Illogical thinking by most Muslims

[Mo.]

(salam)

First of all, Id just like to say that most of the people over here are very naive and they do not know what is really happening in Iraq. The majority of people see the Iraqi war as some kind of a holy war between Islam and Non-Islam. The truth is, there is no such thing as a holy war. Holy wars would never take place on this planet, only until the coming of the Mahdi and the appearance of the fake Messiah/Al-Dajjal.

Therefore in theory and in reality, this Iraqi war is strictly political. Any person opposing the US occupation is doing so for his/her own political interests. Each and every resistance group has its own political agendas...

Think about it this way, why would a dumb foreigner cross the Iraqi borders and enter a country that he is not part of? Would you ever fight for a country thats not your's? Whats your whole objective towards this move?

Why do foreign fighters make an armed resistance in Iraq (which results in the massacre of innocent civilians) instead of making an armed resistance in their OWN countries? Do you think that Arab countries these days are following the Islamic Shari'ah properly? :rolleyes:

Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other so-called "Islamic" nations are all corrupt, are all politically motivated, are all diverted from the true religion, and are all FAKE. Why dont you stupid people of the Arab world make an Islamic revolution against your own governments, rather than fighting the Americans in Iraq and killing innocent Iraqis?

This isnt an Islamic war. Any person who thinks so should have his/her head examined. This war is between two political ideologies: Democracy versus Dictatorship. Any single resistance in Iraq (as of today) is clearly indicating that it is doing the best it can to fight Democracy, and defend Dictatorship. This means that the resistance composes of armed Baathist politicians. Forget Islam and all that fake nonsense the resistance is putting up with.

Let me ask you a question: During the Vietnamese War, did the Vietnamese fight for Buddhism, or for their communist ideologies? :rolleyes: Werent there any people belonging to the same religion, yet fighting each other on opposite sides? Wasnt that also the case with the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war, and the many other conflicts in the region? Go think about it, and then decide whether or not this war is religious/holy, or if its simply a political scam set up by people who are using Islam as an "Umbrella" to fulfill their goals...

Edited January 30, 2006 by Mo.

[Eye Raki]

There is an American and Israeli flag flying high in several Arab countries, it becomes a joke when people FROM those Arab countries come to Iraq and pretend to fight the "zionists" who are trying to "take over". They seem to have a problem when the "zionists" are in Muslim land (Iraq) at the same time as thinking its okay for the zionists to have an embassy in their own country.

Dont the Jordanian scum bags ever think of that Israeli flag in Amman before coming to a place like Hilla and ripping to shreds 130 innocent Shia!?

[Mo.]

There is an American and Israeli flag flying high in several Arab countries, it becomes a joke when people FROM those Arab countries come to Iraq and pretend to fight the "zionists" who are trying to "take over". They seem to have a problem when the "zionists" are in Muslim land (Iraq) at the same time as thinking its okay for the zionists to have an embassy in their own country.

Dont the Jordanian scum bags ever think of that Israeli flag in Amman before coming to a place like Hilla and ripping to shreds 130 innocent Shia!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

Unfortunately, its not just the Jordanians who are responsible for the mass killings in Iraq. Many others also come from the African sub-continent. Countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc all had their own Kings and Queens at one time. Their people decided to spark multiple revolutions in aims for re-establishing a democratic system in all of these nations. Instead, things get worse! Contrary to what they originally thought of, the revolution only made matters worse. Instead of having a monarch royal family, they now have a one-party federal state, runned by a dictator who would pass power to his children one day. Only Morocco kept its Kingdom ship, and it is enjoying more freedom than the other so-called "Islamic" countries.

In the holy Quran, it says that people should consult each other and elect a leader. In modern terms and languages, the term "consult" means elect or vote for a leader. So the Quran clearly mentions that we should all vote for a person who we think could lead a country for a specific amount of time, until his time is expired. This means that people could nominate themselves, they could represent different political parties, and the nominees would all be voted in one grand election. The winner becomes either President or Prime Minister. In addition to this, and in order to prevent this newly formed leader from becoming dictatorial, the country could have a "background" leader (i.e. King or Emir who can take care of his people and who meets the criteria of being wise, dedicated to his religion, etc). A good example is the UK governmental system - i.e. A monarch family caring for its people and containing good wisdom, and a Prime Minister who is elected to run the economical issues of the country...

This is Islam, and this is what Iraq is turning into. Its having Presidential and Prime Ministrial elections. People who oppose this are obviously opposing justice, and they clearly indicate hatred towards democracy and fairness. These people are no better than Saddam, when they acheive power.

[Guest Muslim00]

There is an American and Israeli flag flying high in several Arab countries, it becomes a joke when people FROM those Arab countries come to Iraq and pretend to fight the "zionists" who are trying to "take over". They seem to have a problem when the "zionists" are in Muslim land (Iraq) at the same time as thinking its okay for the zionists to have an embassy in their own country.

Dont the Jordanian scum bags ever think of that Israeli flag in Amman before coming to a place like Hilla and ripping to shreds 130 innocent Shia!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

Goverments have nothing to do with what the people think(espically Muslims).

They might be rulers but not are leaders.

[Eye Raki]

Goverments have nothing to do with what the people think(espically Muslims).

Thank you for stating the obvious, but that has nothing to do with my point.

[Juan Servantes Olazabel... Ali.]

Put simply, they are getting p1ssy cos for once the shia are finally getting some power and are daring to say that we wont be oppressed any more. Many of them just cant handle it.

[Vir2L]

The bombings of shia masjids are most definately Israeli and U.S spies. Either way the media tends to play on sectarian motives when in reality it maybe another story. Sistani would have called for retaliation and same with Mouqtada.

[Guest Muslim00]

Thank you for stating the obvious, but that has nothing to do with my point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dont the Jordanian scum bags ever think of that Israeli flag in Amman before coming to a place like Hilla and ripping to shreds 130 innocent Shia!?

Its easier to attack Americans in Iraq. And no muslim is behind the killing of innocent people no matter where they come from.

You will never know who was behind that attack, so stop pointing the finger.

[Mo.]

The bombings of shia masjids are most definately Israeli and U.S spies. Either way the media tends to play on sectarian motives when in reality it maybe another story. Sistani would have called for retaliation and same with Mouqtada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

Yes, my dear friend. The American intelligence agencies and the Israeli intelligence agencies (alike) may both be together in this plot. Some of their operatives might be working as double-agents (hence: siding themselves with terrorists from time to time).

But remember, if and only IF an American or Israeli operative is behind the attacks on Shia mosques, the question is: Who is working for them? ;) The answer put simply is: The Baathists.

So yes, the Americans and Israelis are using the terror attacks as a field goal advantage for their side of the battlefield, but the large portion of the blame goes to Arab/Muslim politicians who are co-operating themselves with Westerners in order to fulfill their vengance over the innocent Iraqi civilians.

So in theory, I couldnt care less about what westerners are doing, but its more heart-breakening seeing a fellow Muslim or Muslimah attack other Muslims. ;)

=========================

In reality, however, nobody is fighting for Islam. Religion was always used, manipulated, and abused in means of gaining political power. Otherwise put it this way: I challenge any foreign resistance fighter (whos fighting in Iraq) to make the occupiers withdraw from the Iraqi lands, and then I would challenge THEM to establish a non-corrupt political system that doesnt seek dictatorship but which seeks democracy and TRUE Islamic principles. In theory, itll never happen. Instead, they would turn Iraq into another Egypt, another Algeria, another Libya, etc. The country would be a one-party republic, and the Presidential power would be inherited from one generation to the next.

So what do we end up with? A golden opportunity of true democracy gone down to waste, and in-return, a newly formed dictatorial system that goes against the will of Allah and his Prophet but nobody cares about that because everyone is naive and everyone thinks that a bad Muslim leader is actually good, just because he's Muslim. :rolleyes:

[Syrian Sister]

Therefore in theory and in reality, this Iraqi war is strictly political. Any person opposing the US occupation is doing so for his/her own political interests. Each and every resistance group has its own political agendas...

The resistance has not declared any singular political ideology, so they cannot be accused of furthering their own political goals. Indeed some of those goals are similar to what the puppet regime claims its goals are.

There are people out there, who resist occupation Due to sheer patriotism and love for their country.

That is an undeniable fact.

[Mo.]

The resistance has not declared any singular political ideology, so they cannot be accused of furthering their own political goals. Indeed some of those goals are similar to what the puppet regime claims its goals are.

There are people out there, who resist occupation Due to sheer patriotism and love for their country.

That is an undeniable fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

Sister,

Do you think any resistance group is dumb enough to tell the people of its political goals? Do you think thatll inspire people to recruit themselves into the resistance group?

The quickest way to recruit soldiers is to claim your fight for Islam! Thatll immediately hammer down the hearts and minds of naive Muslims...

People are indeed fighting for their love towards Iraq. They are particapating in elections and they are re-building their country. The resistance composes of non-Iraqis therefore how could a non-Iraqi fight for the love of Iraq? :rolleyes:

Furthermore, the resistance is halting the process of re-building Iraq and it proved its political ideologies by continuing its attacks on both Shiites and Sunnis. Now the Sunnis of Iraq are getting blown into bits by their so-called Mujahideen brothers, proving my point!

My message to the resistance: Stop letting the Iraqis suffer. Your dictatorial era of Saddam is over, you had your time and now let others have their's. Have the balls to admit defeat and allow Iraq to re-build itself into something better than what you have provided for it in the past 3 decades. Let democracy and true Islam come to power, rather than fulfilling more of your fiendish attacks towards innocent civilians under the "umbrella" of Islam.

Good bye.

[Syrian Sister]

Do you think any resistance group is dumb enough to tell the people of its political goals? Do you think thatll inspire people to recruit themselves into the resistance group?

Actually many many people who already support the resistance, have asked the Resistance to declare what it's ideology is. For example the Vietnamese resistance against the US occupation had an openly communist ideological push.

However that is where the Iraqi Resistance is more like the French Resistance of WWII than the vietnamese resistance.

It has no ONE SET ideology, infact it's a mixture of groups from all ideologies, communist, capitalist, theocratist. It doesn't really have anything To do with politics at all.

It's only uniting factor being, Ending occupation and Self determination.

. The resistance composes of non-Iraqis therefore how could a non-Iraqi fight for the love of Iraq? rolleyes.gif

That's where your wrong dear.

Even the US admits that the Resistance is over 90% composed of Iraqies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1576666,00.html

Report attacks 'myth' of foreign fighters

Brian Whitaker and Ewen MacAskill

Friday September 23, 2005

The Guardian

The US and the Iraqi government have overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, "feeding the myth" that they are the backbone of the insurgency, an American thinktank says in a new report.

Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents,

So why is it that you continue the lie that the resistance isn't made up of iraqies Mo. If even the enemy Has to admit that they are?

Who are you serving mo, what agenda??

Furthermore, the resistance is halting the process of re-building Iraq and it proved its political ideologies by continuing its attacks on both Shiites and Sunnis. Now the Sunnis of Iraq are getting blown into bits by their so-called Mujahideen brothers, proving my point

Actually dear, that proves OUR point all along, that the Iraqi resistance never kills civilians, and that the people behind the secterian violence are ofcource the Mossad agents, Boming Sunni's here, and Shia's there, trying to divide Iraqies against each other, and trying to make them Ignore the occupation.

This is Exactly AGAINST the Resistance Single agenda to end the occupation, these bomings are working against the resistance. Therefore who ever is doing them, is also against the resistance.

Think about it friend. A so called "anti american" body that is killing only muslims, both shia and sunni? Can such a thing really exist? Only an idiot with no logic believes so. And what's most ammusing is that you are the one who accuses people of lacking logic.

2 + 2 =4 Mo. Not 5 . So look in the mirror before you open your mouth accusing others.

[Mo.]

(salam)

Where do you live sister?

