We invaded Iraq....

[TaranT]

...As the fall of 2003 approaches, Iraq is two battlefields and one birthplace. On one battlefield, the venomous regime of Saddam Hussein dies a slow, painful and dangerous death....

The second battlefield is a large "strategic" ambush, and the enemy entering the kill zone still hasn't quite figured it out. From an American perspective that presents an opportunity, an opportunity with risks, but one with huge potential payoffs.

In Iraq, America is ambushing al-Qaida and tag-along jihadis powered by the fantasy ideology of Islamo-fascism.

The ambush was never completely secret. In a column from January of this year, I wrote: "The massive American build-up around Iraq serves as a baited trap that al-Qaida cannot ignore. Failure to react to the pending American attack would demonstrate al-Qaida's impotence. For the sake of their own reputation (as well as any notion of divine sanction), al-Qaida's cadres must show CNN and Al Jazeera they are still capable of dramatic endeavor. This ain't theory. Al-Qaida's leaders and fighters know it, and the rats are coming out of their alleys."

Astute observers have dubbed America's ambush the "flypaper strategy."

On 9/11, al-Qaida chose the battlefields: New York and Washington. American leaders have decided it's better to fight terrorists "over there" than "over here." So our soldiers slug it out in the Sunni Triangle instead of Seattle. U.S. and British soldiers, and increasingly Iraqi police, are engaged in this fight. It's tough. In eight to 10 months, we'll know if it worked. Spies "walk back the cat." Jihadis entering Iraq connect back to terror cliques in rogue states. America intends to make excellent political and military use of the jihadis' "intelligence trail."

For real freedom fighters, Iraq's two battlefields are one common struggle. Occasionally reporters glimpse al-Qaida's and Saddam's direct links...However, the division between secular and religious anti-American terrorists is...a "distinction without substance." Saddam's Baath loyalists and bin Laden-inspired Islamo-fascists always understood politically free people were their common foe....

source

[Simpi]

It's really rather easy to classify, in my opinion. The people shooting at our troops could be classified as resistance fighters. Their ideology, correct or not, doesn't matter. They are fighting against recognized military forces occupying and controlling their country. I'd do the same thing if a military force invaded the US - or if our military was turned against the US populace.

Some of them are terrorists, in that their actions are designed to create terror and discord (witness the UN bombing), some are saboteurs (such as the ones who mess with the phone, water, and powerlines), but most could be classified as resistance groups.

As for Attac, whatever makes you feel significant and good, I guess :roll: . Doesn't look like anything special beyond a standard anti-globalism wah wah group, though.

Good definitions all around. Being in Attac is not a penis extension for me, (and you must know my cynical attitude by now, so I won't expect any single organisation to save the world anymore) I just feel they are doing good work raising a public awareness about it.

Besides, in your previous posts you did not appear too keen on globalisation/world governement either http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... highlight= so I believe our agendas match on some levels.

But this is steering too far from the original subject, so we can continue this on other thread if necessary.

[Simpi]

...As the fall of 2003 approaches, Iraq is two battlefields and one birthplace. On one battlefield, the venomous regime of Saddam Hussein dies a slow, painful and dangerous death....

Birthplace of what? Pax Americana? That article is one of worst pieces of propaganda I have ever seen.

[kthulhu]

Nah, I'm not too keen on globalization, really. World economic progress, yes, but only if it can be CREATED LOCALLY, not transferred from elsewhere.

Like all people, we see the same and yet differently, I suppose.

Anyhow, this Iraq mess sucks. Still no substantial WMD finds, our boys are still getting shot at, and the country now has to deal with the religious fundamentalists and their wishes for another piece of shit theocracy, while the secular government is struggling to gain influence. At least Saddam Hussein kept the government pretty free of Islamic influence . I forget where I read it, but Saddam Hussein apparently classified Osama bin Laden as an enemy of the Iraqi state, to boot.

We should've supported the Iraqis right after first Gulf War. And the Iraqis should've risen up against Saddam if they were tired of his rule. They have SKS rifles. They have AK-47s. You can't even own those legally in California, Hawaii, or New York City!

But I guess stability and the devil you know, no matter how much of a devil he is, is better than disorder and the devil you don't. And in some ways, I can understand that.

[Simpi]

Nah, I'm not too keen on globalization, really. World economic progress, yes, but only if it can be CREATED LOCALLY, not transferred from elsewhere.

Like all people, we see the same and yet differently, I suppose.

Anyhow, this Iraq mess sucks. Still no substantial WMD finds, our boys are still getting shot at, and the country now has to deal with the religious fundamentalists and their wishes for another piece of shit theocracy, while the secular government is struggling to gain influence. At least Saddam Hussein kept the government pretty free of Islamic influence :x . I forget where I read it, but Saddam Hussein apparently classified Osama bin Laden as an enemy of the Iraqi state, to boot.

We should've supported the Iraqis right after first Gulf War. And the Iraqis should've risen up against Saddam if they were tired of his rule. They have SKS rifles. They have AK-47s. You can't even own those legally in California, Hawaii, or New York City!

But I guess stability and the devil you know, no matter how much of a devil he is, is better than disorder and the devil you don't. And in some ways, I can understand that.

Yep, Saddam indeed declared Osama his enemy. Religous fanatism is one of the things that could draw enough popular support to bring down his governement.

Then again, if Saddam would have been ousted after first gulf war, what guarantees there still would not be a theocraty in Iraq?

Before the war, only terrorist group that operated in Iraq was an An-sar Islam (or whatever it was called) and they were funded by Iranians. You can find documented proof about it from the pages of Human Rights Watch: www.hrw.org

I think it's very possible that Kurds (who actually have build a pretty ok society in northern Iraq) will declare independence at some point. This will probably cause Turkey to something about it and situation there will become even more complicated.

[kthulhu]

Yeah, I've heard the Kurds have carved out a pretty good niche for themselves. An independent Kurdistan would be a fine thing, really.

[jonmartensen]

...As the fall of 2003 approaches, Iraq is two battlefields and one birthplace. On one battlefield, the venomous regime of Saddam Hussein dies a slow, painful and dangerous death....

Birthplace of what? Pax Americana? That article is one of worst pieces of propaganda I have ever seen.

It is always propaganda when you disagree with it, always.

[Simpi]

It is always propaganda when you disagree with it, always.

I disagreed with BrahRizors earlier opinion but at no point I declared it propaganda, so your argument is wrong.

Perhaps I should just re-phrase my earlier comment and say 'By golly, that really was one honking piece of shitty journalism, don't you think so my good fellow*.' and we are happy.

*just a phrase without any deeper meaning.

[Simpi]

That article also has one very worrying aspect. According to it, one reason for invasion was only to wreck one country further and use it as a battlefield. WMD:s are not mentioned and 'humanitarian reasons' only in few lines.

[jonmartensen]

That article also has one very worrying aspect. According to it, one reason for invasion was only to wreck one country further and use it as a battlefield. WMD:s are not mentioned and 'humanitarian reasons' only in few lines.

But if it is propagand/bull, then what it says bears no weight.