[Frank Carbonni]

I would like to know your opinions of the various Iraqi Resistance groups and fighters operating in Iraq. Do you view them as brave guerrillas fighting an aggressive occupation or brutal zealots who wish to take over once the US is out of Iraq? Or are you of the opinion that it doesn't matter because ending US occupation or pursuing nation interests are more important than the motives and methods behind the Resistance?

[Kenadian_2006]

I think, and I may be wrong, that it is as vastly different as it is in Afghanistan. There is Al Qaeda, there are obviously those that believe they are fighting evil invaders and occupiers, there are those that came from other countries to fight some sort of holy war, there are even mercenaries in Afghanistan being employed by the Taliban. I really don't think it is one monolithic faction. As is easily demonstrated by the factious nature of the Iraqi government, death squads and sectarian violence.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 15 November 2007 - 12:42 PM

[Smallfrog]

Those attacking Coalition troops may be viewed as freedom fighters.

Those attacking civilian's may be considered sub-human animals.

[cjav0]

Define iraqi resistance.. there is no Iraqi resistance.. there are dozen if not hundreds of independent groups with different motives. There is no 'resistance' there are armed group some supporting the Americans some indifferent some hate them. There are groups that hate the Iraqi government groups that like them groups that just rob them because its convenient. Groups fighting groups. Everyone is fighting everyone in Iraq. sunni vs shiite. gov vs sunni vs americans vs shiite vs americans vs police vs sunni .. etc..

[Xiao Weng]

It's of my opinion that the majority of 'resistance' groups in Iraq are there simply because the area is unstable. The Iraqi population has realized that if the resistance groups aren't attacking Americans, they're attacking other Iraqis, be they Sunni or Shi'ite, in the continuation of a blood feud that started around the time Muhammad died.

Something about succession. I'm not totally up to date on Muslim history, my apologies.

Simply put, the resistance is there because there isn't a strong presence to put them down. The infidel is the first to go, then it will be back to that argument between the sects once the Coalition decides it's had enough and leaves for pastures less brown.

The article by the Onion that stated the Iraqis were gleefully arming themselves for independence was more true than they realized.

[BartSimpson]

The silly damn fools in Iraq don't realize that if they simply STOP FIGHTING then the USA will no longer be able to justify staying there and will have to leave and THEN they can resume killing each other without interference from the USA.

Of course, that requires them to use their brains and to THINK which is a skill that is not taught in the madrassas these fools are "educated" in.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Most are crazy Religious nutcases, some are "good", I suppose and fighting to get rid of who they see as occupiers, but the majority of them are pretty much Nationalistic or Religious... or both.

[Flame Darkfire]

Xiao Weng, on Nov 15 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

Something about succession. I'm not totally up to date on Muslim history, my apologies.

Yeah, some say it should be his nephew, some his best friend. I forget which side favors who though.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

FlameDarkfire, on Nov 15 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

Yeah, some say it should be his nephew, some his best friend. I forget which side favors who though.

Shittes say his cousin should have been the successor... and Sunnis believe some guy was to be his successor... And this led to a split which to this day seperates Muslims... of course there are also several smaller sects of Islam, it's not only Shiites and Sunnis, just the vast majority are one of the two, personally I like Shiites far more than Sunnis... Sunnis are normally the more radical kind, of course Iran shows a different image but Iran is still better than Saudi Arabia, I think...

[Azaghul]

Some are misguided nationalists who oppose us but don't attack civilians or other Iraqis. I oppose them but don't think they have evil motives. Others are religious extremists who kill indiscriminately. What they do is evil. And their are all sorts of groups in between those two.

Basically, I'm opposed to all of them but some are much, much worse than others.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Azaghul, on Nov 15 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

Some are misguided nationalists who oppose us but don't attack civilians or other Iraqis. I oppose them but don't think they have evil motives. Others are religious extremists who kill indiscriminately. What they do is evil. And their are all sorts of groups in between those two.

Basically, I'm opposed to all of them but some are much, much worse than others.