Anyways Im not accusing anybody but I think its time for all Muslims to stop pointing fingers at the Jews, etc. Its time for them to think for themselves. Am I to believe that a Baathist Iraqi resistance is friendly and would not kill its own people? For God's sakes, the Baathists were openly killing their own people during the Saddam political era and now youre telling me that these Baathists cant do it again?

When Kuwait was liberated in 1991, did you see any Kuwaiti people forming a resistance against the American soldiers? Tell me, what good would a resistance do for them, if they want to re-store their country again? Youre either with Saddam, or against him. Pick your path sister and dont be fooled. If youre against Saddam and also against America, then keep quiet until the Iraqis have a stable country again. Then afterwards do whatever you wish if you really are devoted to Islam... :rolleyes:

The tactics, which so-called Jihadi brothers are using today is pathetic. They side themselves with the Saddamist dictator, as though theyre officially shaking hands with the devil. Where was the Jihad groups when the Iraqi people needed them at urgent times? Were was the Jihad groups when Saddam was killing his people left and right? Leave Iraq alone, just like what you were doing in the past 3 decades!

Edited February 3, 2006 by Mo.

[Syrian Sister]

Where do you live sister?

My residence is in australia until i complete certain obligations i have to this country.

Anyways Im not accusing anybody but I think its time for all Muslims to stop pointing fingers at the Jews,

The jews are not the enemy, i have no problem with people of the Jewish faith.

However the Mossad, who's motto is "by way of deception, thou shalt do war", is OPENLY active active in iraq, along with other Intelligence agencies. That's a known fact.

You asked as to imploy logic, and you said it yourselves, both Sunni's and Shia civilians are dying (this is not counting collaborators ofcource, purely talking civilians, collaborators should and must die.), Now logically with all these americans running around, why would muslims randomly kill other muslims? You think about it, and you think about who wants you to believe that this is the case, for what reason.

And then look at all the evidence that is before you, the british Spies caught in basra dressed as arabs trying to plant bombs as the police force that you support has said. Do you know about that? It was on CNN aswell. Why do you choose to ignore this.

When Kuwait was liberated in 1991, did you see any Kuwaiti people forming a resistance against the American soldiers

The difference is, the US never declared War on kuwait. Infact both countries where allied.

For instance the lebanese never held a resistance against Syria, because Syria was an ally of lebanon and never declared war on it. And Australia has US troops stationed in it, but there is no resistance against US soldiers here, because Australia and the US are allies. There has not been a declaration of war.That's the difference between being a complete Collaborator/traitor, and a sell out.

A Slim line i know, but it's there. However, the kuwaities have Lost their dignitity and alot of their self determination allowing their government to cow toe to america. And look at them now, are you proud of their accomplishment mo. ?

They are a rich country for sure, but their people are morally bunkrupt, swimming in their own greed and filth, ignoring all their arab and muslim brothers suffering in other countries. They would rather waste their millions in oil wealth on god knows what, than left a finger to help those that are suffering. their countries foreign policy, almost completely controlled by america.

Is this something you are aspiring to Mo. ?

Tell me, what good would a resistance do for them, if they want to re-store their country again?

You accuse everyone of doing what they do not because its right, but because it suits an agenda. But it seems to me that's a reflection of how YOU yourself are. You are the one, that thinks it's ok to do something (wrong or right) if it gains you somehow.

You think that people should betray their country and their dignity, for some bread and water kicked down at them by their masters/occupiers You think it's fine to kiss up to the monsters that murdered and raped thousands of your people, in the hope that they fixed up the country which they helped to destroy.

So that is why you have no faith in the righteousness of people. Because you think everyone is like you.

But it's great to see. that the iraqi people don't think like you, they are resisting everyday.

Youre either with Saddam, or against him.

HAH, you sound like a minature george bush, it never ceases to amaze me the GoD-LIKE status some of you people give to Saddam. When will you realise, he's just a meaningless actor in a greater game? Even less significant now than he was before, if that is possible.

then keep quiet until the Iraqis have a stable country again. Then afterwards do whatever you wish if you really are devoted to Islam... rolleyes.gif

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED! Not by anyone and certainly not by you. I will always do and say what is right, And support righteous people. I don't give a damn what sort of person tries to benefit from it. I will do and say what's right, inspite of them.

And just for your information, I never claimed i was devouted to Islam, that is your assumption alone.

[Mo.]

(salam)

Sister,

So you live in Australia and you are enjoying a great deal of freedom. Why dont you allow the Iraqis to share the same joy?

The Mossads of Israel are indeed doing dirty games in Iraq, FOR THEIR OWN objectives! Do you know how they do their dirty ploys? By paying Iraqis to do the job for them... Unfortunately, the Iraqis who plant bombs for the Mossads are co-operating with them, yet they are Muslim! See the irony here?

I know that the West is playing dirty games in Iraq, but I also know that the resistance is doing the same thing. Thats why Im with nobody in this war.

Sister, how could you say that the Kuwaitis lost their dignity because they sold themselves to the Americans? How could you possibly say that? What do you expect from a tiny Gulf emirate to do when a mad-cow such as Saddam invades it? You see, you have no logic at all. So you think its better for the Kuwaitis to live under Saddam's dictatorial reign rather than seeking help from outside assistance? The first people the Kuwaitis went upto were the Arabs. What did the Arabs do? Nothing! Your former King kept quiet, so did the former Jordanian King. Yasser Arafat (who was helped by Kuwait to establish PLO) went against them, and the Arabs in Northern Africa didnt interfere as well, especially the scum who rules over Libya.

So what did you expect? Just as the Arabs ignored the Kuwaiti calls during 1990, the Arabs also ignored the millions of Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam's power. I asked you before, but you cared to ignore me: Where was the Islamic resistance when people like Saddam were in power?

Youre a funny character, and I saw that from Day1. Listen Sister, everyone has his own agenda when he fights a war. Is this some sort of an anarchist state, whereby people fight each other simply for the joy of it? Do you really think thats the case? Wake up and smell the coffee. Each person is fighting for what HE thinks is right. Like the first Saudi Arabian King once said and I repeat it again: "Islam is like a Falcon. You catch it and it does wonders for you!"

What are you fighting for Sister? Youre fighting for Saddam to come back in power? Youre fighting for a dictatorial Iraq, which contradicts what Allah ordered for us? Youre fighting for democracy or something else? What exactly is it that youre fighting for? And please dont say "Islam", be more specific. What political ideology do you wish Iraqis to have? You wish them the same thing they had for over 30 years?

PS: Shame you said Kuwaitis arent donating money for other countries, real shame...

[IMAnonymous]

The bombings of shia masjids are most definately Israeli and U.S spies. Either way the media tends to play on sectarian motives when in reality it maybe another story. Sistani would have called for retaliation and same with Mouqtada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sistani is a man of God and not a man of retaliation. Neither is he an American "puppet". He is building an Iraq for Iraqis. However, there are Iraqi's who had more under the old Baathist system who will have less under the new system. These are your terrorists. They are not Jews or Americans. They want concessions. They don't want to be 20% of the people with 20% of the power. They want to be 20% of the people with guarantees of more than 20% of the power or the bombs will keep exploding. They know they can't defeat the US so they switch to civilian targets, looking for concessions through terror. It is the underlying basis for any terrorist network. Every bomb has a purpose.

[IMAnonymous]

It's only uniting factor being, Ending occupation and Self determination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you meant by that the one uniting factor of the insurgents is to End the occupation and End Self determination, then I agree.

That's where your wrong dear.

Even the US admits that the Resistance is over 90% composed of Iraqies.

So why is it that you continue the lie that the resistance isn't made up of iraqies Mo. If even the enemy Has to admit that they are?

Who are you serving mo, what agenda??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Mo was wrong to say the resistance is mostly foreignors. Its possible they may provide money and material in excess of their share of the insurgent forces present, as they mostly (if not all) come from undemocratic countries opposed to democracy which could, conceivably spread to their own country. Other countries simply deported their own Islamic extremists (i.e. saudi arabia) simply as a means of getting rid of them even though they, themselves, created them.

However, I have failed to see where Mo has a secret "agenda". I have read his posts twice. I had some disagreements the first time but, on the second reading they made more sense. You might want to read his posts again and see if they don't make more sense to you after a second read.

Actually dear, that proves OUR point all along, that the Iraqi resistance never kills civilians, and that the people behind the secterian violence are ofcource the Mossad agents, Boming Sunni's here, and Shia's there, trying to divide Iraqies against each other, and trying to make them Ignore the occupation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Baathists were a political party and not a religious party. A political party can kill civilians. The Baathists did it before the US invasion and they're still doing it now. Blaming the Mossad for it now is rather like blaming the Mossad for the Iraqis Saddam Insane killed.

Saddam Insane's people had the guns and bombs before the war and they still have.

This is Exactly AGAINST the Resistance Single agenda to end the occupation, these bomings are working against the resistance. Therefore who ever is doing them, is also against the resistance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Baathists are guaranteed power within the new government of Iraq, then this works in favor of their resistance.

Think about it friend. A so called "anti american" body that is killing only muslims, both shia and sunni? Can such a thing really exist? Only an idiot with no logic believes so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are Americans being killed. Do not deny that. Your above logic fails right there. The Baathists included shia and sunni. Who did they kill under Saddam Insane? If you want to say only shia, then you are thinking of the shia revolt in the south after Operation Desert Storm stopped short of the Iraqi border. How many Kurds did the Baathists kill? Yet Kurds were killed by bombs and assassinations after the war too. According to you, that "can't happen".

[IMAnonymous]

The jews are not the enemy, i have no problem with people of the Jewish faith.

However the Mossad, who's motto is "by way of deception, thou shalt do war", is OPENLY active active in iraq, along with other Intelligence agencies. That's a known fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Mossad is also active in the US via the Hudson Institute but they're not bombing anyone here. There are many political dangers to the US/British occupation to OPENLY use the Mossad although, no doubt, they are used to some degree. They're simply too good at what they do, and too willing to offer to do it, to be continually excluded.

You asked as to imploy logic, and you said it yourselves, both Sunni's and Shia civilians are dying (this is not counting collaborators ofcource, purely talking civilians, collaborators should and must die.), Now logically with all these americans running around, why would muslims randomly kill  other muslims? You think about it, and you think about who wants you to believe that this is the case, for what reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The resistance has continually blown up Iraq's oil pipelines (eight times alone in January 2006). American and British occupation forces did not do that.

And then look at all the evidence that is before you, the british Spies caught in basra dressed as arabs trying to plant bombs as the police force that you support has said. Do you know about that? It was on CNN aswell. Why do you choose to ignore this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the story is not true, it soon will be. The US and Britain must keep terrorism active in Iraq or be asked to withdraw.

The believeable elements to the story is that it was British conducted. Britain has engaged in this type of diplomacy for a very long time. US troops, by comparison, are too clumsy and stupid for such an operation. But George Bush could, in the future, resort to using the CIA to fund foreign Islamic extremists inside Iraq.

The difference is, the US never declared War on kuwait. Infact both countries where allied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US never declared war on Iraq either and the US was allied with Iraq against Iran.

Is this something you are aspiring to Mo. ?

You accuse everyone of doing what they do not because its right, but because it suits an agenda. But it seems to me that's a reflection of how YOU yourself are. You are the one, that thinks it's ok to do something (wrong or right) if it gains you somehow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the secret agenda you attribute to Mo?

You think that people should betray their country and their dignity, for some bread and water kicked down at them by their masters/occupiers You think it's fine to kiss up to the monsters that murdered and raped thousands of your people, in the hope that they fixed up the country which they helped to destroy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there an Iraqi here who is a witness to all these "thousands of murders and rapes"? I'm a little reluctant to take your word for it alone.

it never ceases to amaze me the GoD-LIKE status some of you people give to Saddam. When will you realise, he's just a meaningless actor in a greater game? Even less significant now than he was before, if that is possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could substitute George Bush's name for Saddam's in the above and it would read exactly the same. :lol:

[Mo.]

