So much for "war on terror" [Archive]

ArrowX

Nov 10th, 2005, 04:30 PM

whats the difference between 3 guys hiding in an alleyway with some grenades or RPGs, then ambushing a army convoy and then booking it down pre specified paths.

Or you just drive a car into a group of people who look important then blow yourself up along with your fellow country-men. The reasoning is because they promise every dipshit they can find, that he will become wealthy and get a herum of virgins once he gets to heaven.

So what if the first plan actually takes some fucking coordination!? These cocks are trying to coast their way to victory, after a somewhat sucsessful first strike.

From their actions I'm only led to beleive that their leaders are fanatical dipshits who think they can wage a guerilla war on their own country and expect the odd bombing in another country to solve all their problems.

I say the US pulls out of iraq and just says, Here you go al queda! its yours, now lest see if YOU can do better!

ziggytrix

Nov 10th, 2005, 07:51 PM

There's a lot of ways one could kill themself. They could grab a loaded gun, charge an army unit, and fight the fighters. They instead choose to take out a wedding party. Not a teribly gutsy move, IMO.

So, if they suicide bomb a military checkpoint they're braver than if they bomb a wedding party? I don't know about that. Saner, maybe? More strategically minded, perhaps, but not any less brave.

Then again the difference between brave and stupid is often just a matter of perspective.

cour·age (kûr'ĭj, kŭr'-) pronunciation
n.

The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

I suppose the strongest arguement against these people's "bravery" would be that they often are following someone else's orders, hitting someone else's target, or whatever. But really, I think there is a fallacy in equating all forms of bravery with honor, and saying that since they lack honor, that they are cowards.

I really don't have any clue why they would blow up a wedding party, rather than a military target, unless they think one is more effective than the other. Who's to say what they think they're acheiving? But I do think it takes a great deal of resolve for some jerk to blow himself to bits for some stupid fucking cause.

http://margotbworldnews.com/2005July/July16/iraq2.jpg
Brave or stupid?

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/immolationBhuddistMonkQuicVanDocVietnam1963.jpg
Brave or stupid?

http://fumbling.com/blog/suicide-booth.jpg
Brave or stupid? (see, they aren't ALL hard questions)

Geggy

Nov 11th, 2005, 07:29 AM

There's been rumors flying over the internet that Al Qaeda is the US government's household product name.

The explosions happened at US hotels and vast majority of muslims were killed. Israelis were warned to stay out of these hotels. Few articles indicated that bombs were planted in the ceilings. This happened the day after the republicans were destroyed in the election. Is this the work of US/Israel? Was this a stunt by bush administration to boost public support for war on terror? Is george bush desperately looking for approval from daddy bush? Only time will tell.

Kellychaos...no one ever called me gegg-meister...why?? :(

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 11th, 2005, 09:18 AM

I really don't have any clue why they would blow up a wedding party, rather than a military target, unless they think one is more effective than the other. Who's to say what they think they're acheiving? But I do think it takes a great deal of resolve for some jerk to blow himself to bits for some stupid fucking cause.

But what if they truly believe that that one agonizing moment will lead to an eternity of joy and pleasure? is that bravery?

I think the reason you target a weding party rather than a military post is because you're looking for two different results that way. You can't possibly beat the U.S. military in a head on battle, so you target the people in that nation, hoping that the masses will eventually turn on our presence there.

It's a tactic similar to that used in Israel, and I think it's cowardly. Blowing yourself up outside a military post may not be the same, that seems to me more like guerilla warfare.

ziggytrix

Nov 11th, 2005, 09:33 AM

Either way, it's still insane.

sadie

Nov 11th, 2005, 10:12 AM

scully said, maybe true faith is a form of insanity. :O

Guildencrantz

Nov 11th, 2005, 09:17 PM

I don't recall ever hearing german or japanese suicide bombers called cowerds. Is this really any diffaren? In my opinion if you are calling the "terrorist" cowards, then in most cases, you are ignorant of the situation.

My suggestion is do some reserch for yourself before you buy into the media's crap, and write them off as cowards just because someone in a suit and tie said so.

Find out for for yourself that they are really cowards.

Just because it's on tv dose not make it true.

Guildencrantz

Nov 11th, 2005, 09:23 PM

Damn. that sounds kind of suscpicious, I would also like to state that I in no way support such religous fanaticism as that of al qaeda. My point here is that It is easy to call them cowards if you look at it from just one angle.

