Terrorism in Iraq: why?

[berten]

(first: i'm bored so this could get long etc )
Was just watching the news earlier again etc. And was having sum discussion with a m8 on how and whot was actually happening there.
Imo there's a small group of iraqi's that will not let their country grow. It's obvious it is like that.
Whot keeps me buseh is why?
Ain't the UN there to help them?? is that water pipe not for the iraqi people?? I could understand if they fought the US guys, as they are their enemy. But not humanitair organisations, that's not helping them.

But still they do that.
Is it to get the people back on their side (Saddam controlling it). Do they just want the US to look even worse. Do they wanna be small and poor so they can lay back and get money from western country's??

Just discuss mmk? this is summit that needs discussion, not writing

[Chojin]

They want to stand on their own two feet?

[Jammers]

Allah moves in mysterious ways.

[queball]

Why not? Gotta bomb something.

[Mirai]

bombing water pipelines and electric grids makes the US look bad. The US looking bad means that public support will dwindle given time.

Then an organization or a local leader that the people like can just waltz in and restore everything, and the US doesn't get a penny of any profits made.

They're fighting for what they believe is their country, against people they see as invaders. I see that as very honorable.

[Chojin]

Originally posted by Mirai
They're fighting for what they believe is their country, against people they see as invaders. I see that as very honorable.

Honour and stupidity are easily mistaken.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by Chojin
Honour and stupidity are easily mistaken.

No, it depends which side you take. Honor IS stupidity.

[queball]

Honor is stupidity. Honour is where it's at.

[berten]

they might be fighting their invaders, but how does destroying pipes that are only tehre for the benefit of their own population help destroy the us?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by berten
they might be fighting their invaders, but how does destroying pipes that are only tehre for the benefit of their own population help destroy the us?

You increase the cost of occupation and governing theoretically to the point where the US have to withdraw.

It's a highly flawed strategy (most forms of terrorism are) but probably the only thing on offer to them. I'm sure the "terrorists" (freedom fighters? ) would ideally prefer to launch a tactical strike against Washington DC, but they clearly lack the resources. They even lack the resources to take on the US troops in their own country so they stick what they can do : sabotage. It's the cheapest form of military action and one that has been undertaken by various political groups from South Africa to Peru.

Building a mass movement in Iraq against occupation would probably be the best strategy, but since there are a large amount of US troops in their country, I'm not sure how far that'd be allowed to get.

[Caesar2]

Originally posted by berten

Ain't the UN there to help them??

As a result on the UN sanctions on Iraq, at least half a million people died. That's why some people see the UN as 'evil'.

[wu_trax]

they want the us out of THEIR country. terrorism is the only option available for them. they can only attack infrastructure, try to stop all international support for the us and kill a few american soldiers (which doesnt make much of a difference in terms of resources, but makes a lot of idfference in terms of political support for bush within the us.)

in other words they try to make the price the us has to pay for occupying iraq as high as possible and perhabs higher than the us-goverment is willing to pay. thats the only available strategy against a superior enemy.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by berten
Ain't the UN there to help them?? is that water pipe not for the iraqi people?? I could understand if they fought the US guys, as they are their enemy. But not humanitair organisations, that's not helping them.

The strategy is to sap the will of just about everybody from participating in Iraq in a meaningful way, from The UN, to America, to the currently uncommited non-coailition nations. America itself is not going to run out of the actual tools and means by which to sustain it's presence there, rather the terrorists hope that the situation will become one whereby they simply lose the will, and are forced to withdraw.

It's fairly flawed but that's what it is. Certainly, however, it's not going to do anything for getting more countries to send forces to Iraq, (Japan has already said it won't be sending it's focres anytime this year.) which Bush really needs. It's likely to have less effect on those that are already in the thick of it.

And the people who are pereptrating these acts don't give two hoots about anyone, nevermind Iraqi's.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Have you spoken to these people or do you just watch Sky news and write it down for later regurgitaion?

What empahsis on life and general humanity can a group of people have if they see blowing up unarmed UN staff as a justifiable political action?

[plasmas_arms]

Given that the current actions of these freedom fighters/guerillas/terrorists (I'd go with option 2) are probably doing more to degrade the life of the average iraqi citizen rather than improce it, I would say its fair to say that the well being of iraqi populace is not the primary concern of these people.

