Guerilla Actions in Irak

Please grow up.

Cheers!

My guess is that you are speaking about the Soviet occupation after 23 August 1944. Then you should also tell that many of our grandfathers hoped in an American "occupation", and waited for many years for the Americans to come. You see, there are many kinds of occupation...

"They were a small minority that did not represent the large masses of romanians who participated in large numbers in the fair elections organised by the liberators. They were nothing but terrorists!"

Hi Imperialist,

Not only would I have time to grow up while waiting for you to answer my questions, I could grow old!

Cheers,

Sid.

I already gave you 2 answers to your persistent questions. If you chose to ignore them and think they are irrelevant, so be it. I dont see the point in making an ego issue out of this. If you really feel hurt about what I said, you can also reply to the post that hurt you.
I hope I made myself clearer for the thirs time.

take care

edit -- and to eliminate further confusion, the 2 posts I talk about are on this thread dated Jul 12 2005, 04:16 PM and Jul 12 2005, 07:03 PM

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 13, 2005 12:11 pm

"They were a small minority that did not represent the large masses of romanians who participated in large numbers in the fair elections organised by the liberators. They were nothing but terrorists!"

That's the whole point. Some men's freedom fighters are other men's villains or terrorists. What we can do in judging such a situation is to evaluate the interests and principles of these groups. What do we have in Iraq? On one side we have the the majority of the Iraqi people made up of Shiites, majority that has been subdued by the Sunni minority during the Saddam's reign, on the other side are the insurgent groups made up of Sunnis, Saddam's old guards, or terrorist groups like Al Quaeda that does not represent the majority of Iraqi people. What will happen if American forces withdraw from Iraq? Most likely a new Sunni oppresive government will rise to power, obviously not in the interest of the Iraqi people. Does US have interests not openly declared in Irak? Certainly, but the options for the Iraqi people are limited, and the American presence there it's not the worst scenario.

Thats false. I dont care if my freedom fighter is the foreign occupier's terrorist. In fact, its supposed to be like that.

We shouldnt let too many syllogisms cloud the issue. Chechnya may be shady. Israel-Palestine too (where its a little bit harder to be clear who is the occupier).
But in Iraq its crystal clear.

In a guerilla war not all people are supposed to be up in arms. Its enough that they offer sanctuary and help.
If you want to learn more about how the shia view the occupation search for blogs on the net or if you find them unreliable see it in this thread (the large demonstrations asking for withdrawal, etc.).

Check this for example:

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/

Look up at the shia reaction during the Fallujah siege.

Thats false. I dont care if my freedom fighter is the foreign occupier's terrorist. In fact, its supposed to be like that.

This is what happens when you look only at one side of the coin, as in your view the Americans are the villains, and the insurgents are the freedom fighters. However, an unbiased observer from outside must consider the other side of the coin too, which is: the American troops are trying to establish a democratical regime while the insurgents are trying to drive them away in order to grab the power.

In this site, it is claimed that Dahr Jamail is "one of only a few independent US journalists in the country." However, by a quick glance at his articles, he is clearly a partisan of withdrawing US troops from Iraq. You can prove I am wrong, by pointing an article from that site that condemns the terrorist acts or the Saddam's terror regime.

In this site, it is claimed that Dahr Jamail is "one of only a few independent US journalists in the country." However, by a quick glance at his articles, he is clearly a partisan of withdrawing US troops from Iraq. You can prove I am wrong, by pointing an article from that site that condemns the terrorist acts or the Saddam's terror regime.

You have to prove there is an article there that praises Saddam, if you want to question his independence/objectivity.

p.s. so you are not going to read his articles, just to form an opinion of the Iraqi street?

Maybe you want another blog:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

What makes you think the US wants to leave after they establish their democratical regime?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5052100611.html

Maybe you can spot a cycle of "violence" in the picture? How can America withdraw only if the insurgency dies down, if the insurgency is sparked by the American presence? This will go on and on. Look at the pictures of those dead and wounded kids. The more the US stays, the more kids will turn to fighters. The more fighting, the more traumatised families, the more recruits etc.
Its a mess and honestly the iraqis are the only ones justified in staying in their own country.

Hi Imperialist,

Nope. You have given no answers to my questions. All you have done is refer to links that do not address the issue. Simply repeating endlessly that you have provided answers when you haven't doesn't make it any more true.

There is no ego issue here, but there is an integrity issue - your integrity. Is it not true that you posted a statement to the effect that I had a history of providing facts that were not backed-up and were subsequently found to be wrong?

This, I am sure you will agree, is quite a serious charge, especially if untrue. I therefore asked you to justify it. You have failed to be so - repeatedly.

Worse still, you have pretended that you have answered questions when you have not. This is dishonest.

You can dig yourself out of this hole honourably in two ways:

1) Justify your contention.

2) Admit you over stated your case.

I am happy to accept either.

Please do the decent thing.

Cheers,

Sid.

Well, talking about Saddam and shiites, how can this be explained:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/internat...ted=2&th&emc=th

So shia were part of Saddam's regime terror networks. So things are far more shadier than "sunnis oppressed shia". And now it seems the US is using those veterans.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 13, 2005 02:49 pm

QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jun 13 2005, 10:01 AM)

Coalition fatalities in northern/southern provinces last month:

GIUSEPPE LIMA
MARCO BRIGANTI
MARCO CIRILLO
MASSIMILIANO BIONDINI

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronach.../militari.shtml

Their helicopter crashed in Dhi Qar province. The province is located in the south, far below the "Sunni Triangle":

http://www.hist-geo.com/Localiser/Region/Dhi-Qar.php

PRESLAV STOYANOV
VALENTIN NIKOLAEV DONEV

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=47436
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=47333

Their vehicle creashed near Basra.

----------------------------------------------

Coalition KIA in northern/southern provinces last month:

PHILLIP N. SAYLES [US]

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/n...50530-3381.html

BENJAMIN C. MORTON [US]

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/n...50524-3302.html

AARON N. SEESAN [US]
TYLER L. CREAMEAN [US]

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/n...50524-3308.html

ANTHONY WAKEFIELD [UK]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4505047.stm

-------------------------------------------------------------

I think you stand corrected.
Please apply the same level of academic methodology you ask out of others. At least if you want to launch accusations.


take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 13, 2005 02:48 pm

Hi Imperialist,

Nice try, but no cigar.

1) Where is the fact I supposedly put up that was inaccurate? I asked a question. I did not make a statement.

2) You did not answer my question anyway. I asked for a list of provinces where there were no coalition casualties last month. Instead you gave a list of casualties in what appears to be six separate incidents in at most five provinces. Iraq has 18 provinces, so there were presumably at least as many with no coalition fatalities, even discounting the Sunni areas.

3) And look at the quality of the fatalities. The six Italians and Bulgarians were killed in aircraft and vehicle accidents - hardly a result of Iraqi resistance. The links you give on the four Americans do not seem to be responding. I will check them out elsewhere and get back to you. Only the one Briton was demonstrably killed by Iraqi resistance.

Doesn't this tend to contradict the picture you initially offered of widespread Iraqi national resistance by only offering reports of coalition losses, and not of the much larger areas where active Iraqi resistance is currently minimal or non-existent?

I will get back to you when I have checked out the four Yanks.

Cheers,

Sid.