Is "fanatacism" a word?

Rosenstern

Nov 11th, 2005, 10:04 PM

I don't recall ever hearing german or japanese suicide bombers called cowerds.

I've heard that from many, many people, Guil. Except they spelled it right. Is some research in order for you?

Guildencrantz

Nov 11th, 2005, 11:18 PM

Fuckin Bite me Bitch ass

Besides you Know I live in a Hole

kellychaos

Nov 12th, 2005, 11:10 AM

This kind of reminds of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, the effects were devastating and ugly but the end result was that a lot of lives were saved via this decision rather than conventional warfare. No one can ever confince me otherwise.

Allow me to explain. Sure, a lot of lives and property (collateral damage?) are lost unintentionally due to the current combat doctrine of the U.S., but I propose that a lot more lives/damge would be incurred under a conventional style of combat that was not so surgical in its intent. Again, no one can convince me otherwise.

Note: This is not to say that I agree with the current activities. I don't agree with the idea of combat to effect regime change. If a nation doesn't immediately threaten us, then leave them the fuck alone. That is all.

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 12th, 2005, 01:12 PM

[color=violet]I don't recall ever hearing german or japanese suicide bombers called cowerds. Is this really any diffaren? In my opinion if you are calling the "terrorist" cowards, then in most cases, you are ignorant of the situation.

My suggestion is do some reserch for yourself before you buy into the media's crap, and write them off as cowards just because someone in a suit and tie said so.

You're an idiot.

kellychaos

Nov 12th, 2005, 01:19 PM

why do most threads have to end like this? :(

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 12th, 2005, 04:49 PM

Because it's I-Mockery. :(

I don't recall ever hearing german or japanese suicide bombers called cowerds. Is this really any diffaren? In my opinion if you are calling the "terrorist" cowards, then in most cases, you are ignorant of the situation.

It has already been mentioned that these men were often called cowards. Ask a WW II veteran who may have lost friends there, maybe they would echo that very same sentiment.

And once again, they were targeting a military base. They were attempting to take a strategic swipe at our naval capacity, as well as send a message to the U.S. military, that they are capable and willing to hit us when they want to.

Blowing up a wedding party sends what message? "We will totally take out your ring bearer"???

My suggestion is do some reserch for yourself before you buy into the media's crap, and write them off as cowards just because someone in a suit and tie said so.

Find out for for yourself that they are really cowards.

I would LOVE to hear some of your suggestions.

Just because it's on tv dose not make it true.

Please go away.

Guildencrantz

Nov 12th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Ok fair enough. I didn't really think out the whole WWII suicide bomber comment and deserve a big "your a Dumb ass"

Guildencrantz

Nov 12th, 2005, 09:25 PM

Do you really want suggestions, or do you want me to go away?

That's not a rhetorical question. I am perfectly willing to do either.(just not at this moment, I feel like shit, and need to go to bed)

I will talk to you tomorrow.

Rosenstern

Nov 12th, 2005, 11:20 PM

You underestimate his sarcastic nature.

Big Papa Goat

Nov 13th, 2005, 03:13 AM

(Courage is) the preservation of the belief that has been inculcated by the law through education about what sorts of things are to be feared. And by preserving this belief "through anything" I mean preserving it and ot abandoning it because of pains, pleasures, desires or fears. (Republic 429c-d)
Looking at courage in that way, a suicide bomber who dies for the beliefs he's been indoctrinated in does possess courage. The fact that he kills innocent people instead of conventional targets in a way further demonstrates courage under this view, since the suicide bomber retains only his indoctrinated beliefs on what is to be feared, i.e failure to combat the supposed enemy through whatever means, rather then the normal human 'fears' of killing innocent people or dying.
The fact that the beliefs the suicide bomber holds are insane doesn't change the fact that he courageously retains them in the face of a number of normal human impulses, like self-preservation, sympathy, and rationality.

scully said, maybe true faith is a form of insanity. :O
Me, I think thats so right. I'd call insanity a really skewed perception of reality. Someone who has real faith doesn't perceive reality, he perceives something outside of reality, or else it isn't faith.I guess its all a matter of degrees though, and its really just my own view on it.

ziggytrix

Nov 13th, 2005, 03:39 AM

Blowing up a wedding party sends what message? "We will totally take out your ring bearer"???