(salam)

Certain people unfortunately fail to understand that politics is a dirty game. There is no right and wrong, and that politics does NOT know religion (vice versa). The Baathists never were religious. They fought for their dictatorial ideologies and are continuing to fight back the occupying forces. Whether we like it or not, we must understand that both sides of the conflict has both ups and downs. Sadly, the Baathists have more downs than ups. ;) The majority of them hid when the occupation started and they sparked a counter-attack on innocent civilians instead.

A political mind, that is embracing corruption and greed, would not care for the well-fare of the people. Itll only care for itself and for its self-satisfaction. Saddam and his men are killing anybody who stands in their way, whether the person is Muslim or non-Muslim. Thats why politics does not know religion.

Im afraid our dear sister isnt realising the potential damage such resistance could do to a newly born nation. Sooner or later, and whether we like it or not, Iraq must open its doors to outside assistance for economic, social and financial gains! If not, then they could isolate themselves like North Korea and face brutality from its regimes. Look at China today, and compare it to Communist China of yester years! Then come and tell me which era is most suitable for the Chinese people.

[Syrian Sister]

So you live in Australia and you are enjoying a great deal of freedom. Why dont you allow the Iraqis to share the same joy?

Typical response. There is no freedom in Australia, you say the wrong thing to loudly and you could end up in jail for the next five years. Especially if it's about the Iraq war.

Freedom? when the same two parties have been in power for the last centuary? When the last one has been in power for almost 2 decades? Where is this "freedom" in australia your talking about?

Freedom is something you take with your own hands, not something that is given to you. Freedom is not something the americans canNOT give you, they don't even have it for themselves, the only thing americans can give you is influence they have over your choices, the opposite of freedom. Freedom is what the Iraqi resistance is fighting for, Freeing Iraq from occupation, national self determination, choices free from influence. That is why i'm the real supporter of freedom in iraq. Where as you are the supporter of keeping it in it's prison of occupation.

Your former King kept quiet, so did the former Jordanian King. Yasser Arafat (who was helped by Kuwait to establish PLO) went against them, and the Arabs in Northern Africa didnt interfere as well, especially the scum who rules over Libya.So what did you expect? Just as the Arabs ignored the Kuwaiti calls during 1990, the Arabs also ignored the millions of Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam's power.

King? He wasn't a king, he was a president, please try to get your facts straight.

Another interesting fact that you might not have known, is that kuwait had built a pipeline crossing into Iraqi territory to cyphon of some of Iraq's oil supplies. If you say you smart enough to understand that people do things for their own agenda then think, why is it that america chose to jump in and help kuwait? Was it out the goodness of their heart? or was it because they wanted to get some of that oil they where tapping? So why weren't the arab leaders so eager to join up against Iraq in the kuwait/iraq-war? Well as a matter of fact many of them did, including Syria. Now Iraq did start that war, but i doubt very much the arab leaders took part due to their righteous indignation at that injustice, but for some benefits in of their own. You see i hardly ever belive in leaders, but i do belive in the people and the majority people did not want to see brothers warring with each other, brothers killing brothers, while the real enemy continues to manipulate and occupy.

As for the arabs ignoring Iraqis suffering from Saddam, i say it before and i'll say it again, every people are responsible for their own leaders. Why do you ignore the suffering of the Syrians under the foremer Assad? Or the egyptians under musharaf? the lybians under that mad man qhadafi? Why is it that you expect them to resist your dictator, when you do not resist theirs and even your own?

It's because it's no ones business what leader your country chooses to have, or chooses to fight against. It is only your own. You helped Syria against Israel at a time when we needed you most, and many syrians tried to help you against america when it's attack began. Helping each other against attacks from foreign enemies, is different from just going in, and changing your leader for you. That is no bodies right, and i know I would spit in anyones face if they desrespect me by trying to make my decisions for me. Perhaps you dont have that same sense of dignity.

As for Kuwait taking America as it's ally, That is not as bad as the traitors in Iraq who take the occupier as an ally. Two countries becoming allies is different, from traitors taking the enemy as an ally against their own people, and helping the enemy to murder those who choose to resist. Though i still think it's a mistake for kuwait to take as it's ally a country who is helping to murder it's friends in palestine. You know it doesn't come without a price. Closer to home, East timor accepted help from Australia to get rid of indonesian occupation, now it's australia stealing east timors oil and all the east timories can do is protests. Che guevara said, there is no such thing as a liberator, the people liberate themselves. The price that kuwaities and East timories had to pay, multiply that a 100 fold, for the price that the traitors will make Iraq pay. To collaborate with the US, to gain yourself some money or build a mc donalds or a super market here and there, you will pay with your nations soul. You said it your self that your country was Newly born . but personally i don't belive in re-encarnation, i belive Iraq is dying, and only the resistance can save it. If they fail, then it will die, and the only thing that will be "born" is a clone of the United states, a souless former shadow of Iraq as a nation in iitself.

The Mossads of Israel are indeed doing dirty games in Iraq, FOR THEIR OWN objectives! Do you know how they do their dirty ploys? By paying Iraqis to do the job for them... Unfortunately, the Iraqis who plant bombs for the Mossads are co-operating with them, yet they are Muslim! See the irony here?

There isn't always need to get a puppet to do the job. For instance in the british spy case, it was indeed british intell agents dresed as arabs trying to plant the bombs. And in many other cases, a man was seen walking away from an incident when the media chooses to claim it as a "suicide boming".

You shouldn't always take what the media says as fact. Now there are idiots out there, but i'm going to have a little faith in the iraqi people and say that their smarter than except money from "friendly" mossad agents to blow themselves up and murder civilians. Blow yourself up for money, what will you do with that money after your dead?I mean, really Anyone that stupid would barley be able to walk and talk let alone be part of the iraqi resistance.

but I also know that the resistance is doing the same thing. Thats why Im with nobody in this war.

You don't know that, and it's unfair for you to assume that. You really have such little faith in your own people? The resistance has been honest since the begining. They have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or the killing of civilians, their just iraqies (and 1% paternal arab brothers) wanting to free Iraq from occupation.

Perhaps your supicious since you ask yourself, why did we not have such a resistance when Saddam was in power?

Well you did have one, in 1991, and fallujah had one at the start of the coup. But even a blind man can see, that foreign occupation is a different thing from having a bad leader from your own country.

Palestinians with arafat, did they start a resistance against arafat or did they continue to resist the "israelies" ?

Listen mo. There are many dictatorships all over the world, some of them worse than saddam. And still the people sit in silence and suffer. Why? Because many of them are cowardly defeatists at heart, martyrs fall trying to change things and they ignore it. And you can't deny that the majority of the Iraqi people, both sunni and Shia chose to do nothing when it came to saddam.

It's only the peoples right to change their own leader, no one else. A revolution is Always within the peoples reach, so i don't want to hear any excuses about saddam was to powerful (that's a laugh). The people have all the power but they where just too affraid to use it to it's fullest extent, and didn't believe in each other.

Maybe they felt, like i heard many times before and not just from iraqies, that it's something they could stand to suffer through. But foreign occupation, is such an affront to dignity and the human spirit, that i think it was the last straw from many iraqies, and it was NOT something they where oing to STAND and suffer through. I know that i would let any syrian rule Syria, before i let a foreigner take controll of it.

A bad Iraqi dictator was one thing, but a foreign occupation now...And not just by any foreigner but Americans. The people who fund israel's occupation of palestine and support dicatorships all over the world. The people who brought you Saddam in the FIRST PLACE, the people that encouraged him to attack Iran, and funded both sides of that war to continue the blood shed, who gave him chemical weapons which they claim he used on the kurds, the people that told him it was O K to invade kuwait and then started the 13 year sanctions that killed 500 thousand Iraqies under the age of 5.

No, the Iraqi people never put up a great struggle against Saddam when he was in power, and that's a shame that they have to live with, as us syrians must live with ours. But i think most iraqies see that this is a chance to change that shameful history, this is the chance to end the US games with your country and show them that all the suffering they have caused you has not broken your spirit. This is the chance to take really freedom with both hands, something which they never struggled for under saddam, and not the Psuedo-fake-"democracy" the Us is dangling before you as a part of their games, but freedom for iraq, no more dictatorships, no more occupation, no more US games with your country, end the suffering they have caused you, REAL freedom! I think that though many before have chosen to live in fear, cowering like cockroaches clinging on to life, there are some who decided that they will not take it anymore. In the words of the resistance and not mine, "We are simple people who chose principles over fear."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

That's why the resistance is fighting now.

What are you fighting for Sister? Youre fighting for Saddam to come back in power? Youre fighting for a dictatorial Iraq, which contradicts what Allah ordered for us? Youre fighting for democracy or something else? What exactly is it that youre fighting for? And please dont say "Islam", be more specific. What political ideology do you wish Iraqis to have? You wish them the same thing they had for over 30 years?

I guess you didn't bother reading my previous post, which makes me wonder why i am wasting my breath on you. I will repeat myself, i never claimed i was sooo "devouted" to islam, that is your assumption alone. You are right when religious or not religious it matters little, for once i had thought that the muslim people, where different, Special....better. But looking at your greed and your corruption, you so called devout muslims on this forum, i realised i was muchly mistaken.

What am i fighting for? I'm fighting for All the fallen hero's that defended their homes and their loved ones against the invasion, I'm fighting for all the fallen martyrs who stood up against Saddam and asked the people to rise up, I'm fighting for all the fallen martyrs who rose up against the injustice of this war, i'm fighting for all the hero's who stood for truth and freedom THROUGH OUT HISTORY, like William Wallace and Salah al Deen, the french resistance, the vietnamese resistance, the Iraqi resistance against the british a 100 years ago, the Syrian resistance against the french which included my beloved and heroic grand father, may god rest his soul. I'm fighting for the spirit and dignity of the Arab world, and for the hope of the whole of humanity.

That's what i'm fighting for.

Youre a funny character, and I saw that from Day1. Listen Sister,

Thanks ;)

Yes i AM different. I don't fit your theory or your status quo, i'm not shia or sunni or ba'athist or al qaeda or whatever they want to label me as, and i don't fit with the either this group or that one as the illuminati want me to fit. I'm standing where ever the right position is, and i'll support those than stand with me.

I saw from day one that you have potential to be a good person, You just have to belive that there IS right and wrong, and there are people out there that still see the world that way and not just in what benefits them. You have to open your eyes and your heart to the real resistance.

Please don't let me be mistaken about you.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Syrian Sister

[Syrian Sister]

IManonymous

From your posts i a little confused about my position. I never said the resistance doesn't exist, ofcource they do, they are killing enemy US soldiers and traitors everday. It's just that the other lies about them aren't true.

If you meant by that the one uniting factor of the insurgents is to End the occupation and End Self determination, then I agree.

Perhaps your unfamiliar with the term "self determination".

Definition: Self-determination is a principle in international law that a people ought to be able to determine their own governmental forms and structure free from outside influence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_determination

And occupation is the greatest form of outside influence, even george bush agrees.

Yes. Mo was wrong to say the resistance is mostly foreignors. Its possible they may provide money and material in excess of their share of the insurgent forces present, as they mostly (if not all) come from undemocratic countries opposed to democracy which could, conceivably spread to their own country. Other countries simply deported their own Islamic extremists (i.e. saudi arabia) simply as a means of getting rid of them even though they, themselves, created them.

The greatest enemy to democracy is the united states, sponsoring Coups against democratically elected presidents, like they did in chile and venezuela, and propping up and supporting dictators like saddam, pol pot and the house of saud.

The Baathists were a political party and not a religious party. A political party can kill civilians. The Baathists did it before the US invasion and they're still doing it now. Blaming the Mossad for it now is rather like blaming the Mossad for the Iraqis Saddam Insane killed.

Yes the ba'athists where not a religious party but a secular party, but you see the US is blaming the killings against iraqi civilians on "islamic extremists" and not on secular politicians. And Saddam brutal as he was didn't kill randomly and inanly, but killed political apposed people, and terrorised any population that apposed him, as dicators often do. Random killing doesn't serve anyones interest except for the occupiers.

