Salaam,
I was wondering with all that is happening in Iraq how do you guys feel about this....Do you consider these guys terrorists or people defending their homeland? Is it right that the US jails or kills anyone who is sympathetic to the "insurgents" cause? Do you guys think that maybe some of these guys might have been innocent? Dont you think that this is causing more Anti-US feelings in the region which in turn creates more terrorists?.....thanks for your responses.....peace


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=B1MNBK4HXSUD0CRBAE0CF EY?type=topNews&storyID=5897993

i think the idea behind us motives is that eventually the terrorists will break down, or at least go into remission. When these countries back out due to people being held, it just solidifies the terrorist cause. it makes them feel as though they can do this to anyone. so the idea is to remain steadfast in your decision and not waiver, leaving your troops in there. :m:

As to you question, I do not believe all of the Iraqis fighting back are terrorists. If they are attacking U.S. targets and some innocent Iraqis are killed, its one thing. Deliberately attacking the civilian population is another. Those guerrillas who chose to fight American soldiers should be treated with the Geneva Convention rules and are soldiers themselves. Those attacking civilians can be detained indefinately, and treated with far less courtesies.

Many of these people, of course, are innocent. You have to remember, though, that this is not the police running a criminal investigation, they are fighting a war. It is impossible to fight a war without getting some innocent people hurt. Considering an entire city would be firebombed in WWII, I think the U.S. soldiers have behaved themselves well.

Finally I do feel this has stoked the flames of an already growing fire and was completely unnecessary. I do feel, however, that the U.S. must stay until the job is done, to avoid complete disaster. I only hope that in time a goverment will be formed that its people will be able to trust.

Salaam,
I was wondering with all that is happening in Iraq how do you guys feel about this....Do you consider these guys terrorists or people defending their homeland? Is it right that the US jails or kills anyone who is sympathetic to the "insurgents" cause? Do you guys think that maybe some of these guys might have been innocent? Dont you think that this is causing more Anti-US feelings in the region which in turn creates more terrorists?.....thanks for your responses.....peace


Great article Surrender. Lets reverse the senerio in a hypothical.

1) a large % ---probably the majority of americans are opposed to our presence in iraq and with our current executive branch in general...this is parallel to Iraq's view of Hussein....except of course Hussein was a dictator but this is just a hypothical.

2) We have more well over 100 miltiant groups that are independant with groups in most is not all states. Tim McVay was heavily involved with militia's and was the fella that made the michigan militia famous. This is not unlike Iraq's groups...they are miltiant in their response and are fuses ready to ingite if their is a war.

The things that are different are:

1) We are the more powerful country by far

2) The largest relgious persuasion in the US is Christanity and the largest in Iraq is Islamic which are enemies and have been for a long, long time.

3) We invaded them but not vice versa.

Lets, in our hypothical reverse # 2 and three in our differnces. In our pretend senerio lets make them the more powerful and the invaders and as a result (which is very likely) the militias that operate illegally here in the US but are our neighbors and such go active and fight the insurgency.

Are they terrorists or defender's of their homeland? It is a hard call. Even if you want to dictor out your uncle who was in a militia was killed by invaders and your church which you went to for years was hit by a bomb killing your fellow church goers.

Really this war and this killing is making more problems than it is solving. And the excuse of ridding Iraq of Hussein is mute at this point cause as of today, at this moment in time he is out of power permantly.

I content that you cannot isolate your neighbors irregardless of their political beliefs and the collateral damage has been enormous in this war.

i think the idea behind us motives is that eventually the terrorists will break down, or at least go into remission. When these countries back out due to people being held, it just solidifies the terrorist cause. it makes them feel as though they can do this to anyone. so the idea is to remain steadfast in your decision and not waiver, leaving your troops in there. :m:


I think that this is also probably the logic that the US is using which is kinda tragic in a way. You see in Arab culture(i used to live there) when someone in your family is murdered unjustly(i know this is in the eye of the beholder) it becomes the obligation of the entire family to avenge that death. So killing 300 people caused how many more "terrorists"? Thats why this strategy will never work....salaam

Finally I do feel this has stoked the flames of an already growing fire and was completely unnecessary. I do feel, however, that the U.S. must stay until the job is done, to avoid complete disaster. I only hope that in time a goverment will be formed that its people will be able to trust.[/QUOTE]


Do you really think though that ANY goverment or leader that is chosen as long as the US is there the people will trust? Supose they elect Al-Sadr or someone like him to be President will the US stand for that?wouldnt it be hypocritcal not to?


Many of these people, of course, are innocent. You have to remember, though, that this is not the police running a criminal investigation, they are fighting a war. It is impossible to fight a war without getting some innocent people hurt


Thats why war should always be the LAST resort and a war of preemption is always wrong....suppose N.Korea would have taken a pre-emptive strategy towards the US?They have had more reason to do so than the US/Iraq war. Suppose Pakistian/India would have taken that stance? etc etc etc.....



