criminals and have taken justice into their own hands by attacking former Baath party members ?

And while be temporarily controlling many aspects of their government, we are waiting for them to form their own constitution. They have control over many aspects of their government too, even if currently, we are running some also. Eventually we will leave, and they will vote. If they want to vote for a socialist government, or what have you, the US doesn't really have much control of that. So regardless of what the military is doing right now, they will be eventually completely free from US control in Iraq. (You may want to bring up pressure from the US, or economic pressure, but this is just foreign policy, it happens to every country, and eventually, Iraq will be no exception)

You're being fed some very interesting information, because the Army and Marine Core and all the other types of military in Iraq are every day people like you and me. They're not there to hurt Iraqis. Regardless of what our government is doing, our soldiers are doing nothing but helping Iraqis. Soldiers are setting up an Iraq version of Toys for Tots and are being very gracious to them.

These "reedom fighters"on the other hand... they are killing their own people in attempts to bomb military outposts, they are killing their own Iraqi Police, and their own Iraqi army. Not to mention, our soldiers who are trying to spread some joy to their children. Oh yes ! The evil US !

reasa · December 2003

What really disgusts me about that TIME article is the fact that American journalists are riding around in cars with these people, and you know if he would have been killed the headlines would have read "Innocent reporter brutally slaughtered by American forces."

Also if you happen to have this week’s issue of TIME take a very close look at the 2nd to last right hand picture on page 31. The Ansar Al-Islam terrorist member is wearing a very nice Adidas hat, talk about irony, "I hate you America I hate everything about you, except your very fashionable sports wear..." Now I can think nothing more of him then an idiot!

Maveric · December 2003

Each side views itself as "good" and the other side(s) as "bad". the only way to stop the iraqis from being "bad" on the US's side of things is for the US to pull it's fingers out of it's ears, foot out of it's mouth, and closed eyes open (and other body parts in other places im not going to mention) and then drop the guns and raids and pickup from the big box of construction items a whole whackload of things and say "OK, we'll help you rebuild now" and start cracking at it 110% effort.

This way, from the Iraqis point of view the US is no longer the "break-into-my-house-smash-my-sh*t-while-searching-for-guns" and "taking-my-husband-and-sons-prisoner-because-you-<i>think</i>-he's-shooting-you-because-you-f***ed-up-our-house" but now see the "we're-only-here-to-help-you-rebuild" side of the US.

Politics and the fight on terrorism aside; you have to be kind if you want kindness back... Didn't we all learn that in school? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

DragonMech · December 2003

I respect those people just as much as I respect the Kamikaze pilots of WWII. Those people went out, knowing that they had a very good chance of never coming home. That takes courage, honor, and an iron belief in your customs & religion. I just wish the whole thing could have been solved peaceably, but that is the idealist me talking. I lived in the middle east for five years, so I have some unique insight on the matter Islam. I did go to an American school (The American School of Dubai A.S.D.), but one of my classmates there was a devout Islamic - and a good friend of mine. We had a number of theolgical debates on Christianity and Islam, and one belief of Islam is that, should you die for Allah, you will go to Heaven first-class - with a reward that varies with the exact belief of Islam you follow. All these kids (many are well under 20 years old) are told that their sacrifice will earn them eternal happiness, and I hope they get it.

[EDIT]: After reading Nukethepalce and Handman's posts, I'd like to add that my good intent only applies to those who attack military targets. Those who attack civilians are terrorists and should get in touch with the true message of the Islamic faith.

Sirus · December 2003

Maveric, you're not being realistic. First of all, you put soldiers at harm if they put down their weapons, are the guerillas going to see this as a chance to reconcile things ? No, they would probably attack, and cause many US Troop deaths, meanwhile, at home, the political scene would look awfully grim.

Listen, many of these "freedom fighters" are perverted idealogues, they believe that the US is evil, always and forever. Probably at no time will they surrender their idealogies, until these "freedom fighters" stop bombing buses and public areas, maybe reconstruction can go at full speed.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>you have to be kind if you want kindness back... Didn't we all learn that in school?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Uhm. I really don't know what to say to that. I think that would be the worst military strategy ever, not only would hundreds of deaths occur, but there would be no progress. You might as well say that all Hitler needed was a hug, a box of chocolate and a boquet or roses and he would have been the kindest man in the world.