If Baathists are guaranteed power within the new government of Iraq, then this works in favor of their resistance.

many ba'athists have been put straight back into power. And the resistance is still raging on. You see the resistance has very little to do with the ba'ath party and very much to do with the nation of iraq.

There are Americans being killed. Do not deny that. Your above logic fails right there.

How does logic fail there? I never denied americans where being killed and i never claimed the resistance wasn't killing them.

Oh contrare. I am proud of the resistance accomplishment in the killing and injuring of as much of the enemy as they possibly can.

I simple stated it is neither in the interest or the heart of the resistance, to kill iraqi civilians, their own families and friends, the people who they work with and study with everday. The people who shelter and aid them. No.

The resistance kills the enemies and the collaborators (traitors in other words)

And i never said anything about shia and sunni, it has nothing to do with that, , nor did i say that saddam only killed one group or another, i said saddam killed who ever apposed him. It looks like you have little grasp over what i'm trying to say, maybe i didn't make myself clear enough.

The Mossad is also active in the US via the Hudson Institute but they're not bombing anyone here. There are many political dangers to the US/British occupation to OPENLY use the Mossad although, no doubt, they are used to some degree. They're simply too good at what they do, and too willing to offer to do it, to be continually excluded.

Well i'm sure they use several other intel agents, mossad are very good at their job since they know how to blend in with arabs very well, so i don't see why they would be hiding them away i mean, it is THEIR job. But i suppose it's much easier to explain if british or American spies have been captured, such as the time in basra and the time in fallujah. Doesn't stop them from planting bombs though.

The resistance has continually blown up Iraq's oil pipelines (eight times alone in January 2006). American and British occupation forces did not do that.

You are DAMN right. And proud of it!!!!

In the words of the resistance : " We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.

We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

It's like this anonymous, they would rather it BURN than let you get a single drop of it. ;) go to admire that don't you?

Anyone ever wonder, why the Us is so concerned over those Oil pipelines in the first place? It's the first thing they secured when they went into iraq.

It's a pitty if no one wondered, really.

If the story is not true, it soon will be. The US and Britain must keep terrorism active in Iraq or be asked to withdraw.

The believeable elements to the story is that it was British conducted. Britain has engaged in this type of diplomacy for a very long time. US troops, by comparison, are too clumsy and stupid for such an operation. But George Bush could, in the future, resort to using the CIA to fund foreign Islamic extremists inside Iraq.

OH it's true friend, it's true, i can send you the links if you like. And your right, it's not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last.

The US never declared war on Iraq either and the US was allied with Iraq against Iran.

Actually dear, they DID declare war on Iraq in 2003, which is what i was talking about in that context.

What is the secret agenda you attribute to Mo?

You seem like an intelligent guy, perhaps you should not have over looked the possibility that i was throwing his mentality back in his face.

Is there an Iraqi here who is a witness to all these "thousands of murders and rapes"? I'm a little reluctant to take your word for it alone.

I belive a former abu gharib prisoner has began a data base detailing all the accounts of witness to rape and torture under the hands of the US, i belive it claims to have several thousand members. These are the people that are willing to come forward, many won't out of shame. We can continue to discuss this further and trade evidence if you wish.

I could substitute George Bush's name for Saddam's in the above and it would read exactly the same.

And you'd be right to. :D Though one wonders WHY they chose such a dim witted actor to play "big brother". But Who cares, it's funny. ;)

Edited February 5, 2006 by Syrian Sister

[Mo.]

(salam)

Dear Sister,

You posted a very long reply, and Ill try to answer most of your points - if possible!

First of all, I like one thing about you and thats that you stick to your beliefs and you dont change track. Thats a very good sign of a determined person. I also like the way you think! Yes, the Iraqi people didnt try to remove Saddam from power. They didnt realise the potential they had, if it wasnt for Saddam's era. They had a chance to develop their country, build financial districts, hotel resorts, hi-tech airports, bring in the hi-tech industry, give jobs for its people and become the strongest and most powerful Muslim nation ever created. They also had a chance to compete with the Zionist entity, as they also had a chance to set an example to the Arab world about what true democracy is really all about.

Unfortunately, thats just a small dream in a rich man's wallet. There are many other dreams too, and none of them came to reality. What really strikes me is why a monarchy doesnt ADMIT monarchy? One thing I love about the Arabian Gulf states (i.e. Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc) is that their rulers ADMIT that the heirs to the throne MUST be from the same family/roots. They are admitting it! But countries like former Iraq, Syria and Egypt claim that they are republican, yet they practise dictatorship and monarchist rules rather than republican policies.

Why cant Syria just change its title to the "Kingdom of Syria"? Theres no difference, is there? A King and a person like Assad both rule their countries the same way. However, one guy openly admits his monarchist rulership, whereas the other claims democracy.

Youre right about one thing, sister, and that is that the people of a specific country must revolt themselves WITHOUT any foreign assistance. But Arab dynasties, and Arab history shows us that this never happened. It never happened, not even once. Nobody ever stood up for his country before. Everyone was always waiting for somebody else to do the dirty job for them. And as you learned by now, when somebody else does the job for you, theres a certain price to pay... ;)

And IF (I say IF) a revolution ever does happen, it makes the political system worse! A good example is Egypt...

All I know is that you are siding yourself, for what you believe is right. Yes, you have good points. Ill be stupid if I ever denied your intelligence, youre points are well-made and quite clear. BUT you forgot one thing: Maybe the resistance does compose of Iraqis who are solely fighting for their country. Maybe the resistance does compose of a few religiously-motivated people who werent brave enough to do the same with Saddam's regime. But still, the existance of the Baath-insurgency is very high and itll continue to shatter the country.

OK, now heres my last question for you tonight: You said that every country is responsible for its own leaders. Then what about Kuwait? When Kuwait was invaded, none of the Kuwaitis wanted Saddam as a leader. All of them wanted their old leader back. They didnt have enough people to resist the occupation and their army was literally out-numbered. Why didnt the Arab "brothers" help the Kuwaitis during invasion? Why didnt they interfere with Saddam's businesses? Why didnt they tell Saddam: "This isnt your country, and the people of Kuwait want their old leader, not you!"? Why didnt they warn him of helping Kuwait?

After you answer that, answer this: Lets say another dictator comes to power in Iraq. Of course, the first thing youd probably say is that the Iraqis are responsible for the leaders who rule their country. So OK, that means theyre responsible for the new dictator. Lets say Abdel Hassan was that dictator LOL. Now, assume Abdel Hassan came to power through a military coup. Assume that the Iraqis did not actually want him, so they bravely spark a revolution against him. But he ends up killing hundreds of thousands of people. But the resistance is continuing and more and more Iraqis are getting killed. Sooner or later, 90% of the population dies because all of it tried to revolt. Now if thats the case, dont you think an outside support is necessary, or do you want all Iraqis to be eradicated?

[IMAnonymous]

IManonymous

From your posts i a little confused about my position. I never said the resistance doesn't exist, ofcource they do, they are killing enemy US soldiers and traitors everday. It's just that the other lies about them aren't true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They target recruiting stations for police officers with car bombs. True or false?

And occupation is the greatest form of outside influence, even george bush agrees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is why George Bush would not invite the UN in to Iraq to set up the new government. He intended to set it up himself. It is a matter of history that he did so, with intentions of establishing Anwar Chalabi as "lifetime" president, reopening an Iraqi oil line to Israel's Haifa, and eliminating Sharia Law by writing Iraq's constitution. He was crushed in the biggest US military and political defeat since the Vietnam War by Ayatollah Sistani who made a monkey out of Bush by defeating every single one of Bush's goals. It's a matter of history. And Sistani did it without using a single bomb.

Bush is an idiot.

Long live Sistani.

The greatest enemy to democracy is the united states, sponsoring Coups against democratically elected presidents, like they did in chile and venezuela, and propping up and supporting dictators like saddam, pol pot and the house of saud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US supported Anwar Chalabi in the Iraq elections.

How did he do?

The US then supported Alawi in the Iraq elections.

How did he do?

This is a matter of history. They were both supported by the CIA. Is either leading Iraq?

If not, your argument fails - not for lack of precedent and not for lack of Bush trying, but for the opposition of Sistani.

Yes the ba'athists where not a religious party but a secular party, but you see the US is blaming the killings against iraqi civilians on "islamic extremists" and not on secular politicians. And Saddam brutal as he was didn't kill randomly and inanly, but killed political apposed people, and terrorised any population that apposed him, as dicators often do. Random killing doesn't serve anyones interest except for the occupiers.

Detonating a car bomb at a police recruiting station is not a "random killing".

When a bomb goes off in a Shia neighborhood, that is not random.

When a bomb goes off in a Sunni neighborhood, that is not random.

When a bomb goes off that kills Shias, Sunni, and Kurds alike equally, that is "random". How many such examples do you have?

More to follow in my next post.

[IMAnonymous]

Continuing from before...

How does logic fail there? I never denied americans where being killed and i never claimed the resistance wasn't killing them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My error. I thought you were claiming the entire resistance was a fictional creation of the US, Britain, and Israel as an excuse to stay.

Oh contrare. I am proud of the resistance accomplishment in the killing and injuring of as much of the enemy as they possibly can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do they need to resist? Are you claiming the elections weren't fair?

And i never said anything about shia and sunni, it has nothing to do with that, , nor did i say that saddam only killed one group or another, i said saddam killed who ever apposed him. It looks like you have little grasp over what i'm trying to say, maybe i didn't make myself clear enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You tend to start a thread with a post cotaining accurate information and are then attacked for it. So I have been wondering what you are trying to say that others find so disagreeable. If your point is that US and Britain should pack up and leave tomorrow, something the Iraqis theselves can request at any time, what do you think would happen the day after the occupiers left? Peace and tranquility?

In the words of the resistance : " We will pin them here in  Iraq    to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.

We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The plan is working. So give us the resistance's next words after that for what they will do once the "infidels" are gone?

Anyone ever wonder, why the Us is so concerned over those Oil pipelines in the first place? It's the first thing they secured when they went into iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US secured the the oil fields first because Sadaam Insane blew them up in Kuwait when the US invaded, causing enormous damage. The US did not want a repeat of that.

And, if you're suggesting that Americans want Iraq oil, name one US oil company drilling in Iraq today.

Japan is drilling. Did they invade?

Actually dear, they DID declare war on Iraq in 2003, which is what i was talking about in that context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US did not declare war on Iraq. Only Congress has the powerto declare war and it did not declare war. Instead, Congress authorized Bush to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions.

I belive a former abu gharib prisoner has began a data base detailing all the accounts of witness to rape and torture under the hands of the US, i belive it claims to have several thousand members. These are the people that are willing to come forward, many won't out of shame. We can continue to discuss this further and trade evidence if you wish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are allowed to come forward, are they not? I did not ask for evidence of torture. Each side does that - Saddam did it, the US did it, and the Shia have done it. You said "murder and rape". "Murder" disappeared from your response. "Rape" is always a possibility by christians but you have stated "thousands" of US soldiers are raping Iraqi women. I have asked for a single Iraqi here who has witnessed such a claim to come forward. So far, none have. Is Iraq denied the internet?

[Syrian Sister]

Mo.

First off, thankyou for your compliments.

Why cant Syria just change its title to the "Kingdom of Syria"? Theres no difference, is there? A King and a person like Assad both rule their countries the same way. However, one guy openly admits his monarchist rulership, whereas the other claims democracy.

Well George bush was practically given power by his father, Bush the first, why don't they declare THAT a monarchy?

The britain is a monarchy, but the monarchs have little power. why don't they declare it a republic?

There maybe little difference, We are called the Syrian Arab Republic, we are called socialist though we are not. China is called "the people's republic" and they are called communist but they aren't really. The US claims to a democracy but what it is is a two headed dicatorship other wise known as a two party system. You are right that many things call themselves something they are not.