Depends on who is at the wedding, I suppose. If it is the son of some general getting married, then you'd have a chance of killing the general too, or at least causing him anguish, which would possibly make him a less capable opponent. Perhaps? I dunno. If it's just some random wedding (which I would doubt, but maybe it is) then they'd still have to convince the bomber that the people at the wedding were Enemies of God or whatever. So again, there is something about the target that makes them think they will achieve some goal. But it's very hard to get into the head of a fanatic, because they are fucking crazy sons of bitches.

Guildencrantz

Nov 13th, 2005, 11:41 AM

Fucking Crazy maybe, but these two have exemplified the point I am trying to make here. and that is that the bombers believe something that you don't, and in their minds they are not wrong, or cowardly, and you need to come to terms with that and accept it.

You can call them cowards if you want (I personally don’t care), but you should be sure that it is your belief that they are cowards, and not someone else’s.

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 13th, 2005, 03:08 PM

Perhaps we should distinguish between cowards and cowardly acts.

If believing that you are right and not fearing death makes you brave (the opposite of coward, no?), then perhaps you aren't a coward. I still disagree, but point taken.

However, I think people with common sense and reason can look at someone who intentionally targets innocent people in order to instill fear in the populous as partaking in a cowardly act, no?

And guilden, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Yes, you can leave now.

Ant10708

Nov 13th, 2005, 04:36 PM

"He [my husband] took one corner and I took another. There was a wedding in the hotel. There were women and children.

"My husband executed the attack. I tried to detonate and it failed.

"I left. People started running and I started running with them."

The bravery of suicide bombers.

Ant10708

Nov 13th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Blowing up a wedding party sends what message? "We will totally take out your ring bearer"???

Depends on who is at the wedding, I suppose. It was some random wedding. They only killed like three Americans. And just because you convince yourself of something stupid like that everyone at the wedding party in Jordan is an apostate(including the two palestinian diplomats that were killed) it doesn't mean your action was brave. And suicide can look alot more appealing to people than living their current lives so how is suicide an act of bravery? An action isn't an act of bravery just because the person thinks it is. And considering Jordians were chanting for Zarqawi to burn in hell I don't think they believe the suicide bombers to be all that brave either. People should be scared that if it can happen in a police state like Jordan than there is no way we are going to prevent an attack here and should watch who they consider to be brave because that 'brave' man or woman might end up killing your relatives as they ride the train to work.

I also love Guilden being upset that Americans calling the suicide bombers cowards migth be someone else's opinion when the very 'brave' suicide bombers are completly brainwashed and performing the action of some fanatic who isn't 'brave' enough to kill himself.

They also killed the producer of the 'Halloween' movies. They are enemies to the world and classic horror movies!

ziggytrix

Nov 13th, 2005, 05:48 PM

However, I think people with common sense and reason can look at someone who intentionally targets innocent people in order to instill fear in the populous as partaking in a cowardly act, no?

I'm pretty irrational, but I can agree with that.

Guildencrantz

Nov 13th, 2005, 07:34 PM

I am not upset I am simply trying to play the devil's advocate here. Yes. they were brainwashed, and to my understanding that is pretty much common knowledge.

as for the question as to whether or not the bombers were cowards in my heart that is still a matter of opinion.

And on that note I will leave you all to your opinions

by the way Kevin The Omnivore you have the makings of a true politician :)

MLE

Nov 13th, 2005, 08:05 PM

i think you're mistaking this for the i-friendsallthetime.net message boards.

Guildencrantz

Nov 13th, 2005, 10:46 PM

I can be confrontational, normally I try not to roll up my beliefs and shove them up other people’s asses, primarily because uninvited anal intrusion is rude.

However you all seem to want a good salty argument. So here it comes (I’ll spare you the lube)

I propose that every thing I say is correct, and any one who disagrees can go to the corner and masturbate.

I hope I piss someone off,
here we go:

The government used the events of 9/11 as an opportunity to go into the Middle East for guess what boys and girls?
That’s right the oil. Once we were there we chased our asses for a while under the guise a hunt for our good friend Osama, once all the stupid people started to loose interest they made the short little waltz to Iraq. So we went in and beat some evil dictator’s ass and took the country.
We now have the oil and the corporations are happy. All the people can now sit their fat asses, and wave their flags because once again democracy has triumphed, and always will over any enemy.
What do we say about the cowardly terrorist: there cowards and that’s it. What the fuck has any one done to stop these cowards?