The whole busting in the houses and stuff, you do know that Iraqi vigilante groups are doing much worse, hunting Baath party members down and killing them, then piling them up somewhere. So... I think you don't exactly have the full story.

I don't see how you think this one-sided war between Armed Freedom Fighters and these evil US non-combatants is "Oh so admirable". They aren't even really attacking military targets, like MonsE said, </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>the majority of their targets are civillians, aid workers, contractors, and the country's infrastructure</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>. Don't we classify people who do that as terrorists ?

Nuketheplace · December 2003

Let me start out by saying that I was against the war from the start. Now that were in it however we can't just do what we should have done in the beginigng. We are engaged and we can't just pull out. That would cause more harm than good. So we have to bake into peoples houses in order to mantain some kind of order. If we left the country would just plunge back into chaos.
On another note who says every county has to be democratic? Shouldn't you just use what works for you? America started out as a democrisy because we had set goals and democrisy worked for us, but it might not work for other people.
Back on topic I'm going to use a ns example for why the "freedom fighters" are attacking unarmed civilians. Would you want to attack a non electrified res node that you know the renes wont rebuild or a electrified res node that you might die against and you know will be replaced, answer that. Please not the above was not a justification for why its ok to attack unarmed people. It was just a reason.

Handman · December 2003

They are attacking unarmed civilians or "soft targets" to win the war of public opinion. The more people that die in Iraq, the more pressure there is on the governments occuping it. While tactically it is a good strategy, a majority of the world would agree that attacking unarmed civilians trying to ease post war suffering is a unethical act. Thusly I would label them as "terrorists" rather than "Freedom Fighters". I really have no respect for them.

Maveric · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Dec 11 2003, 10:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Maveric, you're not being realistic. First of all, you put soldiers at harm if they put down their weapons, are the guerillas going to see this as a chance to reconcile things ? No, they would probably attack, and cause many US Troop deaths, meanwhile, at home, the political scene would look awfully grim.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Atleast it'd make the US look more sympathetic towards the iraq reconstruction issue...

as long as they fix up the wooden door that they knocked down with a steel one with a deadbolt and metal frame, those iraqis that have those steel doors will "like" the US for giving them just alittle more "security" (because a steel door with a steel frame is harder to take down then a wooden door and a dirt frame.)

in fact, if the US can somehow figure out how to create affordable and fairly good apartments and heavilly protect them, anyone attacking these apartments (that would i guess be very easy to live in, perhaps not even a dime to the cost of rent and free food! a stretch, yes, but hey... whatever stops US AND iraqi military/civilian deaths.) would thus be completely unreasonable... and thus be seen as a enemy to BOTH the US and the Iraqi citizens.

All im saying is that if you make a good impression on people they'll be 100 times more likely to help you if they'd ever help you, than shoot your face off/blow up your truck/destroy/pillage/etc. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> One voice of hope can sway a hundreds of voices of hopelessness; even if for a very short time.

RyoOhki · December 2003

There seems to be some misconceptions here, the biggest one being that in modern warfare, some things are non-military targets. There arn't. When you are fighting against an invader, or another nation, or even an ideology, everyone and everything is a target.

Attacking the Red Cross or the UN makes perfect sense. If you kill some US soldiers, the best case scenario is that public opinion back in America will start to swing away from the war. Destroy the people helping the US though, and you undermine US support. Bush has already started requesting aid from various nations and agencies around the world, and if the Iraqi fighters can stop that from ariving, the US is weakened in the region far more than a bombing of a military convoy or sniper attack could cause. The US can't stay in Iraq if they lose what little support they have; the combined costs will simply be too high.

They are attacking weak and defenseless targets, but the idea of only attacking military targets died when the first zepplin raid on London in 1915. I respect these fighters because they are not only acting with perfect military sense, but also because they're up against such huge odds of victory, yet they still fight.

Snidely · December 2003

I dunno...I'd have thought it would make sense to let the Americans repair the damage, then to destroy the democracy set up from the inside.