Whilst the US,UK and UN forces are bogged down trying to not get killed basic utilities are not being repaired or upgraded.....if it gets bad enough then supplies and investment into the country will be slowed or possibly supended.

This is not for the betterment of life.

It is however for the betterment for the political (possibly financial) position of the people doing it .

[ChubbyChecker]

Bush will tell you that the deaths of the 1000 or more Iraqi civilians in Gulf War II were justified.

The people that blew up the UN building in Iraq will tell you the same thing about the people they killed.

[plasmas_arms]

You do realise that a hell of a lot of the damage in iraqs infrastructure is a result of many years of neglect (even prior to the sanctions), especially in the southern areas of the country.

I dont think asking not to be shot, stabbed, beaten and blown up counts as wanting the iraqis to say thank you.

It would be interesting though to see what would happen if the US/UK forces pulled out and left the country to its own devices.

[Lord Talon]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Have you spoken to these people or do you just watch Sky news and write it down for later regurgitaion?

Let me get this straight- you chastise MM because he offered his opinion on the motives of the freedom fighters/terrorists because he had not spoken with them and shortly thereafter offer your own litany of possible motives without having spoken with them? You don't even know if they were Iraqis or foreign terrorists. I realize that the number of motives probably equals the number of participants, but all the information we have to base our opinions on are the actions of the participants. It appears like you jump at the chance to condemn the occupying forces for their actions but urge restraint when it comes to evaluating the murderous acts of those who oppose them.

Re: packing up and leaving - what do you think will happen if the occupying forces immediately packed up and left - all the Iraqis would come together for one big love fest? I certainly hope you're not that naive. More likely there would be a bloody civil war, and the us & her allies would get roundly criticized for leaving Iraq in such a bloody mess.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Lord Talon
Re: packing up and leaving - what do you think will happen if the occupying forces immediately packed up and left - all the Iraqis would come together for one big love fest? I certainly hope you're not that naive. More likely there would be a bloody civil war, and the us & her allies would get roundly criticized for leaving Iraq in such a bloody mess.

more likely they would get critcized for creating such a bloddy mess in the first place.
(other than that i agree, they cant leave just yet. if they would, they would lose their face or something and support for terrorism would be larger, but if they dont leave people will hate them more and things become just as ****ed up as if they would leave now)
i dont see any solution at all (well, thats one of the reasons i always was against starting that war at all).

[Lord Talon]

TF, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. What I'm saying is that we have no way to know what motives are involved since we don't know who the actors are, nor have any of us spoken with them. The only thing we have to form our opinions are their actions, and their actions (without further mitigating information) of attacking people who were trying to provide some semblance of relief to the general population, imho, show them to be callous murderers.

Also, I never said the us was the savior of all and readily admit it has its share of faults. It has done a lot to engender the ill will against it. I've learned to take everything I read/hear with a grain of salt. That said, I am still optomistic about the long term outcome for Iraq with the us in charge.

WT - more likely the occupiers will be criticized for any thing they do whether it is action or inaction. The thing we hope for is that in the end it will turn out to be the right one, but only history can judge that. Since the die is already cast, I don't see any way to quickly resolve this. I feel it is going to take a long time to rebuild Iraq not matter who is in charge.

Slightly off topic, but just out of curiousity, any historians out there who know how long it took Germany, Japan, etc. to get back on their feet after being rebuilt following WWII?

[Zar]

Originally posted by Lord Talon
Re: packing up and leaving - what do you think will happen if the occupying forces immediately packed up and left - all the Iraqis would come together for one big love fest? I certainly hope you're not that naive. More likely there would be a bloody civil war, and the us & her allies would get roundly criticized for leaving Iraq in such a bloody mess.

since when did the us and allies care about world criticism? they went to war against world opinion didnt they? Damn yanks

Zar

[Lord Talon]

Originally posted by Zar
since when did the us and allies care about world criticism? they went to war against world opinion didnt they? Damn yanks

Zar

golden rule extrapolation? he who has all the gold can make the rules - he who has all the power can do what he wants


its reality right, wrong, or otherwise


just curious - would you be more comfortable or feel more secure in your world if the us had remained a little backwards nation and that it was sadam or a person like him with all the power?