But in this case, though Syria's president was the son of the former president, and though it seems like there is little difference (like in george bush's case), Syria is DEFINETLY a Republic. One which has been in "a state of emergency" since our war with Israel. No where is it written law in our constitution or anywhere else, that presidency must be carried on by family, and voting still takes place though rigged as it is.The president and his family are not royalty, they don't live in a palace but in an apartment in damascus.

It might shock you to know, that many Syrians where very pleased that Bashar came into power, he has a reputation for being mild and kind, choosing to become an Eye doctor rather than drive fast cars and waste his time etc.

I mean we had no other choice but the ba'ath party anyway....

I know that there seems little difference but please, a Republic is what we worked hard for so don't condenm us just yet, a republic is what we are, bashar's decendencies will not be put in to power, you have my 100% guarantee on that, i'll put my life on the line to make sure that those words are true.

As for your questions about kuwait i belive i had already answered it in my previous post, but i will repost some of what i said.

OK, now heres my last question for you tonight: You said that every country is responsible for its own leaders. Then what about Kuwait? When Kuwait was invaded, none of the Kuwaitis wanted Saddam as a leader. All of them wanted their old leader back. They didnt have enough people to resist the occupation and their army was literally out-numbered. Why didnt the Arab "brothers" help the Kuwaitis during invasion? Why didnt they interfere with Saddam's businesses? Why didnt they tell Saddam: "This isnt your country, and the people of Kuwait want their old leader, not you!"? Why didnt they warn him of helping Kuwait?

What i have been trying to tell you is, taking an country as an ally in a war/struggle against occupation is different that taking an occupier as an ally and master against your own people. A bad leader is different from an occupation.

I said the following:

As for Kuwait taking America as it's ally in the war, That is not as bad as the traitors in Iraq who take the occupier as an ally. Two countries becoming allies in a war is different, from traitors taking the enemy as an ally against their own people, and helping the enemy to murder those who choose to resist.Though i still think it's a mistake for kuwait to take as it's ally a country who is helping to murder it's friends in palestine.... You know it doesn't come without a price.... The price that kuwaities and East timories had to pay, multiply that a 100 fold, for the price that the traitors will make Iraq pay. But what kuwait did allying with america isn't EVEN CLOSE to the mistake any iraqi traitor is doing betraying his nation to america. There is a big difference to what kuwait did and what they are doing, can you see that?

Arab countries joining the war to aid kuwait.... Well as a matter of fact many of them Arab leaders , including Syria did join the war on kuwaits side. But i do belive in the arab did not want to see brothers warring with each other, brothers killing brothers, while the real enemy continues to manipulate and occupy. It's not easy or even good to take sides when to brothers are killing each other, like when iran and iraq where fighting and america was pulling the strings.

Iraq did start that war with kuwait, but kuwait is no angel, they did syphon of that iraqi oil through that pipeline. What should have happened when Saddam declared war on kuwait, was that iraqies should have stopped their own leader, just like the americans are responsible for stopping bush, I know few did try... but so few people in so many tried, and so they failed and there is no excuse for that. And on the kuwaities side should have woke up to what their government was doing and made sure it stops.

You see i don't support wars i think they are stupid things, and leaders that bring their nation into war, but i always support national liberation struggles (resistances to occupation), So if kuwait where ever occupied by iraq, i would support any resistance that comes out of kuwait as i am sure the rest of the arab world would. Just as i support the resistance of palestine against israel, and i support the idea of allied arab/persian nations coming in to support that resistance, and just as i support the idea of the iraqi resistance and allied arab/persian nations supporting that resistance.

What i'm trying to tell you is, taking an country as an ally in a war/struggle against occupation is different that taking an occupier as an ally and master against your own people. A bad leader is different from an occupation.

Youre right about one thing, sister, and that is that the people of a specific country must revolt themselves WITHOUT any foreign assistance. But Arab dynasties, and Arab history shows us that this never happened. It never happened, not even once. Nobody ever stood up for his country before.

They didnt realise the potential they had, if it wasnt for Saddam's era. They had a chance to develop their country, build financial districts, hotel resorts, hi-tech airports, bring in the hi-tech industry, give jobs for its people and become the strongest and most powerful Muslim nation ever created. They also had a chance to compete with the Zionist entity, as they also had a chance to set an example to the Arab world about what true democracy is really all about. Unfortunately, thats just a small dream in a rich man's wallet. There are many other dreams too, and none of them came to reality.

I have to disagree with you there :) I belive that the dream is that of the poor, and i think Only the working class poor, the majority of the Iraqi people, are capable of accomplishing that dream.

You asked what will happen if they begin a revolution and Iraqi people are eradicated, that's a ridiculous idea, what is a government without people to rule over? The people have the power, they they are what keep the country running, the military included, if they work together and bring the machine to a halt, all governments all leaders will fall at their feet. I belive the Iraqi people should have counted that the Iraqi army would have stood with them in the case of a revolt. Even some reformist ba'athist might have turned against saddam if the people showed them that a chance for real change can happen.

You are right that it rarely happens in an arab countries. It's because of our large number of defeatists, and our patience. It is more of a curse than a virtue, especially when that patience is extended to leaders. But i belive it CAN happen, there is no reason why there should not be a first time.

Yes We HAVE seen that many revoltions have been stolen and gone a stray in the past, but we shouldn't let that break our spirit! Maybe it's because i'm young but i belive in that dream and i plan to spend my life fighting for it and there are others like me. Even if we fail atleast we would have spent our life fighting for what is right. To me, when you are fighting for what is right you are already victorious.

Everyone was always waiting for somebody else to do the dirty job for them.

This words are very true. And i shout that to the Syrian people always to stop waiting for a hero to save them, no one can save them for real but themselves.

However in Iraq's case, you mo, wait for the iraqi heros that have already now come, those who want that dream we talked about to come true and are fighting for it, but you ignore them, you are too affraid to even belive they exist, and again too affraid to support them, "What if someone wose comes to power" "what if the ba'ath comes back to power",

You are still affraid to take a chance, the same as you where affraid to step up and support the resistance against saddam, they where martyred and nothing changed, the people let them die and they did nothing. Will you let the same thing happen to the iraqi resistance? That would be a tragety not just for the iraqi people but for humanity, yet another example of the peoples weakness and defeat.

Yes we have seen that many revoltions have been stolen and gone a stray in the past, but in iraq's case it won't be a revolution this time it will be a liberation from occupation and a start of self determination. That means the whole nation will be filled with energy and the people themselves will be empowered by this since they threw out the occupier themselves, i am certain that their not just going to allow the ba'ath to waltz back into power, that is a ridiculous idea, the ba'ath have no support anymore and even they themselves know that it is not possible to regain power and the faith of the iraqi people, something new will emerge for sure. But I can't guarantee you that after the occupier is kicked out the people won't allow the dream to slip through their fingers yet again. I can't tell you that everyone will be just fine and dandee, but it is the only chance try for it. It is the only way to that dream.

But if you don't take this chance and support the resistance, what i CAN guarrantee is that a government that will be worse than the ba'aths only more secret (like one of those nations that don't admit what they are) they will be more treasonous, the shia will be "in power" only in name, and because of the crimes of the new regime, the name of the shia will be tarnished. The Iraqi people will still be far poorer than they can be, including the shia, because the shia are the majority and it's easy to turn a majority into the working class, they will steal more of your wealth and sell it cheaply, they will be controlled by the foreigner, and they will start negotiations with israel, your people by then will not mind because they will be brainwashed by greed and become the mindless consumers, they will have no pride in their nation or their arabness (this has already begun). No you won't just become like the gulf states, you will become something far worse, a model middle eastern nation IN THE eyes of the united states.

Because you where affraid to have hope and take a chance yet again,that dream we talked about will be far more distant and not just for iraq but for all the middle east( and infact if yu think about it for the whole world), like domino's we will all be conquered and shamed. The US strategy to "re-shape" the middle east as they have said, will be a success, and when you die, what sort of life would you have lived, a life of a human or a life of a cockroach? What will you say when you stand before god.

So that's it, that's what's really happening in iraq. ;)

Edited February 6, 2006 by Syrian Sister

[IMAnonymous]

Okay.

I now see why everyone disagrees with you. You are a revolutionary without a revolution. You have no cause. Let's list your own self defeating admissions:

[i said the following:

As for Kuwait taking America as it's ally in the war, That is not as bad as the traitors in Iraq who take the occupier as an ally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US is an ally with Iraq against Saddam Insane the same as the US was an ally with Kuwait against Saddam Insane. The US had to enter Kuwait to free them, the same as the US had to enter Iraq to free them.

The price that kuwaities and East timories had to pay, multiply that a 100 fold, for the price that the traitors will make Iraq pay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "price" that the Kuwaiti's are having to "pay" is that they're now getting three times as much for their oil as before.

If that is incorrect and Kuwait is somehow paying some "hidden price", please correct me and tell me what it is?

Even some reformist ba'athist might have turned against saddam if the people showed them that a chance for real change can happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US gave the Baathists 12 years for this to happen - And it didn't.

Yes we have seen that many revoltions have been stolen and gone a stray in the past, but in iraq's case it won't be a revolution this time it will be a liberation from occupation and a start of self determination... But I can't guarantee you that after the occupier is kicked out the people won't allow the dream to slip through their fingers yet again. I can't tell you that everyone will be just fine and dandee...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, you don't know what will happen if the occupation ended tomorrow although you admit "that many revoltions have been stolen and gone a stray in the past". That's not a very comforting answer.

But if you don't take this chance and support the resistance, what i CAN guarrantee is that a government that will be worse than the ba'aths...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you now claiming that Turkey has a worse government than the Baathists? Because, if the US had its way, isn't Turkey's the most comparable government that Iraq would end up with?

The Iraqi people will still be far poorer than they can be, including the shia, because the shia are the majority and it's easy to turn a majority into the working class,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that is what Saddam Insane did and he did it by denying the Shia the majority vote. Now you claim by having the majority vote the Shia will be worse off? If that were true, Saddam Insane would have given the Shia the majority vote himself.

I find it difficult to believe that someone as intelligent as you would rest her case in favor of a revolution without a cause based upon such an empty case. You'll have to forgive me but I just think you're too intelligent to believe that. Instead, you twice repeated a concern that I think actually speaks for why you support a revolution that has no cause. Quoting you:

I support the resistance of palestine against israel...they (the Iraqis) will be controlled by the foreigner, and they will start negotiations with israel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If this is your concern it is both valid and not valid. It is valid from the view that the US, if it could, would encourage Iraq to enter into negotiations with Israel. It is invalid because the US has already tried to do so and failed.

You are evidently not aware that the US tried to rebuild and reopen an oil pipeline from Iraq to Haifa in Israel that was shut down in 1948 but the Iraqis stopped the US from doing this. If Iraq, under occupation, can prevent the US from building

an oil pipeline to Israel, then surely the US cannot force the Iraqi people into negotiations with Israel.

You clearly do not understand the success of Ayatollah Sistani, who has handed the US its biggest military, economic, and political defeat since, and including, the Vietnam War. Iraq is a complete and total American failure. Bush cannot point to a single success in Iraq. Sistani has made a monkey out of him. George Bush has been reduced to an idiot who now takes his orders from Sistani. Outside of the removal of Saddam Insane, name ANY GOAL that George Bush has accomplished? JAPAN HAS ACCOMPLISHED MORE WITH IRAQ THAN THE US. This is already history.

Here is an Iraq blog site written by a Muslim woman complaining about the failure of the US to accomplish its goals in Iraq:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

The US invasion has been a monumental failure. Your fears are unfounded.

[Syrian Sister]

They target recruiting stations for police officers with car bombs. True or false?

Actually most of the time the resistance Shoots those officers/army deemed to be collaborators.

Often you might here about a bunch of them, lined up, blind folded, and each with a bullet to the head. It's a much cleaner way to kill collaboraotrs.

You see many people who are a part of the resistance have joined the forces as infilitrators, and these infiltrators can provide the resistance with excellent information, some of which is on who is a collaborator and when is the best time to erradicate them.