Personally, I find killing Red Cross workers utterly reprehensible. It just hurts the people they're supposedly fighting for.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Personally, I find killing Red Cross workers utterly reprehensible. It just hurts the people they're supposedly fighting for. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But from their point of view, the Red Cross is helping the Americans. These fighters probably believe that the most important thing is to get the US out of Iraq, with all other concerns secondary. Sadly that means their own people must suffer, but again, these fighters would say that the Americans will cause far more harm than blowing up an aid station. The irony is that both the US and these fighters believe that they are doing the right thing for the Iraqi people. The question of who is correct is very much a matter of opinion and perspective.

Gargamel · December 2003

Modern War has huge benefits. You first get to sell billion $$$ in weapons, then you use them to see awesome destruction, fireworks and mutilated bodies (ah, just collateral damage...), then you suck billion $$$ of finest Oil, and get billion $$$ for reconstructing what you have just devastated. This "market"/"business" of course aint in the favour of Iraqis, Us citizens or US soldiers. In War those shall die for the sake of company profit. Reconstruction can wait, there is still lots of barrels down there.
About Terrorism, of course Iraqi Guerillas are "Terrorists" for the Occupying Force. Dont expect them to be called Freedom Fighters from an invading Force that doesnt want to know about international Law.
G.W.Bush: "International Law? Let me call my Lawyer..."
What about the Terrorists that started an Invasion on the other Side of the Planet? Killing thousands of helpless foreign civilians with bombing campaigns? Dissinforming people through media with fearful lies to proceed with the biggest criminal act known ever: War.
This is no democracy, this is Facism produced by powerful ($$$) major companies that finance world top leader election campaigns.
Occupying a country always produces resistance more mighty than any Occupying Force can withstand in time. Soldiers just do the dirty job (US Soldiers have my sympathy just as the Iraqis).
This is just unjustified slaughter so 10 from 1 trillion people of the world can benefit.
Its a shame on human existance.
And its us people who always pay the price, whether Iraqi or US folks.
$$$ >>> Life <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

Forlorn · December 2003

You respect them for killing themselves and others?

Not only is this a disgrace to their religion, but it's defaming human life as we know it.

The average Iraqi probably doesn't like the war (from a maniacal dictator to a invasion force... wow life sucks in Iraq) but they aren't going to tell their familys to make themselves a matryr.

If anything, you'd act a lot different uranium, because the fact is, when push comes to shove, not too many people want to become sucidial manics.

Much <3, Forlorn

Spooge · December 2003

I heard about this site on the radio this morning:

<a href='http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html#107064213408292305' target='_blank'>Healing Iraq Blog</a>

I've been stealing as much time as possible to read through this (I'm at work <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> ). It's absolutely fascinating. AND there are pictures!

Here's one titled "To bribed Arab stations:Killing Iraqis and destroying their civil facilities is NOT resistance"
<img src='http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/70.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image'>

Here's another from Wednesday's march:

EDIT: pic removed due to size. See next post.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If anything, you'd act a lot different uranium, because the fact is, when push comes to shove, not too many people want to become sucidial manics.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

True, but many people want to fight. Consider that for every Iraqi who attacks the US forces, there must be other Iraqis offering him or her shelter and support. They in turn have family and friends who, though they might not directly fight, don't tell the US authorities about the fighters or pass information back. The fact that the US is having so much trouble is clear proof that quite a lot of the Iraqi population doesn't want the US there and, to a certain degree, support the attacks.

Look at Palistine; sure, not many people actually blow themselves up. But you don't see Palistinians queueing up outside Israeli border posts saying "I know where to find some members of Hamas". The population might not directly take action, but they as a whole support the actions of their countrymen, <i>despite the fact that they know the attacks will bring retribution</i>. Same as in Iraq; the population knows that the attacks will probably hurt them as well as the Iraqis, but it doesn't stop people wanting to fight and resist.

Forlorn · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 12 2003, 09:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look at Palistine; sure, not many people actually blow themselves up. But you don't see Palistinians queueing up outside Israeli border posts saying "I know where to find some members of Hamas". The population might not directly take action, but they as a whole support the actions of their countrymen, <i>despite the fact that they know the attacks will bring retribution</i>. Same as in Iraq; the population knows that the attacks will probably hurt them as well as the Iraqis, but it doesn't stop people wanting to fight and resist.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Bull. They aren't reporting on where these people are located because they don't know where they are located.