I do not believe all of the Iraqis fighting back are terrorists. If they are attacking U.S. targets and some innocent Iraqis are killed, its one thing. Deliberately attacking the civilian population is another. Those guerrillas who chose to fight American soldiers should be treated with the Geneva Convention rules and are soldiers themselves. Those attacking civilians can be detained indefinately, and treated with far less courtesies.


In who's eyes does it matter whether their death was deliberate or not? Drunk Drivers dont intentionally drive trying to kill people yet when they do they face harsh penelties right? How about the US soldiers who break Geneva Conventions? should they face international courts? if not why? shouldnt everybody?.....salaam

"Thats why war should always be the LAST resort and a war of preemption is always wrong....suppose N.Korea would have taken a pre-emptive strategy towards the US?", surenderer

I cannot disagree with you that the war was started for foolish reasons. If Sadaam was not a threat to the U.S., which he was not, than there is no justifiable reason to attack. I disagreed with the war from the start and still do. My point is, rather, what would happen if the U.S. left now? The Kurds would create their own territory to the north, causing Turkey to invade. The Sh'iite population would create its own state, guided by Iran, with a constant Sunni insurgency. It would be a blood bath. I cannot see how this is better than american occupation for the Iraqi people. I said it is my hope that a government by the U.S. eventually would be accepted, but I feel it is unlikely and a bloodbath will be the eventual result.

"In who's eyes does it matter whether their death was deliberate or not? Drunk Drivers dont intentionally drive trying to kill people yet when they do they face harsh penalties right?", surenderer

Actually in law there is a huge difference between intent and no intent. The drunk driver senario is irrelevant because the driver shows negligence. He is drunk, and is not considering the consequences of the action. But even in this circumstance the driver would receive far less punishment than an intentional murder. A better example would be a police officer shooting at a suspect in order to protect himself and hitting an bystander by accident. If he was negligent by firing near a crowd, than yes he is punishable. If he chose correctly to defend himself, however, than no punishment can be given. This is again criminal law, though, which cannot be applied to war. In war, some innocent lose of life is impossible to avoid. I cannot argue the fact that the U.S. should not be their, but it should'nt. I can only give you what I feel is best for the Iraqis now.

surenderer, welcome to sciforums
to your initial question -
i think al-Sadr and his followers may believe that they're trying to "liberate" Iraq, however they have no support from al-Sistani, the main Shia leader, even less support from the Iraqi population, and absolutely no support from the Iraqi government.

his militia has been branded illegal by the US, and when sovereignty was passed, the Iraqi gov't has kept that decision. al-Sadr is still a fugitive for killing a rival Shia cleric, and his militia (or any militia other than the Iraqi governmental apparatuses) is still illegal. (yes, there's the sensitive issue of Peshmerga, but that's a whole different story. and Peshmerga is not attacking anybody)

those [allegedly] 300 people who were killed (al-Sadr claims it's actually 36, while Najaf's mayor says it's 400), they had many roles in life: a husband, a father, a brother, a son, a member in an illegal militia, an insurgent, a guerilla, an anti-government terrorist, a militant with weapons who'se firing on government and US forces. some of these roles are fine, but others are not. you pay the price for the things you do and the roles you decide to play.

maybe it's creating anti-US feelings among some, maybe it's not.
maybe it's creating anti-al-Sadr feelings for bringing only death and destruction with his policies, maybe it's not.

are there "innocent" people who were killed? i hope not, but it's possible.
i wonder though, do you think there were any innocent people killed in all the recent Baghdad bombings of police recruiting centers and street-markets?

i think al-Sadr and his followers may believe that they're trying to "liberate" Iraq, however they have no support from al-Sistani, the main Shia leader, even less support from the Iraqi population, and absolutely no support from the Iraqi government.

It is true that Al-Sistani is not a friend of Al-Sadr, but there is a fundamental weakness in the Shi’a at this very moment, Al-Sistani has gone to London for emergency heart surgery. I’d vouch to say that the recent clashes are to bring the popularity of Al-Sadr even higher, considering that the US is playing in messy ground in Najaf. But to say that Al-Sadr has little support from the Iraqi population is largely hubris. You cannot have a growing militia without support, and there are real fears of a renewed and larger Shi’s insurgency that would make the Sunni Triangle look like a playground in comparison. Most Iraqi’s want the US out, and don’t like this occupation and since the interim government is not doing that job many are looking to more radical measures. Al-Sistani plan is better, but it is not yielding results, the US forces are still there, there haven’t been elections as he demanded the Shi’a are getting restless. If the Shi’a rise up in a general insurgency Iraq’s future looks sealed. For America’s sake I hope she doesn’t destroy any mosque in Najaf…oh my!

i wonder though, do you think there were any innocent people killed in all the recent Baghdad bombings of police recruiting centers and street-markets?