That's the strategy of the resistance it is rarely to just blow up would be collaborators, though there is nothing wrong with that, it's just that that's what you mostly hear on the news isn't it.

That is why George Bush would not invite the UN in to Iraq to set up the new government. He intended to set it up himself. It is a matter of history that he did so, with intentions of establishing Anwar Chalabi as "lifetime" president,

....

The US supported Anwar Chalabi in the Iraq elections.

How did he do?

The US then supported Alawi in the Iraq elections.

....

Why do they need to resist? Are you claiming the elections weren't fair?

OH come now, there is no reason why you can't have a puppet regime that has a face of "democracy" on it. Infact it does better to controll teh population.

The US may have made it look like they where interested in Chalabi and Allawi, but they did that to make the elections Look legitimate. Realise that they are playing a juggling game, they don't care who wins really, In the end their still in controll.

These people don't make mistakes, except when george bush opens his mouth ofcource. And he said himself, "you can't have free elections under occupation", ofcource he ws talking about Syrian in lebanon, but he is right. Countries influence and pressure each other enough as it is, but a full blown occupation now that is complete controll.

it doesn't matter what the face of it is, islamic leaning, etc etc, whatever will be in power will protect the interests of the United States. Wether those interests be economic or strategical (for future wars).John pilger has said, what you have now is a bit like the nazi installation of the Vicci french. And it can also be compared to the installation of the post WW2 german governments and the Japanese govt, both those govts and the Iraqi govt have elements of the former regime given power.

You ask why do they need to resist? I can't belive that you don't understand already. If America was occupied, would you ask, "why do we need to resist?". Simple put, Iraq needs to resist, inorder to exist.

Whatever other games the US tries to play, Divide and conquer, elections, referendums etc etc. The resistance will be there and it will grow.

The plan is working. So give us the resistance's next words after that for what they will do once the "infidels" are gone?

The Resistance never used the words infidel. There are christian groups among the resistance too you know, as well as athiests. So please unbrainwash your self with this American defamation of their enemy. It is mostly the american generals who say things like the prophet mohammad was the right hand of the devil etc etc.

The resistance doesn't need a plan for after the occupation is pushed out because there will not be need for a resistance movement once the occupier is pushed out. The resistance soul purpose is to get rid of the occupation and that is it. The rest is up to the iraqi nation as a whole.

The US secured the the oil fields first because Sadaam Insane blew them up in Kuwait when the US invaded, causing enormous damage. The US did not want a repeat of that.

And, if you're suggesting that Americans want Iraq oil

Yes, that's exactly what i'm suggesting. You think they'd care otherwise what saddam would do to the oil? Why would they care.. for iraqies???

PLEASE spare me the "we are securing it for iraqies sake, and we're doing it all for iraqies" Speach, it makes me want to vomit.

You care so much is that why you poisoned their water supplies during the sanctions and forbade them any chemicals to clean it? You said the death of 500 thousand iraqi babies (under the age of 5) during the sanctions was "worth it" to get at Saddam?

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Your smart enough to know governments do things to benefit themselves, your telling me Iraq's oil and Enrons back pocket had nothing to do with this war? Don't make me laugh.

George bush said it himself a few days ago right before he threatened Iran, "America is addicted to oil".

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

President Bush said on Tuesday "America is addicted to oil"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060201/pl_nm/bush_speech_dc

The US did not declare war on Iraq. Only Congress has the powerto declare war and it did not declare war. Instead, Congress authorized Bush to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions.

What is this? The word game the US govt tries to use on it's people? Well the Rest of the world isn't fooled dear. COngress authorised the use of force, Whatever you want to call it, a picnic, a Summer break from peace etc. It's a war And when congress gave the ok the day before the war began, that was the declaration as far as the rest of the world include iraq is concerned.

As for wether it's propper or constitutional or fitting into your rules for "declaring war" or "autharization of force" , that's for you americans to decide isn't it? This mute point has little to do, with what i was discussing previously.

They are allowed to come forward, are they not?

Why thankyou. LOL. Yes many also came forward under saddam to the . IS this some sort of pathetic attempt to make the US look like it's better than Saddam? They come forward to a body unlinked to the US or the puppet regime, and if the US is publicly outed over these sorts of things, the only form of sham justice the US shows the world is giving a couple of low ranking scape goats a slap on the wrist and a year in prison. These war crimes should be sent to the hague and send your heads of state while your at it.

You said "murder and rape". "Murder" disappeared from your response.

Oh, forgive but i thought it was common knoweledge of the tens of thousands of civilians that the US has murdered through air bombardements in this war alone, Not to mention the millions that have been killed due to the sanctions.

And if we are talking about the murder of prisoners of war, that to is a fact.

ABC News has obtained two new photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing Spc. Charles Graner and Spc. Sabrina Harmon posing over the body of a detainee who was allegedly beaten to death by CIA or civilian interrogators in the prison's showers. The detainee's name was Manadel al-Jamadi. Mark Rothschild writes about the details of this poor man's death.

Shot even as he waved the white flag of surrender.

Do we forget that incident in that mosque in fallujah?

I have many more horrible images and videos but i might attract the attention of the moderators if i post them.

"Rape" is always a possibility by christians but you have stated "thousands" of US soldiers are raping Iraqi women.

What does this have to do with christians or christianity? Anyway yes, some of those rapes happened to men, and some of them happened to women.

I have asked for a single Iraqi here who has witnessed such a claim to come forward. So far, none have. Is Iraq denied the internet?

I thought you said you didn't ask for eyewitness accounts/evidence. Well it's seems your asking now. If your expecting a freed Iraqi prisoner to just stumble upon your post and start giving you his eye witness account, i wouldn't hold my breath.

Anyway, here is but one eyewitness account for you.

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-nadia230704.htm

CAIRO, July 21 (IslamOnline.net) – The rape ordeal she suffered at the hands of US soldiers, both males and females, in the notorious Abu Gharib prison will continue to haunt Nadia for the rest of her life.

Anyway this things are happening, are you denying that, Mo. isn't and it was him that i was arguing with when i said it is imorrally to cow toe to the rapists and murderers for a bit of bread and water while their occupying your country still.

Okay.

I now see why everyone disagrees with you. You are a revolutionary without a revolution. You have no cause. Let's list your own self defeating admissions:

HEh, :) don't get ahead of yourself there, not everyone disagrees with me, although you might want that.

You may be right that i am a revolutionary but i certainly do have a cause, to smash imperialism where ever it rears it's ugly head.

As for your list of my own "self defeating admissions" , hahaha, nice choice of words. Let's adress what you have on this "list".

I said the following:

As for Kuwait taking America as it's ally in the war, That is not as bad as the traitors in Iraq who take the occupier as an ally.

The US is an ally with Iraq against Saddam Insane the same as the US was an ally with Kuwait against Saddam Insane. The US had to enter Kuwait to free them, the same as the US had to enter Iraq to free them.

You miss the point entirely.

A leadership, a sovereign nation, a state taking as an ally, another country during a time of war, is not the same as people betraying their country by collaborating with an occupation brung about by a war and an invasion.

The US is not an "ally" with Iraq, because it's up to the iraqi people wether or not they have the want and the will to get rid of their own leaders.

If Syria declared war on the US tomorow, and got rid of Bush for you and occupied your country, and claimed it was for America's own good. How would you feel? LIke a child that is being told what is good for them by a parent?

You are not the parent of the Iraqi people alright, you are not cleverer or better than them, they where building civilisations 5000 years before the "US of A" even existed. It's not your place to speek.

Now i have a feeling you are against bush, but would you really allow your country to be invaded and occupied by another country if that country claimed they where freeing you from that mad man? Or will you be insulted and join a resistance. Think about this hypothetical question because it is character defining.

The "price" that the Kuwaiti's are having to "pay" is that they're now getting three times as much for their oil as before.

Is that all you see things in terms of? Money ? Oil? Well i have to forgive you for that your capitalist regime brainwashes you into that sort of mentality. But there is indeed something with more worth than money, Sometimes though morally bunkrupt and greedy people give that in exchange for money, and they don't just give away that precious thing for themselves, but they give it up for their entire nation.

Think about what it is Anonymous, because if your really a good person, you don't need me to tell you, deep down you already know.

Even some reformist ba'athist might have turned against saddam if the people showed them that a chance for real change can happen.

The US gave the Baathists 12 years for this to happen - And it didn't.

HUH???? Again i don't think you read what i'm saying properly.

What i was trying to say was that, if the Iraqi people rose up in such a way to show really strength and a possibility of real change and revolution then they shouldn't be affraid of any blood bath or massacres, because they can probably count that the iraqi military would stand with them, AND EVEN SOME REFORMIST BA'ATHISTS will join such a revolution.

What i am trying to say, did not really involve the ba'ath party, nor the US, I was attempting to show that they should have had more hope and less fear. AND yet somehow you missunderstood that and replied to me with "the US gave the ba'ath 12 years.."

LOL, Gave the ba'ath 12 years for what? What do you expect from the ba'ath? What? reforms? HAH. Anyway, what makes you think the US has the right to expect anything from them? Are you the ones suffering under their leadership?

What is the US the supervisor, teacher, boss, of other governements? Because the way i know it is, leaders are only answerable to their people.

So what give you the right to stick your nose in it with your pompous "we gave em' 12 years, yeehaw". The US ARE NOT world police, they do not have the right to go around pretending they are the leaders of the whole world, looking out for every people even in nations not of your own, even when things don't concern them.

Everyone can see through the US govt's facade, everyone can see that the US arrogantly say and does these things not out of the goodness of their heart as they claim, but to serve your own interests as governments do. It's so see through and repulsive, the US pretends to all about freedom, democracy, civilised in comparison to the barbarian dictators, while they secretly torture and use chem weapons against civilians. What makes your government any different from Saddam's? The US, with it's track record (not just the recent one) is the least in position to be world police, not even in the position to talk about the short comings of other peoples leaders.

You said "the US gave the ba'ath 12 years"... But i'll tell they what you really gave. They gave the ba'ath 12 years of luxuary rulling over Iraq, and they gave the Iraqi people 12 years of sufferring, pain and starvation. If the US had not weakened the Iraqi population to that extent, who knows the revolution may have already taken place.

In other words, you don't know what will happen if the occupation ended tomorrow although you admit "that many revoltions have been stolen and gone a stray in the past". That's not a very comforting answer.

Are you now claiming that Turkey has a worse government than the Baathists? Because, if the US had its way, isn't Turkey's the most comparable government that Iraq would end up with?

Turkey? Where did you get turkey from.... Anyway what i'm trying to say is, to resist the occupation is the only real chance for any sort of freedom and any chance that iraq can reach its true potential. The ulternative, is yet another US puppet cow towing to it's foreign policy contrare to the good of it's people and the good of the world, the US's record with human rights is just a glimps of the things to come, after all who trained Saddam. What the US has planned for Iraq is a Super-puppet state, as they call it, a model state for the middle east. An imcomparible horror. Anyway that was between me and Mo, if you want to have a conversation with me anonymous , you gotta start your own. ;)

I believe that is what Saddam Insane did and he did it by denying the Shia the majority vote. Now you claim by having the majority vote the Shia will be worse off? If that were true, Saddam Insane would have given the Shia the majority vote himself.

That's not even remotely close to anything i'm attempting to say, and it's almost as though your whitewashing my words. What i'm saying is that . The US's "democracy" is us much a fraud as the democracy they have in their own country. Look at the shia now , now that their supposedly "in power" , the majority of them are still living in the poorest of ghettos. You think things are going to get better, well even if the whole of iraq turns into a capitalist heaven for the US, the majority of the people, which constitutes most shia, and a bulk of the iraqies are still going to get the raw end of the deal, if you don't get it, just look at your people in New Orleans and remember what happened to them.

I find it difficult to believe that someone as intelligent as you would rest her case in favor of a revolution without a cause based upon such an empty case.

i tell you, even if the US was planning to clean up all messes, i would STILL support the Iraqi resistance.