I'm nearly 100% postitive that the average Iraqi will not only condem these attacks, but also want them to stop.

If what I say isn't true, then why has America caught so many of the old Iraqi officals, and continue to find these 'resistance' camps? It may take 100 bucks in the process, but come on, money is involved with everything... if what you said was true they wouldn't yeild such info, ever.

Forlorn · December 2003

Wow, I am too good.

Look what I found out of the Iraqi blogs Spooge gave the link to (GREAT DAMN LINK SPOOGE, YOU THE MAN):

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Survey results by an Iraqi organization called Al-tajammu' Al-thaqafi indicated that a majority of Baghdad residents look forward to a secular democratic Iraqi state and regard the various attacks against coalition troops and Iraqi civilians as acts of terrorism not of resistance.

A sample of 816 Baghdadi's was covered by the survey (637 of them males, and 144 females). 13 of the participants carried PhD degrees, 34 with Masters degrees, 299 Bachelor degrees, 153 diplomas, 158 high school students, 96 secondary schools, and 62 from primary schools.

The survey consisted of 17 questions discussing several issues such as the role of women in postwar Iraq, Federalism, and seperation of state and religion.

Al-tajammu' Al-thaqafi was found last July by a group of Iraqi intellectuals with goals to encourage an Iraqi society that holds principles such as freedom of speech, cultural communication, respect of human rights regardless of religious, sectarian, and ethnic differences, and condemnation of violence, terrorism, extremism, and racism. They are an idependent self-financing organization. (via Azzaman Baghdad edition)
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html#107064213408292305' target='_blank'>I rest my case.</a>

Burncycle · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There seems to be some misconceptions here, the biggest one being that in modern warfare, some things are non-military targets. There arn't. When you are fighting against an invader, or another nation, or even an ideology, everyone and everything is a target. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That's silly. You and dread have been the major proponents of US criticism when it comes to harming civilians, even accidently- why is it ok or justified for them to target civilians specifically?

The last "all out war" the US engaged in where anything and everything was a valid target was WWII. We've come along way since then.

There's no excuse for attacking red cross workers. That just pisses americans off. Attacking _soldiers_ is what demoralizes americans in the war. They're supposed to be able to defend themselves and we still wind up losing alot of them.

Another example: Recently two japanese diplomats were ambushed and killed. Now japan is about to send troops over. Most likely to protect their interests (any aid workers they send)

Of course the majority of Iraqi's look forward to a constitution with democracy. It's not a matter of forcing our western views down their throat. It's a matter of giving them a choice. Just because they have a democracy, doesn't mean they can't elect people in communist/islamic/whatever parties. They'll run, they may get elected, and they'll have different views and priorities- and then after a set time, if the people like them, they'll elect them again. Thats the whole point.

All we hear in the media is how much we're hated there. And that's generally from a reletively small group of loyalists. Plenty of people support our presence (even though they probably wish we'd get the heck out as soon as practically possible). Then there are the people who are quiet about the whole thing. They either hate our presence, but won't take up arms, or the support our presence and are too scared to say anything lest saddam supporters gain power again and they get punished.

Now, I'm not claiming we went over there simply to help the people. Only bush knows the real reason- but a few people sum it up best:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We did the right thing, oil, money, all that ****, doesn't matter. We did the right damn thing.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think that it is spin of the most obvious type to claim that we went to war solely because of the suffering of the Iraqi people. That said, I really don't give a damn about the reasons much anymore, whether Saddam had an undiscovered WMD program or the Martians and the Illuminati manipulated the comatose coke-fiend Bush into it. Saddam was a monster that should have been put down years and years ago, damn us and the rest of the world for not doing it then and helping him stay in power. And double-damn the nations that, even at the end, didn't act to kill this bugger and his regime and even now don't throw in behind the Iraqis. It's about time, heck, it's long past time that someone killed that regime.

If the UN was worth a half a cent they'd have been leading the fight against these types of evil since their charter was signed.