Coward or not it doesn’t make it ok, but why won’t the government finish its fucking “war on terror” and finish these cowardly cowards off.
Maybe because that was never the intention first place, it was once again the oil, because the government has to keep the corporations happy. And they can get away with that because democracy is a lie and the government is their puppet. And all of this is possible because the majority of this country are fucking idiots and can be easily swayed to believe anything the media says The whole fucking county has been brainwashed just like the cowardly cowards, the only difference is that most Americans are to selfish to blow themselves up, so instead they feel the need to regurgitate the media, governmental, and corporate crap all over forums like this.
:suicide

MLE

Nov 14th, 2005, 12:55 AM

Actually, i wasn't proposing that you become confrontational. i was proposing you leave and find i-friendsallthetime.net or some other equivalent.

Dr. Boogie

Nov 14th, 2005, 01:36 AM

... the only difference is that most Americans are to selfish to blow themselves up...

"Bob?"

"Yes Sheila?"

"Would you blow yourself up for me?"

"Aw, come on, babe. The Sox just won the World Series!"

"Mother was right about you! You are so selfish!!"

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 15th, 2005, 09:12 AM

Ahh, I see, it was all about the oil. Thanks for clarifying your incredibly complex and deep theory on the war for me.

Guildencrantz

Nov 15th, 2005, 06:52 PM

Your welcome.
I'm glad that cleared things up for you.

Geggy

Nov 16th, 2005, 10:12 AM

you know how guys are capable of willing to do ANYTHING to get laid. and its common for muslims to believe that they wold be given certain numbers of virgins for acting out god's deed by taking others with them in suicide attacks.

by the way, source time. i'm not going to jump around like a retard and say "told you so!" but this article points out some possible conspiracies of some sort. and check the ceilings in the picture...

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=274

kahljorn

Nov 16th, 2005, 10:51 AM

from w hat i understand, the husband made the bombs(or at least decided which bomb the wife was getting). I was thinking, maybe he made her bomb dysfunctional on purpose? That's kind of brave, and not a cowardly act at all. *But I'm sure terrorists everywhere would call it cowardly.

It's funny how different americans perceptions of bravery are. Don't terrorists attack civilians because they hate them and everything they stand for? I don't think terrorists are waging war against our military, they hate our way of life or something. It has nothing to do with war, but an attempt to destroy evil.

GAsux

Nov 16th, 2005, 12:33 PM

I think all this debate about what's brave or not is pointless semantics. To me the real value of this story is that if in fact the bombers were bred in Iraq, that's a troubling sign. Couple that with indications that the Taliban are receiving training and support from Iraq insurgents as well and now we're talking about validating the argument that the war in Iraq has made the region LESS stable.

Iraq has become to jihadists what Afghanistan was in the 80s.

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 16th, 2005, 01:00 PM

Iraq has become to jihadists what Afghanistan was in the 80s.

Perhaps, but the big rebel yell from the Left prior to the invasion of Afghanistan was that we created that mess by pulling out, and now we were gonna go and bomb it to fix matters, etc.

So following that comparison, wouldn't it really be like Afghanistan if we leave prematurely??

kahljorn

Nov 16th, 2005, 01:11 PM

"To me the real value of this story is that if in fact the bombers were bred in Iraq, that's a troubling sign."

Not really.

GAsux

Nov 17th, 2005, 12:03 PM

Kev,
Im not advocating withdrawl. Just saying that much like Afghanistan, the streets of Iraq provide a valuable training ground.

Big Papa Goat

Nov 17th, 2005, 06:40 PM

Would it have been less troubling if the suicide bombers came from Syria? Palestine? Oklahoma? I don't get it.
And what do you mean by a training ground for suicide bombers? Are these suicide bombers cutting their teeth on the rough streets of war torn Iraq in preperation for bigger and better things?

Preechr

Nov 17th, 2005, 06:51 PM

Yes. The Suicide Bombing Regional Tournament in Abu Dabi.

The winning team there goes onto Nationals in February.

It's gonna be very exciting.

kahljorn

Nov 17th, 2005, 06:52 PM

That's sort of what I was wondering. How is terrorists coming from a place that has probably produced terrorists before and only has more reason now a troubling sign? It was to be expected.