If a person comes into your house, burns half of it down, wounds you, kills your dad and rapes your mom, if he then fixes your home and makes it look nicer, would you thank him? If he bribes you with gifts would you accept? If he tries to tend to your wounds, would you let him? This is another one of those, character defining questions.

Perhaps dignity, justice and Real freedom/self determination are "empty cases" to you. But not to me. Perhaps that not what intelligent characters think, but if it makes me a fool, then i'm glad to be that kind of fool.

The US invasion has been a monumental failure.

I completely agree, but the only reason that is true, is because of the Iraqi resistance.

Maybe i give you the wrong idea giving mo the deal, but that is for mo sake alone, for him to join the side of justice, the resistance doesn't need him if he doesn't support them, they will go on without him as they have been, they have already surpassed all expectations.

They WILL be, victorious. That i can surely guarantee. :)

Looking forward to more debates with you anonymous.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Syrian Sister

[Syrian Sister]

darn it... why won't the quotes work.... how do i fix that

ARGHHH! !!!! i spend ages trying to fix it and it didn't work :squeez: :squeez: :wacko:

MODERATOR!!! FIXES IT !!! :cry:

Well anonymous, your just going to have to try to fend foryourself and read it closely...

Edited February 6, 2006 by Syrian Sister

[IMAnonymous]

Actually most of the time the resistance Shoots those officers/army deemed to be collaborators.  Often you might here about a bunch of them, lined up, blind folded, and each with a bullet to the head. It's a much cleaner way to kill collaboraotrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then the answer to my question is that your revolutionaries deliberately kill their own people and their own police as collaborators. It is the same tactic of Hitler's Gestapo in World War II for dealng with "collaborators".

You see many people who are a part of the resistance have joined the forces as infilitrators, and these infiltrators can provide the resistance with excellent information, some of which is on who is a collaborator and when is the best time to erradicate them.

Evidently, anyone who shows up at a police recruiting station is judged to be a collaborater. Did the "infiltrators" provide the resistance with that information?

OH come now, there is no reason why you can't have a puppet regime that has a face of "democracy" on it.

Name the winning parties in the Iraqi elections you consider to be American "puppets".

If you can't name any, your revolution has no cause.

The US may have made it look like they where interested in Chalabi and Allawi, but they did that to make the elections Look legitimate.

So the US really wanted the Iranian friendly, cleric backed, anti-secular United Iraqi Alliance to win?

I continue to find you too intelligent to actually believe your own claims.

Here the Washington Post identifies the two top party winners as being exactly what the US didn't want:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb13.html

they don't care who wins really, In the end their still in controll.

Here is who won the elections, putting them in control:

Islamic Al-Da'wa Party: A pro Iranian group opposed to secularism, communism and Baathist Arab socialism.

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq: Another, even more pro Iranian group (followers of Khomeini) and leaders of the Badr Brigade, a group you apparently believe to be American puppets.

If I am to believe you then Iran is now being run by an American "puppet" government which the US decided to duplicate in Iraq.

These people don't make mistakes, except when george bush opens his mouth ofcource.

Bush has made nothing but mistakes (Opening his mouth just proves he's an idiot.). He didn't get Chalabi, he didn't get Alawi, he didn't get a secular government, he didn't get an oil pipeline to Israel. He didn't get any US bases. He didn't even get the lights turned on in Baghdad. The US was actually better off with Saddam Insane leading Iraq than a bunch of followers of Khomeini. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all know this is a political disaster. So does the Sunni backed resistance.

it doesn't matter what the face of it is, islamic leaning, etc etc, whatever will be in power will protect the interests of the United States.

Is Iran building nuclear missiles to protect the interests of the United States? Because the two top winning political parties (with 70% of the vote) in Iraq are more closely aligned with Iran than the US.

And it can also be compared to the installation of the post WW2 german governments and the Japanese govt, both those govts and the Iraqi govt have elements of the former regime given power.

Originally, all Baathists were excluded from office by the US. That was found to be impractical as they knew the infrastructure.

You ask why do they need to resist? I can't belive that you don't understand already. If America was occupied, would you ask, "why do we need to resist?".

America is occupied. American Indians found themselves being invaded and placed on reservations. Should they grab their guns and bombs and resist by killing police officers, including their own tribal police, as "colloborators"?

More to come.

[IMAnonymous]

Simple put, Iraq needs to resist, inorder to exist.

Simply put, the resistance must succeed or Iran will gain an ally.

And the odds that the resistance can prevent that are next to none. Or do you wish to claim that the resistance includes Shia aligned with Iran?

The resistance must be opposed to an alignment with Iran or it has no reason to exist. It would already be represented by the elections otherwise. The resistance is for the losers of the elections for whom democracy does not work.

Whatever other games the US tries to play, Divide and conquer, elections, referendums etc etc. The resistance will be there and it will grow.

The only way the resistance will grow is if Sistani isolates the other 30% of the population from the government - Or if the US refuses to leave when asked.

The Resistance never used the words infidel. There are christian groups among the resistance too you know, as well as athiests. So please unbrainwash your self with this American defamation of their enemy.

It is the duty of every Muslim to remove "infidel" invaders from the land. Please educate yourself on this. The US must go when asked or they become infidels. And I see you did not include Shia amongst the resistance. Would that be because they have no reason to resist since they won the elections? And, if the Shia won the elections, the US didn't.

The resistance doesn't need a plan for after the occupation is pushed out because there will not be need for a resistance movement once the occupier is pushed out. The resistance soul purpose is to get rid of the occupation and that is it. The rest is up to the iraqi nation as a whole.

If the US has agreed to leave when asked then all the Iraqis have to do is ask, rendering your excuse for the resistance mute. The resistance does not state its plan for "after the occupation" because its plan is to not have free elections. It plans civil war where the militias decide the next government and it will be decided by bullets and not ballots.

Name a single reliable source of authority who has stated there will be no civil war if the occupation ends tomorrow.

You are intelligent enough to know this. It's why you can't win your arguments. You counter them yourself by admitting you can't guarantee what will happen if the occupation is suddenly ended, when everyone else CAN GUARANTEE what will happen if the occupation is suddenly ended. The unanimous answer: civil war.

Yes, that's exactly what i'm suggesting. You think they'd care otherwise what saddam would do to the oil? Why would they care.. for iraqies???

PLEASE spare me the "we are securing it for iraqies sake, and we're doing it all for iraqies" Speach, it makes me want to vomit.

The oil fields were secured to prevent them from being set on fire as was done in Kuwait. The damage done by the Kuwait fires was enormous. Please feel free to vomit but this is simple history. To deny it is to deny that Saddam Insane set fire to the Kuwait fields.

To claim US oil companies wanted Iraq oil was disproven long ago when it was shown that Bush actually invited American oil company executives to the White House where he showed them a map of Iraq and offered them oil rights. Not one company offered a bid - Not even for one dollar. The only company that made an offer was Chevron and it refused to bid on any of the fields. Instead, it offered to buy and ship existing oil from the Iraqi government. Chevron declined to drill or lease oil rights.

It is simple history.

Your smart enough to know governments do things to benefit themselves, your telling me Iraq's oil and Enrons back pocket had nothing to do with this war? Don't make me laugh.

You mention Enron. How many oil fields in Iraq has Enron contracted to explore?

Answer: None.

But Japan has. Evidently, Japan must have started the war in Iraq so that it could get Iraq's oil. That is how the conspiracy theory works, isn't it?

More to come.

[IMAnonymous]

What is this? The word game the US govt tries to use on it's people? Well the Rest of the world isn't fooled dear. COngress authorised the use of force, Whatever you want to call it, a picnic, a Summer break from peace etc. It's a war And when congress gave the ok the day before the war began, that was the declaration as far as the rest of the world include iraq is concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congress did not give approval "the day before the war began". Bush used an Act passed in October, 2002 to justify his invasion of March, 2003. Congress had then authorized Bush the option to use military force to bring Iraq into UN compliance on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush then LIED and declared Iraq was out of compliance when the UN reported, a week before the invasion, that Iraq was, in fact, in compliance (See UN March 9 report of Hans Blix). It may seem to be of no difference to you, but being one of those Americans Bush lied to, I do not include my Congress as part of his personal schemes.

Why thankyou. LOL. Yes many also came forward under saddam to the . IS this some sort of pathetic attempt to make the US look like it's better than Saddam? They come forward to a body unlinked to the US or the puppet regime, and if the US is publicly outed over these sorts of things, the only form of sham justice the US shows the world is giving a couple of low ranking scape goats a slap on the wrist and a year in prison. These war crimes should be sent to the hague and send your heads of state while your at it.

While I totally agree that George Bush and his Neocon advisors be sent to the Hague and be tried for war crimes, the suggestion that US troops are walking the streets of Iraq, MURDERING THOUSANDS indiscriminately for, evidently, purposes of personal entertainment, is an accusation without justification. If it were true, we would see THOUSANDS "of low ranking scape goats get a slap on the wrist and a year in prison."

However, I agree that the punishment given these soldiers was too light. In the US, military trials can have predetermined outcomes. In this case, I would suspect the guilty were given light sentences in exchange for not implicating their superior officers and thereby reducing the scandal. This is another situation I attribute to Bush, just as I attribute Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to him. The interrogation methods used came down from his office and would not/could not have been used otherwise. It is yet another reason to send Bush to the Hague. But to suggest that US troops are daily using women and children for target practice in Iraq would be a huge overstatement of reality. I don't see any real support for that.

Oh, forgive but i thought it was common knoweledge of the tens of thousands of civilians that the US has murdered through air bombardements in this war alone, Not to mention the millions that have been killed due to the sanctions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Air bombardments? You're using air bombardments as an excuse for murder? I assume that you can show then that the aircraft bombs of Muslim countries such as Syria and Egypt only kill combatants and not civilians, because, otherwise, every Muslim country that owns an aircraft bomb is guilty of premeditated murder, but just haven't (or have) carried it out yet. For example, how many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of MUSLIMS did Iraq and Iran MURDER in the Iran/Iraq war?

And if we are talking about the murder of prisoners of war, that to is a fact.

So how many THOUSANDS were murdered by the US at Abu Ghraib?

Not that I excuse any, mind you, but you're the one claiming THOUSANDS. You've named exactly ONE, Manadel al-Jamadi.

Shot even as he waved the white flag of surrender.

Hello? Am I expected to be so stupid as to believe he was shot while SURRENDERING at Abu Ghraib prison? And explain that ROCK lying on that boy? Is that what the US shot him with?

Do we forget that incident in that mosque in fallujah?

Gee! How can you tell he's not a COLLABORATOR?

You say it's okay to kill collaborators. Which side was he collaborating with? How can you tell? Or does it even matter?

And...Let's see...Now how would this picture be any different if it was taken after a car bombing attack at a recruitment station? Oh! I know! There would be LOTS MORE DEAD BODIES and they would be BLOWN TO PIECES and left as BLOODY RED SMEARS ON THE WALLS compliments of YOUR resistance.

By the way, WHAT WAS FOUND IN THAT MOSQUE IN FALLUJAH?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...ns-report_x.htm

More to come.

[IMAnonymous]

Anyway yes, some of those rapes happened to men, and some of them happened to women.

I thought you said you didn't ask for eyewitness accounts/evidence. Well it's seems your asking now. If your expecting a freed Iraqi prisoner to just stumble upon your post and start giving you his eye witness account, i wouldn't hold my breath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I figured I'd wait for one of the 25 million Iraqis who are alive and well and FREE today to stumble on my post and tell us first hand of American soldiers raping MEN, women, and MURDERING THOUSANDS.

But, you're right, I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to reply.

I wonder why?

You may be right that i am a revolutionary but i certainly do have a cause, to smash imperialism where ever it rears it's ugly head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And replace it with what you can't guarantee...but everyone else can.

As for your list of my own "self defeating admissions" , hahaha, nice choice of words. Let's adress what you have on this "list".

"The US is an ally with Iraq against Saddam Insane the same as the US was an ally with Kuwait against Saddam Insane. The US had to enter Kuwait to free them, the same as the US had to enter Iraq to free them."