I think that you'll find that many Americans are coming to this point, they don't much care why we went to war, they just think that it was a good thing that somebody did it and are **** that more didn't/aren't helping.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Jammer · December 2003

...
You 'respect' terrorists?

Guys: whatever is going on in your life, DRUGS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.

Seriously, that idea blows my mind. Respecting people who kill indiscriminantly for an agenda. Compare them to 'freedom fighters' all you want, but at least the US militairy aims for the enemy. Jesus christ... respecting terrorists...

Anyway, the idea these are 'Anti-American Populist Iraqis' commiting these attacks is dead wrong.
<a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991' target='_blank'>Zogby Poll of Iraqis</a>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

• Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

• The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.

• Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

• Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

• Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.

• You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.

• And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh snap!
The people who are committing these attacks against civillans and US troops are NOT freedom fighters. They are the terrorists from other Arab nations who came in for jihad, as well as Saddam and Baathist loyalists. These people don't want freedom, they are fighting for the old dictatorship and a new world order of Islamic Fascism.

EDIT
Spooge: can you resize your picture, its screwing everything up for anyone below 1280x1024
Also, the argument "We're bad guys to them! Its understandable... yada yada yada." doesn't fly. Its just more cultural relativism. True, they may see is as bad guys, but from an objective perspective, someone as to be good and someone has to be bad. I'm not naive enough to think the US is always a knight in shining armor, but its most certainly the Kinda-Sort-Good guys whereas these terrorists are definetly the BAD guys.

Spooge · December 2003

Sorry for the pic size. They're direct links to uncompressed pictures. Try this:

BaconTheory · December 2003

I think that I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one uranium. The Iraqis are fighting to defend their homeland and their way of life, just as we did in the American Revolution. If you think about it, the war in Iraq and the American Revolution are not much different. Anyhow, I do agree with you; we are trying to be the so-called "cops" in Iraq. I say we let them be now that the threat of Saddam is gone.

Spooge · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skidzor @ Dec 12 2003, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The Iraqis are fighting to defend their homeland and their way of life, just as we did in the American Revolution. If you think about it, the war in Iraq and the American Revolution are not much different.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

Hmm. Would you mind expounding the specific comparisions between these two events?

Forlorn · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skidzor @ Dec 12 2003, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think that I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one uranium. The Iraqis are fighting to defend their homeland and their way of life, just as we did in the American Revolution. If you think about it, the war in Iraq and the American Revolution are not much different. Anyhow, I do agree with you; we are trying to be the so-called "cops" in Iraq. I say we let them be now that the threat of Saddam is gone.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
We liberated them. We promised to give them their country, a government, and protection. How is it even possible them to "defend their homeland and their way of life"?

Furthermore, it's REALLY obvious you don't know much about the American Revolution. Fighting for our way of life and our homeland? What the hell? We fought so that we could have a way of life, so that we could have a homeland. We weren't fighting for anything, save ourselves.

Jammer · December 2003

Just to totally kill the revolutionary war comparison:

The goal matters as much as the action. Fighting for freedom (aka revolutionary war, even if its recipients were limited) trumps fighting for fascism.

Sirus · December 2003

Did you guys read what Jammer posted ?

These "Freedom Fighters" are not even mostly Iraqis. They are from other Middle Eastern countries to fight against the US in Jihad. I knew that a large amount of combatants in Iraq aren't even Iraqi but I didn't know it was to this extent. The polls surely are evidence of this, a large majority of Iraqis polled aren't even really against the US, and some, especially the younger demographic, want Iraq to be modeled after it.

So pray tell. Can we honestly believe they are fighting for freedom, or are they just foreign combatants who hate the US and have come to wage Jihad ?

Melatonin · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Dec 12 2003, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The polls surely are evidence of this  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I wouldnt like to 'discredit' a source or anything, but if it were me, Id rather my proof came from somewhere other than www.<b>opinionjournal</b>.com
aside from the domain, its a matter for statisticians (they dont say exactly how small the poll size was, but "our survey was necessarily limited in scope" hints it wasnt 'big')

aside from this is the fact that none of us really have any idea at all what the hell is happening.
after all the spin, propaganda and lies, I cant even be sure my own opinion is valid, let alone anyone elses, not that it ultimatly matters anyway.

/offtopic

Iraq

Comments