Preechr

Nov 17th, 2005, 07:18 PM

You say it's a troubling sign for the same reason you hold a flashlight under your chin as you tell a spooky story. Oooh! A Troubling Sign! I told you this would be a troubling business! I am so troubled now! Let's go get some Chai!

kahljorn

Nov 17th, 2005, 07:33 PM

For some reason i always throught troubling was a progressive thing. You know, like, "it will continue to get worse" not, "it has continued to be just as bad as it always was". I don't know, I think it was just a matter of expectation. I guess for someone who doesn't expect it it could be troubling, but how could you not?

GAsux

Nov 18th, 2005, 02:57 PM

Its troubling because Iraq WASN'T producing terrorists of this sort before, and made worse by the fact that they're expanding it beyond Iraq.

When an Iraqi citizen goes to another country and blows shit up, they are no longer just insurgents fighting the deadly "occupier". It shows an expanding mission that goes beyond the borders of Iraq.

It's troubling because much like the mujihadeen used Afghanistan to train terrorists from all over the world and sent them back to where they came from to train more people, Iraq could easily become the same.

Suicide bombers obviously don't require much sophistication. However, when you start seeing shaped charges used in roadside bombs and more tactically coordinated attacks in Afghanistan, it indicates that the lessons being learned in Iraq are being exported elsewhere.

kahljorn

Nov 18th, 2005, 04:54 PM

Iraq has never produced a terrorist before? Than consider me wrong.

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 19th, 2005, 01:35 PM

I think his point is that Iraqis who may not have been galvanized to be a terrorist prior to the invasion now are.

Which would make the critics of this occupation at least seem kind of right.

GAsux

Nov 21st, 2005, 12:53 PM

Thank you kevin for being clearly more articulate than I am.

kahljorn

Nov 21st, 2005, 03:29 PM

"I think his point is that Iraqis who may not have been galvanized to be a terrorist prior to the invasion now are.

Which would make the critics of this occupation at least seem kind of right."

Really? Because my understanding of things is that, generally, when you occupy a country you get rebels(Given the situation, I don't really see how it could've gone over without someone disagreeing with it). That's why I found it to be a strange thing to say, because I find it to be entirely unsurprising and expected.

GAsux

Nov 21st, 2005, 04:46 PM

I can only hope to acheive the levels of foresight that you've clearly obtained. I doubt many, aside from you naturally, would have bet that Iraqi insurgents would be found bombing hotels in Jordan.

The rebellion part is not the issue. The issue is that once again, we're not talking about Iraqis taking up arms to defend their country. No big shock there. Blowing shit up in Jordan and helping train the Taliban is not "normal", and encompasses something larger then fighting to rid Iraq of the evil occupiers.

kahljorn

Nov 21st, 2005, 05:33 PM

*sigh* You're right, this is different than simple rebellion(when is it ever really simple, though), but the principal emotion lies the same. There's two ways this can go: either they've always wanted to be a terrorist, or the invasion of iraq triggered it. If it was the later, than it is essentially a form of rebellion. So what, they aren't calling themselves "the south", things are different there than you'd normally expect. Disheartened people flowing into an organization internationally reknown for hating america and it's allies isn't exactly some surprising thing, nor is it outside the scope of rebellious actions, especially when said country just got done invading your homeland.
In a place where america wasn't the favorite beforehand, what did you expect to happen?

Regardless, it was a result of poor moral structuring and even poorer morale. To me, that's rebellion, twitching under oppression or just following the voice of God... none of those are unexpected in the circumstance. Act surprised, but that's kind of a ridiculous way to feel. Did you think terrorists would stop being produced because america invaded? If anything, there would be more of them because of the "moral outrage" it represents.
Why do you think a terrorist decides to be a terrorist?

GAsux

Nov 21st, 2005, 05:42 PM

I guess my point is, taking up arms to defend what could be viewed as "their" country is probably to be expected and not strategically very bothersome as it is locally contained.

Taking those tactics elsewhere indicates that we're not just dealing with people who are pissed that the U.S. is "occupying" their country. You don't send suicide bombers to Jordan to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

That to me indicates that the muslim extremist movement or whatever you wish to call it is continuing to find fertile ground, now to include Iraq.

Prior to the Iraq war you didn't see Iraqis involved in global terror.

kahljorn

Nov 21st, 2005, 05:55 PM

"Prior to the Iraq war you didn't see Iraqis involved in global terror"

Really?