[Zar]

Originally posted by Lord Talon
golden rule extrapolation? he who has all the gold can make the rules - he who has all the power can do what he wants


its reality right, wrong, or otherwise


just curious - would you be more comfortable or feel more secure in your world if the us had remained a little backwards nation and that it was sadam or a person like him with all the power?

you will find this hard to believe, but i trust saddam and osama etc.. more than i do bush or blair.

The way i see it, is Osama and Saddam are fighting for a cause, and taht cause makes them appear worse than the west who create spin to make them look worse. bush and blair are fighting for empire and imperialism. If roles were switched round and saddam and osama were leaders, i don't think they would have to rule the world they way they control groups and countries. There would be no need, as imperialistic westerners, and death bringing zionists wouldnt be killing them.

Bush is a militaristic despot, a cowboy and a war hugnry, blood thirsty yank in my eyes.

The only good thing to come out of the USA, is the fact that people from all over the world can go there and make lots of money (if making money is a good thing). The biggest problem with the usa: it produces the largest amount of white trash local morons compared to what is worldly viable

Zar

[Lord Talon]

Originally posted by Zar
you will find this hard to believe, but i trust saddam and osama etc.. more than i do bush or blair.

Bush is a milataristic despot, a cowboy and a war hugnry, blood thirsty yank in my eyes.

actually, I don't doubt that you would hold your opinion right up until Sadam or one of his sons (if they were still among us) killed you the first time you failed to lick their boots

The only good thing to come out of the USA, is the fact that people from all over the world can go there and make lots of money (if making money is a good thing). The biggest problem with the usa: it produces the largest amount of white trash local morons compared to what is worldly viable

Zar

sorry TF, I just had to steal your quote on this one

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Have you spoken to these people or do you just watch Sky news and write it down for later regurgitaion?

[Zar]

Originally posted by Lord Talon
actually, I don't doubt that you would hold your opinion right up until Sadam or one of his sons (if they were still among us) killed you the first time you failed to lick their boots

i wouldn't plan to be at the bottom of the economic system. Saddam treats those who treat him well, well

Zar

[Snurx]

The "terrorists" in Norway during the second world war was also critizised by the occuping forces for being, uhh, lousy terrorists. Much in the same way as the US critizising the Iraqi "terrorists", if i am to belive my grandmother (Who lived during that time).

The act against the UN is (in my eyes) horrible. But, i can understand that they don't see UN the way we do, beacause i doubt this is just a attack from bloodthirsty killers, as the media wants us to belive.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Well I think that's a worthwhile line of enquiry and no one is disputing that what they did was a terrible crime, but please spare us your tabloid style pronouncements about these people's motives.

I don't give two little hoots about their motives. These people believe that violence is a justifiable means of political expression.

If these people got into any form of real power, then they would not be able to operate as a constructive force. If you go from the premise that 'violence works' in politics, then you would be a total liability if you gained any measure of authority.

These people may believe what they are doing is 'good', but so what? You may as well say The Klu Klux Klan has American people at heart, or that Al Qaeda has Muslims at heart. It's a meaningless statement because it's only appliacable in a subjective context; i.e, in the minds of such people.

The context provides a background for this sort of action, but it does not excuse it.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zar
i wouldn't plan to be at the bottom of the economic system. Saddam treats those who treat him well, well

Zar

excellent, a despot in the making. could you tell me your name in case you ever decide to run for government so I can make sure I vote against you.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
1. So do the Americans, so do the Labour party, so do the Israeli's, so did Malcom X, the founding father, Winston Churchill, so did Ho Chi Minh, so did Hitler, so did Nelson Mandela, Lenin, Orwell, JFK, Truman. It's a broad political consensus that violence has to be used when there is no other option. I'm not saying it's right but for you to speak as if violence never works is not true and to say it is unique to a few madmen is not true either. (All these peopel used it in the context of political ends)

War is just an extension of diplomacy, so you should care about their motives because for every Osama bin Laden there is an Xanana (East Timorese freedom fighter) or Michael Collins.

the UN happens to not be the occupying power though. I would be more willing to accept your argument here if they had struck directly against the US, but they didn't, they struck against an organisation that if anything, that was attempting to mediate and bring some order to the country.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
It's a broad political consensus that violence has to be used when there is no other option. I'm not saying it's right but for you to speak as if violence never works is not true and to say it is unique to a few madmen is not true either. (All these peopel used it in the context of political ends)

When I said 'violence' I meant individual violence; war is a different issue, and can be justified in some circumstances (Almost all of them being defensive ones.)