The problem is if the US were occupied by say the old Soviet Union... hypothetically, wouldn't there be countless resistance movements? Including ones that even harm their own innocent people to try to defeat the occupiers? Of course that would not be good in anyway and I agree with you that one should not support them, but I can see why the nationalists are doing what they are... if my nation where attacked and conquered by some strange people who killed my uncle in an "accident" then I too would hate them...

[Starfox101]

Deniz Baykal, on Nov 16 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

The problem is if the US were occupied by say the old Soviet Union... hypothetically, wouldn't there be countless resistance movements? Including ones that even harm their own innocent people to try to defeat the occupiers? Of course that would not be good in anyway and I agree with you that one should not support them, but I can see why the nationalists are doing what they are... if my nation where attacked and conquered by some strange people who killed my uncle in an "accident" then I too would hate them...

I am sure if the US were occupied there would be a United front to liberate the country. Iraq is just a free for all to gain power for themselves, motivated by religious and racial means.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Starfox101, on Nov 15 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

I am sure if the US were occupied there would be a United front to liberate the country. Iraq is just a free for all to gain power for themselves, motivated by religious and racial means.

Perhaps, but there could be several groups as well... how can you be sure only one group will unite all the resisters?

But yeah most of the groups in Iraq are doing it for religious or Nationalistic reasons...

[Azaghul]

Deniz Baykal, on Nov 15 2007, 07:35 PM, said:

The problem is if the US were occupied by say the old Soviet Union... hypothetically, wouldn't there be countless resistance movements? Including ones that even harm their own innocent people to try to defeat the occupiers? Of course that would not be good in anyway and I agree with you that one should not support them, but I can see why the nationalists are doing what they are... if my nation where attacked and conquered by some strange people who killed my uncle in an "accident" then I too would hate them...

I understand the motive. That's why I say its misguided, as it is not helping their nation or going to get us out faster.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Azaghul, on Nov 15 2007, 08:26 PM, said:

I understand the motive. That's why I say its misguided, as it is not helping their nation or going to get us out faster.

Oh okay, but how will you tell the people over there that?

Also Americans would not just sit idly by if they were occupied, they would kill until the end, no matter if it gets the occupiers out faster or not.

[Mariategui]

BartSimpson, on Nov 15 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

The silly damn fools in Iraq don't realize that if they simply STOP FIGHTING then the USA will no longer be able to justify staying there and will have to leave and THEN they can resume killing each other without interference from the USA.

Of course, that requires them to use their brains and to THINK which is a skill that is not taught in the madrassas these fools are "educated" in.

THe US is not there because of trying to resolve conflict, the US is trying to impose its rule on Iraq.

[SilverHawk]

I don't see that line of thought. Anyway, Attacks on US Troops and Iraqi Civilians has dropped 70% (Including Deathes) since last year. People over there finally see we aren't there to take anything from them or impose anything upon them and the resistence elements see this as well, focusing their attention more on Terrorist Elements and Death Squads.

[ali akbar mind]

Quote

The silly damn fools in Iraq don't realize that if they simply STOP FIGHTING then the USA will no longer be able to justify staying there and will have to leave and THEN they can resume killing each other without interference from the USA.

Of course, that requires them to use their brains and to THINK which is a skill that is not taught in the madrassas these fools are "educated" in.

The US isn't going anywhere.


You think once the fighting stops that America is packing up and going home??

The United States will build military bases in Iraq, and be a presence in that country for a very long time after the official withdrawal.

[Kenadian_2006]

ali akbar mind, on Nov 16 2007, 01:25 AM, said:

The US isn't going anywhere.


You think once the fighting stops that America is packing up and going home??

The United States will build military bases in Iraq, and be a presence in that country for a very long time after the official withdrawal.

Actually, they already are building permanent bases; 14 of them, last I recall.

[bjaml]

Can I just point out that it's not just the US out in Iraq. It may be a minor point to you, but to me as a British Serviceman and my buddies who are out there right now getting shelled and shot at daily, it's a touch insensitive to read of 'US occupation' 'US is not there because...' 'US isnt going anywhere' US this, US that.

Only one contributor to this debate so far has used the term 'coalition'.