You are confusing two separate wars in Iraq, those attacks are done by Ansar-Al-Islam types not the Shi’a. There are many factions in Iraq, there isn’t one monolithic insurgency so let’s not confuse the whole mess in Iraq.

surenderer, welcome to sciforums
to your initial question -
i think al-Sadr and his followers may believe that they're trying to "liberate" Iraq, however they have no support from al-Sistani, the main Shia leader, even less support from the Iraqi population, and absolutely no support from the Iraqi government.

his militia has been branded illegal by the US, and when sovereignty was passed, the Iraqi gov't has kept that decision. al-Sadr is still a fugitive for killing a rival Shia cleric, and his militia (or any militia other than the Iraqi governmental apparatuses) is still illegal. (yes, there's the sensitive issue of Peshmerga, but that's a whole different story. and Peshmerga is not attacking anybody)

those [allegedly] 300 people who were killed (al-Sadr claims it's actually 36, while Najaf's mayor says it's 400), they had many roles in life: a husband, a father, a brother, a son, a member in an illegal militia, an insurgent, a guerilla, an anti-government terrorist, a militant with weapons who'se firing on government and US forces. some of these roles are fine, but others are not. you pay the price for the things you do and the roles you decide to play.

maybe it's creating anti-US feelings among some, maybe it's not.
maybe it's creating anti-al-Sadr feelings for bringing only death and destruction with his policies, maybe it's not.

are there "innocent" people who were killed? i hope not, but it's possible.
i wonder though, do you think there were any innocent people killed in all the recent Baghdad bombings of police recruiting centers and street-markets?




wonder though, do you think there were any innocent people killed in all the recent Baghdad bombings of police recruiting centers and street-markets?[/



Yes I think their deaths are tragedys because they are only trying to get jobs to feed their families(the policeman) and they get branded as "uncle toms" by the insurgencey. I do wonder however if we(USA) were invaded and american citizens lined up to help join the invading nations army what our response as americans would be :confused:



i think al-Sadr and his followers may believe that they're trying to "liberate" Iraq, however they have no support from al-Sistani, the main Shia leader, even less support from the Iraqi population, and absolutely no support from the Iraqi government


The one thing to remember about Al-Sadr(which im sure alotta iraqi's remember) is that the reason he is famous is because he ran a little nickel and dime newspaper which reported anti-US actions(some true some probably untrue) which the US shut down all the while claiming to set up a democracy with free speech. Surely his newspaper couldnt have been shut down for publishing Lies could it?(i remember how the press all lied about the Jessica Lynch story) If one thing i have learned is that you can pretty much print anything you want all you have to say is that"sources close to" or some phrase like that.....salaam


Oh thnx for the welcome :)

Salaam,
I was wondering with all that is happening in Iraq how do you guys feel about this....Do you consider these guys terrorists or people defending their homeland? Is it right that the US jails or kills anyone who is sympathetic to the "insurgents" cause? Do you guys think that maybe some of these guys might have been innocent? Dont you think that this is causing more Anti-US feelings in the region which in turn creates more terrorists?.....thanks for your responses.....peace

I think that some of the insurgents in Iraq may not even be Iraqi's but members from other States who are now termed terrorists with their own agenda. The result is that they are not only killing Americans, but mostly innocent Iraqi civilians. While some may be innocent and simply caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, those fighters caught need to be charged and treated according to the Geneva Convention, and most importantly, charged by the Iraqi Government and not the US. The mere presence of the US in the region is guaranteed to ensure anti-US sentiments, and some of their actions have furthered this resentment and yes, as you have stated, I'm sure that many young Arabs feel such resentment that they are willing to become terrorists to expel the US forces.

As to you question, I do not believe all of the Iraqis fighting back are terrorists. If they are attacking U.S. targets and some innocent Iraqis are killed, its one thing. Deliberately attacking the civilian population is another. Those guerrillas who chose to fight American soldiers should be treated with the Geneva Convention rules and are soldiers themselves. Those attacking civilians can be detained indefinately, and treated with far less courtesies.
They're not protected under any of the Geneva Conventions, dude. Only uniformed lawful combatants are.

surenderer
Apt name.

Sistani has left the area and left us to his preference.

Enough said.

Apt name.

Sistani has left the area and left us to his preference.

Enough said.




Are you reffering to Grand Ayatullah Sayyid Ali Husayni Sistani? Whats that got to do with me? And even more important the subject which I brought up?I have made no secret to my religion


Enough said

Not really....Salaam