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
War is just an extension of diplomacy,

War is an admission of the failure of diplomacy, or a state's inability or unwilligness to use it properly.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
so you should care about their motives because for every Osama bin Laden there is an Xanana (East Timorese freedom fighter) or Michael Collins.

I don't know how exactly this folows on from the previous statement.

P.S, raising the standard of living, education, etc and brinbging in a non-violent polity is the only way to defeat terrorism in the long term.

[plasmas_arms]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

War is just an extension of diplomacy

I hope that you didnt just deliberately quote the Mentally unstable sub captain from 'Crimson tide' .

[plasmas_arms]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
He quoted Tsung tsu.

sun zu, great strategist/tactician but not the best source for geo-political advice.



Is that particular quote in the art of war? or some other source?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
But terrorists like George Bush, Tony Blair and company already have a high level of education and high standard of living, so how stop their acts of terror?

I don't consider them to be terrorists, but the actions of states within the international arena is a different issue to the socio-economic prevention of individual terrorism.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
So whilst you dispise indivdual violence, you don't mind collective violence?

No, collective defence, actually.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
WHat an odd stance, so how can an indivdual defend himself against oppression from the majority?

Through a Liberal Democratic aparatus, etc?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
It must make life very easy for you to be always on the side of the powerful.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I think you are a little naive about diplomacy if you think that war is always the last resort.

If you'd actually read what I said, I didn't actually say that.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
It generally fits in with my view that basically most wars are for political ends

Errr, what else could they be for?

War is by definition a military-political activity.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Essentially the US behaves like a gangster in international relations.

Not always.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
The most recent outrage being the doctinre in a preventive (not pre-emptive) attack ie that it's OK to attack anyone who one day be a threat to their position of global dominance.

heh, when was Iraq ever going to be a threat to The US' dominance?

(Your analysis also completely ignores the fact that global position is also increasingly based on economic, not military strength, and the strongest states both economically and militarily are The US's closest allies.)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
3. That would be the collective defence of flying over to another country which was absolutely no threat and bombing the crap out of it, otherwise known as attack by the uninformed masses.

Er, no.

When did I say I supported the war? Show me where.


Would you please, please, please, stop pre-supposing my opinions on matters. It shows a total inability to debate properly and act maturely.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
but all i've heard from you is the West is great,

All you've heard from me is that I think a lot of what you post is nonsense. The rest is complete supposition by you.

Again, you are suffering from 'Person arguing against me = obviously person embodying list of things I am polarised against.'

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
War is not the failure of diplomacy, not getting what you want is the failure of diplomacy.

"War is an admission of the failure of diplomacy, or a state's inability or unwilligness to use it properly."

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I would like to hear some example of when they haven't behaved that way. For my part I would say that working backwards we have the illegal bombing of Iraq, the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, the illegal bombing of the Sudan,

For a Marxist, you are concerned to an extraordinary degree with the technical illegality of actions rather than the underlying motivations and currents.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
.... etc.

Let's just say I firmly believe many of those actions were totally misguided, and some of them were justified. The realpolitik decisions to fund anti-Communists, whatever their political or moral beliefs were particularly idiotic.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
3. Well that was the justification given. The fact that it was a spurious justification at best only serves my point.

I thought it was part of your argument regarding why Iraq was invaded.

And it wasn't actually; the justification from Bush was based on security grounds, not grounds of international stature.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I didn't say you supported the war. You said Collective Defence and i pointed out that defence wasn't what the West was doing, it was attacking countries.

Please, don't lie.

Your responded to my post with a retort, the premise of which was obviously that I supported the Iraq war, and therefore there was an anomaly between my belief in collective security and said war.

There was no reason to bring the west into the equation; I hadn't mentioned it, and you didn't until you had to justify your original blunder through a supremely tenuous argument.

