More terrorism...

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    As I've stated earlier, these terrorists will do anything to achieve their objective, even going after civilians. They ARE NOT just targeting military installations.

    I understand people like to "sympathize" their resistance to occupation, but going after innocent civilians is deplorable.

    Point being, these people aren't just "resistance fighters" that want the USA to leave, they are simply terrorists.

    BAGHDAD, Iraq - An explosion at the offices of a Kurdish political party in the northern town of Kirkuk killed four people on Thursday, and officials said a pro-U.S. politician was assassinated in the southern port city of Basra, the latest in a string of attacks against Iraqis who support American efforts in Iraq.

    Jalal Johar, an official with the party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said several other people had been injured in the blast which he attributed to a bomb. All the casualties were civilians, he said.

    The PUK is a group that supports American efforts in Iraq. Party chief Jalal Talabani is the current head of the U.S.-installed Iraqi Governing Council.

    Nobody claimed responsibility, but insurgents have warned they will target anyone who collaborates with occupation authorities.

    In Basra, the Assyrian Democratic Movement said its representative on the municipal council was abducted Tuesday on his way to work. The body of Sargoun Nanou Murado was found on Wednesday, a statement said.

    The Assyrian Democratic Movement, which represents Iraq's Assyrian minority, is represented on the 25-seat Governing Council.

    The assassination is the second this week of people working with coalition authorities in southern Iraq. In the town of Diwaniyah, gunmen on Tuesday killed the education ministry's director general for that province.

    In yet another attack aimed at a U.S. ally, two people were killed late Wednesday when a car bomb exploded outside the home of Sheik Amer Ali Suleiman, a tribal leader in Ramadi, hospital workers said Thursday.

    Suleiman is a leader of the Duleim tribe, one of the largest Sunni Muslim tribes in Iraq. He is a member of the city council and is close to the Americans.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
     
  2. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    As we've discussed before, some of the people commiting violent acts in Iraq are terrorists striking civilian targets, some are guerrillas striking military targets, and some are both. It would be foolish to paint them all with the same brush, and if the occupation army does, it will likely make big mistakes in figuring out how to find them and stop them. Furthermore, labeling them all terrorists precludes any attempt at possible negotiations. You can negotiate with most guerrillas, but almost never with terrorists.
     
  3. lilcountriegal
    Offline

    lilcountriegal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,633
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +59
    The extreme majority of all attacks in Iraq have been carried out by one larger force, all with the same beliefs and goal, to run Americans.

    By this quote, you make it seem like there are two forces running around Iraq, one targeting military, one targeting civilian and pro-USA supporters. It is one large force, targeting whomever they feel the need to shoot, bomb, or blow out of the air to further their cause. That makes them terrorists. Period. Just because one day they blow up a school (and by reference to school, I'm just using an example of a civilian place.. not an actual event) that makes them a terrorist, and the next day they blow a helicopter out of the air targeting military forces making them a guerilla. Once that school was targeted, they become a terrorist plain and simple.. no matter what future objectives may bring.

    Any attempt at possible negotiations ended once they tossed a grenade into a vehicle driving down the road carrying members of our military.
     
  4. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    But we negotiated with the North Vietnamese and they and the Viet Cong did this lots of times. We negotiated with the North Koreans and Chinese and they also tossed a lot of grenades our way. The British negotiated with the IRA and saved a lot of lives on both sides.

    You could be right that for the most part we're facing one enemy. Or we could be facing many different groups with different aims and different means. If we're wrong in our analysis, we're likely going to employ a strategy that will lead to more troops getting killed.

    Given what very little we know of the "enemy" so far we can only talk in terms of individual acts. Some of these acts have been terrorist, some of them have been guerrilla.
     
  5. Sevendogs
    Online

    Sevendogs Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    :) Yes, this is a war without rules and this is how they hurt US troops even more. Everyone blames America first! Bush is not a smart Commander in Chief entering Iraq. He made our troops sitting ducks for terrorists. Our soldiers cannot defend themsleves in Iraq. All Iraqi police force will run away as soon as we leave Iraq. You cannot buy freedom for money, it should be earned by fighting and labor of Iraqi themselves.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Sevendogs,

    With all due respect, you're points of view might be better read and understood if you didn't keep reiterating the very same points in every thread.
     
  7. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    SLC makes an excellent point, it does appear that we are facing multiple groups, we know that multiple armed groups were present in the country prior to the invasion. The point about negotiation is also well taken. If an Iraqi democracy it is going to survive they are going to have to find a way to end the attacks, in all likelyhood, that will mean negotiating with the resistance.
    On the side argument, about what we are calling the terrorist, freedom fighter, resistance movement, gangs of thugs, ad infinitum... it is not worth arguing about. We are occupiers, so I choose that name to reffer to the coalition, some would prefer liberator but Iraq was not under foriegn control prior to the invasion so we didn't really "liberate" them. While you might argue that we liberated them from a dictator, I would be forced to point out that Mr. Bremmers regime is also a Dictatorship (No iraqi ever voted for J. Paul Bremmer).
    After 7 months of rule, GWB called him back to DC and gave him a plan. To appoint an Iraqi oligarchy to rule for several years while a constitution is written and a new government elected. Starting in June, 15 months after we invaded and occupied the country.
    GWB calls this the "fast track", giving significant weight to the critics who claim that their was no plan to "democratize" Iraq prior to the invasion. So much for going in with an exit strategy, eh? Why do they keep Colin Powell in the administration if they don't listen to him?
     

Share This Page