You miss the point entirely.

A leadership, a sovereign nation, a state taking as an ally, another country during a time of war, is not the same as people betraying their country by collaborating with an occupation brung about by a war and an invasion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your comparison is misleading. It could just as easily read "A leadership, a sovereign nation, a state taking as an ally, another country during a time of war, is the same as a suppressed people being freed from dictatorship and given self democracy brung about by a war and an invasion by an ally country."

The US is not an "ally" with Iraq,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is or the Iraqi government would ask the US and British to leave - as is their right. The majority of the Iraqi people, and the only recognized government of Iraq, have not refused the US as an ally. Show where the Iraqi government has said anything else.

because it's up to the iraqi people wether or not they have the want and the will to get rid of their own leaders.

And free elections insure the Iraqi people of getting leaders of their choice - Exactly as you advocate.

Again, you are a revolutionary without a cause. You revolt simply to revolt. The US will leave when asked, thereby accomplishing your other demand. You have nothing to complain about - The people choose their own government and the occupation ends.

It certainly isn't the way Bush wanted it but Sistani defeated him and handed him his Waterloo.

If Syria declared war on the US tomorow, and got rid of Bush for you and occupied your country, and claimed it was for America's own good. How would you feel? LIke a child that is being told what is good for them by a parent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably not your best comparison as Bush, being an enemy to world peace, is quite welcome, IMO, to step on a Syrian land mine or sit on a Syrian grenade. The only difference between Bush and Saddam Insane is that Bush isn't anywhere near as smart.

So if Canada, Mexico, or Syria sent Bush to the Hague for trial and restored democracy here in the US and then left, I would consider them doing me a favor.

You are not the parent of the Iraqi people alright, you are not cleverer or better than them, they where building civilisations 5000 years before the "US of A" even existed. It's not your place to speek.

But it's yours? :huh:

Now i have a feeling you are against bush, but would you really allow your country to be invaded and occupied by another country if that country claimed they where freeing you from that mad man? Or will you be insulted and join a resistance. Think about this hypothetical question because it is character defining.

Yes. I'm against Bush. I think he's the worst President in American history. I don't consider him a madman, just an alcoholic, dope smoking, failure of a halfwit that can't even speak the language of the country he was raised in. In the case of Saddam Insane, he was not a threat to the US and probably only a threat to Israel. However, Bush is a threat to world peace in that he is on unfriendly, threatening terms with any nation that does not accept Zionist Israel. So, to me, your comparison does not work. Bush should be removed from office and put on trial, the same as Saddam Insane. IMO, the US should not have invaded Iraq at all, that Bush knew, from Hans Blix's and the IAEA's UN report that there was no valid reason to invade but that he went ahead and did so anyway under false pretenses. It is a matter of history. He is no different than Hitler invading Poland. He's even running his own concentration camp at Guantanomo Bay and his own Gestapo interrogations at Abu Graihb. Yes - He's more than welcome to sit on a grenade. If he doesn't, the Palestinians will suffer under him next - and very soon. So, in theory, I would agree with you with throwing the US invaders out as foreign meddlers in Iraq's internal affairs. But Bush, being a natural born failure and a halfwit, failed to successfully meddle in Iraq's affairs. Sistani is running Iraq's affairs - not Bush. It is a matter of history that Bush has failed at everything he has attempted. If you disagree point to anything Bush has installed in Iraq's constitution. Point to any cabinet or elected leader he appointed. The defeat of the US has already happened. Bullets are not even necessary. The day of the US surrender will be dictated by Sistani when he chooses the day the US is to leave - And that day will come as soon as Sistani has the security forces to take over for the US. The "resistance" is a complete waste of time unless you're opposed to the new Shia government, in which case you might as well grab your rifle and your Toyota Landcruiser car bomb and go blow yourself up, because that's the only way you can stop the Shia from taking over by majority rule.

It's something George Bush should have foreseen - If he only had a brain.

More to come.

[Syrian Sister]

Awaiting your "more" before i make a response.... itching to make response though....

[IMAnonymous]

"The US gave the Baathists 12 years for this to happen - And it didn't.

HUH???? Again i don't think you read what i'm saying properly.

What i was trying to say was that, if the Iraqi people rose up in such a way to show really strength and a possibility of real change and revolution then they shouldn't be affraid of any blood bath or massacres, because they can probably count that the iraqi military would stand with them, AND EVEN SOME REFORMIST BA'ATHISTS will join such a revolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Saddam Insane was the sort that put his relatives in charge of the military making the above unlikely (And why it never happened.). A "reformist Baathist" would have been Alawi, usually referred to as an American "puppet" for having taken money from the CIA which, ultimately, cost him votes. In 1991, about 5,000 Shia stood up as you decribed, believing the US military would stand with them, only to find out they were wrong.

Graveyards are full of revolutionaries who thought everyone would join them.

What i am trying to say, did not really involve the ba'ath party, nor the US, I was attempting to show that they should have had more hope and less fear. AND yet somehow you missunderstood that and replied to me with "the US gave the ba'ath 12 years.."

LOL, Gave the ba'ath 12 years for what? What do you expect from the ba'ath? What? reforms? HAH. Anyway, what makes you think the US has the right to expect anything from them? Are you the ones suffering under their leadership?

What is the US the supervisor, teacher, boss, of other governements? Because the way i know it is, leaders are only answerable to their people.

So what give you the right to stick your nose in it with your pompous "we gave em' 12 years, yeehaw". The US ARE NOT world police, they do not have the right to go around pretending they are the leaders of the whole world, looking out for every people even in nations not of your own, even when things don't concern them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Baathists were given 12 years to replace Saddam and end the embargo. It was their choice not to. It is simple history. The embargo was the resut of a UN vote. The "pompous" UN is the world's police, they do have the right to go around pretending they are the leaders of the whole world, looking out for people in nations not of their own.

Everyone can see through the US govt's facade, everyone can see that the US arrogantly say and does these things not out of the goodness of their heart as they claim, but to serve your own interests as governments do. It's so see through and repulsive, the US pretends to all about freedom, democracy, civilised in comparison to the barbarian dictators, while they secretly torture and use chem weapons against civilians. What makes your government any different from Saddam's? The US, with it's track record (not just the recent one) is the least in position to be world police, not even in the position to talk about the short comings of other peoples leaders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only people in the world who cannot see what the US is doing are Americans themselves. It has been three years and Americans still do not know that the UN gave two reports on March 7, 2003 showing there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq and that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections. Twelve days later, Bush gave Iraq 48 hours to remove Saddam for failure to produce their WMD's and cooperate with UN inspectors. It's why we couldnt find any WMD's in Iraq. The UN had already determined there were none to be found.

Thus Bush, in addition to being a mental midget of monumental proportions, is also a proven liar. The subject didn't even come up in the 2004 elections.

As I've said before, you use correct information but it does not relate to, or support, your conclusions. Americans may be sheep and cattle getting their daily dose of propaganda from FOX television nightly news but this only demonstrates Americans are uninformed of their own self image overseas. It has nothing to do with the free elections held in Iraq of which they, again, know nothing about, lest the degree of our defeat become known to the American public. So huge is our defeat that the cost of the war is approaching $ 700 billion, the equivelent of our having lost 140 nuclear Nimitz class aircraft carriers in just three years. We are like the French in Vietnam. The money has run out. On January 8, 2004, the US was put on notice by the International Monetary Fund for its fiscal irresponsibility. Americans do not know that. Further, 100% of the cost of the war is being paid for now by Social Security, the people's retirement system - And Americans don't know that either. Bush's defeat is of astronomical proportions. The price of oil has tripled since the war and the price of gold is $ 500 an ounce, demonstrating a drop in the value of the US dollar - Which Americans also don't know about due to Japanese and Chinese intervention in the currency market. And Bush hasn't gotten one gallon of oil out of Iraq to show for it - And he never will.

The man is an idiot. But, for some reason or other, you seem to think this tongue tied moron who can't even tie his own shoes is running things in Iraq. You're intelligent, find some information that backs that claim up.

You said "the US gave the ba'ath 12 years"... But i'll tell they what you really gave. They gave the ba'ath 12 years of luxuary rulling over Iraq, and they gave the Iraqi people 12 years of sufferring, pain and starvation. If the US had not weakened the Iraqi population to that extent, who knows the revolution may have already taken place.

Your key phrase is "who knows". The Iraqi people did not overthrow Saddam Insane before the UN embargo therefore there is no reason to believe they would have overthrown him if there was no UN embargo. Part of the purpose of the embargo was to allow the people to overthrow Saddam. Further, humanitarian aid was allowed to get through the embargo to prevent the people from starving. Sadam Insane prevented that from happening. That is not the UN's fault.

One more post to go.

[IMAnonymous]

Last post.

Turkey? Where did you get turkey from.... Anyway what i'm trying to say is, to resist the occupation is the only real chance for any sort of freedom and any chance that iraq can reach its true potential.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. The only way to freedom is through elections. Anything else is a dictatorship which is Saddam Insane all over again.

The ulternative, is yet another US puppet cow towing to it's foreign policy contrare to the good of it's people and the good of the world, the US's record with human rights is just a glimps of the things to come, after all who trained Saddam. What the US has planned for Iraq is a Super-puppet state, as they call it, a model state for the middle east.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US did not train Saddam.

And what the idiot from Texas planned for Iraq and what he got are two different things. Care to tell the Shia here that they, and Sistani, and Sadr are all American puppets? They're more likely to believe you're an American "puppet" sent to keep the resistance going so that the US can stay longer.

That's not even remotely close to anything i'm attempting to say, and it's almost as though your whitewashing my words. What i'm saying is that . The US's "democracy" is us much a fraud as the democracy they have in their own country. Look at the shia now , now that their supposedly "in power" , the majority of them are still living in the poorest of ghettos. You think things are going to get better, well even if the whole of iraq turns into a capitalist heaven for the US, the majority of the people, which constitutes most shia, and a bulk of the iraqies are still going to get the raw end of the deal, if you don't get it, just look at your people in New Orleans and remember what happened to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the Shia are the majority in Iraq, as you admit, and if they are "in power" as you admit, then a democratic election took place. That is the definition of democracy. Democracy does not mean that if you win the elections you win the money too. Yet Iraq will still become the wealthiest Muslim nation in the world, outside of Kuwait, as they have shown the intelligence not to privatize their oil industry, thereby allowing all the people to benefit from its income. They will have the finest hospitals, schools, roads, and civil services in all of Islam (Compare them to Norway.). The only thing that is stopping them is your "resistance" which opposes democracy and favors a civil war decided between opposing militias by murder.

Let's see - Could that civil war last, say, 12 years?

Now where did I get that number from?

i tell you, even if the US was planning to clean up all messes, i would STILL support the Iraqi resistance.

If a person comes into your house, burns half of it down, wounds you, kills your dad and rapes your mom, if he then fixes your home and makes it look nicer, would you thank him? If he bribes you with gifts would you accept? If he tries to tend to your wounds, would you let him? This is another one of those, character defining questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't matter if the US cleans up nothing, fixes nothing, or cares for no one. The US is leaving Iraq. Politically and economically, it can't stay. The country will be left to the Iraqis. The only thing the US will be leaving behind is a country not in civil war. There is nothing else that Bush can impose on Iraq. If he could, he would have done so by now.

Perhaps dignity, justice and Real freedom/self determination are  "empty cases" to you. But not to me. Perhaps that not what intelligent characters think, but if it makes me a fool, then i'm glad to be that kind of fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me but there is no "dignity" and "justice" to a civil war - just oppression and death. The Iraqi people have already been given freedom and self determination through democracy. Your "resistance" plans to take that away or it has no means to justify its existence. Or do you think the resistance plans to kick the US out so that it can hold the exact same free elections all over again and with the same winners?

They WILL be, victorious. That i can surely guarantee. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the good of the Iraqi people, I certainly hope not. I would never wish despotism and civil war on anyone.