If you feel the need to descend to this level in debate, then I pity you.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
So you see no one accusing anyone of war supporting there sorry. Just pointing out that your "collective defence" is my terrorist attack.

It's not my 'collective defence', though, is it? This is my point.

It isn't even anybody's collective defence. It was neither defensive, and it sure as hell wasn't collective.

In fact, it went against every aspect of the notion of collective defence/security: collective action, action through international institutions, consensus, etc.

You may possibly be suffering from amnesia: I said 'I believe in collective defense/security'

You then asked a purely rhetorical question allong the lines of 'Ah, you mean the nasty hateful evil imperialist collective defense of the Iraq war?'

Thus, the obvious suppostion that I favoured such an action.

If you don't know what the relevant terms mean, which you obviously don't, then look them up, for god's sake.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Eh, thats what I said. I said;

Responding to 'Security Issues' is different from responding to threats to one's predominance. They are not mutually inclusive.

Iraq might pose a danger, but it might not pose a serious challenge, etc.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
i think it might help your case if you outline exactly where you do stand on the war, the reconstruction, the Labour and Bush governments and Marxism, rather then accusing me of making assumptions which I can only draw from what you say after all.

Frankly, I don't have the time nor the inclination to fully outline my positions on all those things; I have given my full opinions on most of them from time to time. I suggest you simply be more attentive in future.

Also, if you make ridiculous assumptions regarding my views, as you do, this is hardly my fault. Respond to what I say calmy and sensibly, instead of acting like a bull on heat.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I deal with journalists all day, you have nothing on them for annoyance factor.

I get this a lot on internet forums; people who can't debate, are ignorant about what they try to debate, and can't even coherently and cogently present their half-arguments in a logical fashion when they try, let alone respond to other people's. They then have to subsequently resort to dirty tricks as a result of their inadequacies.

As for you being a liar; the facts are here. I let people decide for themselves.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

I deal with journalists all day, you have nothing on them for annoyance factor.

In what way do you deal with journalists all day? Are you their secretary? Are you a PR guy for a major corporation or government? Do you mean that you read newspapers all day and watch televised news all night? How exactly do you deal with journalist all day?

[plasmas_arms]

Originally posted by Texan
In what way do you deal with journalists all day? Are you their secretary? Are you a PR guy for a major corporation or government? Do you mean that you read newspapers all day and watch televised news all night? How exactly do you deal with journalist all day?

Maybe he is in the US Military and just shoots them.





Someone had to say it.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
MM: comments about dirty tricks and lying, i think you are looking for a way out of an argument you lost a long time ago.

Ha!

The 'argument' never got off the ground. The fact that you have claimed a 'victory' (How exactly can one 'win' a debate?) when only half of your responses in this thread to me were engaged in any serious argument highlights a certain level of denial.

The fact that you completely fail to consider the idea that I have widely read many Marxist texts, and rejected them just shows how smug, self-confident and arrogant you are, and how unwilling you are to listen to others' opinions, and, by extension, debate with them properly. The fact that you believe such Marxist texts would be instantly somehow 'revelatory' to all who read them highlights another interesting aspect of your outlook.

What makes you so damn sure you're any better or worse than me in respect of your opinions?

Your whole set of responses to me in this thread have been punctuated by a total, absolute belief in your own moral rectitude, and a belief in my intellectual inferiority and lack of breadth of general learning.

Such as:

"please spare us your tabloid style pronouncements"

etc.



I am not the person who needs to widen their horizons.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I work in a Press Office for my sins.

I also work in a press office. I was hoping you would shed a little more light on how you work with the press every day. In which press office do you work?

I work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville in good ol' Alabama.

You?

[queball]

Searching for "realpolitik" shows 6 posts by MM, 2 posts quoting MM, and 1 random post by MrL_JaKiri.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by queball
Searching for "realpolitik" shows 6 posts by MM, 2 posts quoting MM, and 1 random post by MrL_JaKiri.

Fascinating.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Texan
I also work in a press office. I was hoping you would shed a little more light on how you work with the press every day. In which press office do you work?

I work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville in good ol' Alabama.

You?

is this some sort of epenis thing?

[Texan]

Originally posted by Nusselt
is this some sort of epenis thing?

No. Just curiosity.