"Taking those tactics elsewhere indicates that we're not just dealing with people who are pissed that the U.S. is "occupying" their country. You don't send suicide bombers to Jordan to get the U.S. out of Iraq. "

Terrorists have more than one target, has this ever not been the case?
Like I said, the result of low morale and "Injustice" drives people to do all sorts of things; some may rebel, some may join crazy terrorist groups, some may take up a drinking habit, others may start to hate their mommy's. They are all essentially the same emotion, and rebellion exists in more ways than "Defending your country from invaders." That may be the pure form of it, but some people goto other lengths.
Considering the objective of our invasion was to target terrorists, and because even america show themselves to be weak to terrorists and because they are our "True enemy" as a "Democratic free-world", somebody who really wanted to "Rebel" would probably find it wise to do so in that fashion(how many people would fight america head on, with our "Huge army" and such); also, because people from that general area are more than likely to find the moods and qualities represented by the terrorists to be just and righteous. That is why I find it unsuprising and entirely expected, within their scope of life this outcome wasn't exactly a streak of bad luck but an inevitable outcome.

Anyway, if I had to make a summation here I'd say that acting outraged by everything that happens is stupid, and makes you look stupid. I think that's what's wrong with 90% of the people who make(political) posts on this board. "I'm outraged", frothing at mouth, "Something must be done to fix this". "Everything before this was Okay, but now that I'm learning some more of the consequences...".... "...rrrr". If you're going to be political at least keep a cool head about it.

GAsux

Nov 21st, 2005, 06:17 PM

I don't recall any "outrage" or mouth frothing on my part. Thanks for your insightful analysis of me though.

kahljorn

Nov 21st, 2005, 06:20 PM

The philosophy and politics forum is full of outrage. That's why there's tons of threads about politics.

I just don't find this topic anything to be surprised or troubled about. Honestly, it was expected to happen and if I were you I wouldn't consider it any form of escalation. Just trying to put your heart at ease.

GAsux

Nov 21st, 2005, 06:41 PM

Again for some reason you seem to want to make assumptions about me and I'm not clear why. I have expressed no outrage, have indicated no new found awareness of the situation that you have been so brilliantly in tune with all along, etc.

If the problem with 90% of the people who post on this board lies in the fact that they seem outraged, the problem with the other 10%, led by you, is that they like to play internet psychoanalyst and assume that they hold some superior insight into what's happening in the world. Clearly, your way is the right way and the rest of us are struggling to keep up with what you've known all along.

kahljorn

Nov 21st, 2005, 06:50 PM

'Clearly, your way is the right way and the rest of us are struggling to keep up with what you've known all along.'

Thanks you know I've thought this for a while but it wasn't until now that I really began to accept it. Thanks.

KevinTheOmnivore

Nov 22nd, 2005, 02:41 PM

Really? Because my understanding of things is that, generally, when you occupy a country you get rebels(Given the situation, I don't really see how it could've gone over without someone disagreeing with it). That's why I found it to be a strange thing to say, because I find it to be entirely unsurprising and expected.

Resistance had always been expected, and GAsux hasn't implied otherwise.

I think it's a question of options rather than mere "rebellion". Granted, it has become an arbitrary word (arbitrary, am I right!? Good times). Terrorists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have been referred to as "insurgents" and "rebels" in iraq. That has never added up with me.

Anywho, there would of course be native Iraqis who would take up arms and resist us. That was anticipated by everyone across the board, with most disagreements being over who, why, and how many.

The point GA is making is that presumably average iraqi citizens have become so mobilized by the invasion, that they now see Al Qaeda as a viable option for fighting back. It's less nationalistic or patriotic, and more ideological.

I think Muqtada al-Sadr serves as a good example. Immediately following the invasion, he and his militia were rebelling against U.S. forces. But once he began negotiating with us and the Islamic leaders of the nation, they put down their weapons, he started a party, and has essentially become a politician...with guns.

This strikes me as being different than the Iraqi citizen who now sees a common cause against us with a terrorist cell.

kahljorn

Nov 22nd, 2005, 04:06 PM

"It's less nationalistic or patriotic, and more ideological."

That was the point I was making. Especially given the circumstance, and the connection the "Ideal" has with america, and more importantly iraq.
Ideally, which way would be the best way to fight? Against our gigantic army? Or within the ranks of an organized structure that has been fighting our country for a while, and(in some sense) successfully? Personally, I think if i was in their situation I would choose to become a terrorist as well, it's the smartest option.
Besides that, we made our vulnerability to terrorists known when they hit with 9/11, which was the basis of why we attacked iraq(or maybe how is a better word). The association is there.