Freedom Fighting or Terror Attacks
There is a big difference between the two terms. Although many people in Iraq fail to realize the two terms, but there is a big difference. Freedom Fighting does not hurt Iraqis; it should only be against occupying forces. This has almost stopped now. Most if not all the recent attacks I see or hear about are always killing a lot more Iraqis than Americans. Although at this point, I do not see how any can benefit Iraq. I know I am not the only one who thinks this, but violence whatsoever in Iraq is not useful. Whether it is freedom fighting, or terror attacks they are always a step backward. I know that many Iraqis favor freedom fighters and call them heroes and all, but this really is not the time for this. There is a faster and easier way to get the Americans out of Iraq, which I guess is what we all want. The next elections are not far from now, although I do not know how long it will take after that. Surely, it is faster than the hard way.
After the war, all if not most of the violence in Iraq was happening between Al-Mujahedeen and the American forces. Now we rarely hear about those. Looks like the same people are now picking on more soft targets, with a goal to kill as many as possible. Take the recent attacks on the Iraqi restaurant. Or even the attacks in Jordan. They are both claimed to be freedom-fighting attacks. Both were done against places that supposedly serve or house Iraqi Soldiers or Americans. However, what is the outcome. They both killed and injured a lot more civilians than Soldiers or "Infidels", none were killed in the case of the Jordanian attacks.
It is time I gave up my opinion. I put a question mark on Freedom Attacks, discussion-able, is it really doing what it should, or is making things worse. I put a bold NO for terror attacks of any kind.
Note: This post has been emailed to my Email List subscribers. I would have written a longer post, but I am getting too busy these days with studying and all. Gotta go, I have a report to make.
posted by Hassan | 12:27 AM
14 Comments:
If what you want is for the Americans to leave; then it is not smart to go to their polling stations. That sends the signal that you accept their rule.
i totally disagree with "anonymous" who said "If what you want is for the Americans to leave; then it is not smart to go to their polling stations"
these are not the amricans polling stations. these are iraqi, observed by iraqis. the candidates are iraqis, not matter where they were before the war or who they suppport. THEY ARE IRAQIS. our friends, the multinational forces, will help to stabilize the country and will leave as soon as an iraqi elected government asks them to. it is not smart to boycott, and you realized it in January. so dont do the same mistake again and boycott. for two reasons, first: you will lose your right to decide, second: you will feel the shame when all the others are happy because they imposed their choice on your life.
Hassan, there is no such a thing as "freedom fighters" there is bullets that kill people, and there is a constitution!!!
" the candidates are iraqis, not matter where they were before the war or who they suppport. THEY ARE IRAQIS"
Many Iraqis would disagree with you. Just out of curiosity; do you consider Ahmed Chalabi to be an iraqi?
" our friends, the multinational forces, will help to stabilize the country and will leave as soon as an iraqi elected government asks them to"
They will stay to protect the government they back, and if they are still in Iraq when things settle down they will make garrisons.
There are such things as Freedom Fighters. For example, the Americans in their war for independence, the Kurds in Turkey, the French resistance in WW II. However, the fighters in Iraq were/are the supporters of Saddam's regime fighting to restore it. I don't think the Saddam regime was "freedom". The Al Qaeda types are certainly not fighting for freedom but for an Islamic tyranny in which no Muslim would be free.
"do you consider Ahmed Chalabi to be an Iraqi?" ___The question is more, do you support his policies? If not, then don't vote for him.
Yes, Ahmed Chalabi is an Iraqi. he is from Kadimiya. his grand father and father owned half of Kadimiya city since ever. he had to leave iraq because otherwise, he would be killed. YET, that doesnt mean i support him. i am just answering your question!! and i bet, you know the answer, but like some others, denie it.
also, i agree with u that some iraqis disagree with me, and thats just what i was saying. the boycott is not a smart move. reject, agree, accept, and suggest. but don't boycott.
The point about the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is important and is something that Khalid Jarrar of "Tell me a secret" brought up a little while back. But I would have to agree that while they may have a justifiable purpose and allegedly strategically specific targets we do not seem to be seeing that and it seems to only be civilians that are getting hurt from all sides. These actions achieve nothing but over flowing morgues, creating broken families and broken hearts..and when US soldiers are the target reaping retaliatory violence against innocent Iraqis as we have seen in many allegedly "insurgent penetrated" towns that have been targeted without any real justification.
I am not in Iraq, neither am I Iraqi so it is not my place to pass judgement on what action is right...that is for Iraqis to decide. I can see the logic in both arguments though...the occupation is illegal and by voting it is lending legitimacy to it...but at the same time maybe voting is the only way to get on the road of getting the invaders out of the country? I really don't know what to think on that one. Although I don't think I agree with 24 on this one about it being legitimate Iraqi creations...it is all an American contrivance right down to the last piece of paper in the ballot box is the impression I get and I think the belief of many.
I don't know if you are familiar with Dahr Jamail's blog "Iraq Dispatches"
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/
(for those who aren't) but he has had a few interesting things posted recently that made me think...specifically the posts "Elections and other deceptions in Iraq" and "Open letter to Amnesty Int'l...on the Iraqi Constitution" There are some good points and food for thought in these and I would be curious to hear what people here, and namely Iraqis, think about these arguments. Just some thoughts to get some more discussion going maybe...
Maple Leaf.
I will reply to anonymous.
I must say, I find the title of the post you point to rather amusing. "Elections and other deceptions". So, Elections are deceptions when hundreds of people run for office and millions vote? As opposed to the "free and fair" elections for Saddam Hussein 30 years running?
That fact alone negates the authors post. Unless, of course, you think elections where there is a single candidate and he gets 99.7% of the vote is really an election?
honestly, I think some folks don't know their history. If America really wanted to make the decisions, we would have destroyed everything and kept a military government in place during the reconstruction as we did in Germany and Japan. It certainly would have made life easier.
I think the writer of the post you reference is still living in the days of Saddam. I truly understand that it is difficult for people to leave something behind when you've lived it for 30 years, maybe the only thing you've ever known. Paranoia and schizophrenia. I mean that politely without rancor.
Well Kat you clearly did not take the time to actually read the posts because your comments make absolutely no sense in the context of things. Firstly he is an independent US journalist...not a disillusioned, schizophrenic Iraqi as you suggest. I am certainly not implying and neither is he that the so called "elections" of Saddam's tyranny were free and fair but you can certainly not call the present political situation in Iraq free and fair either! When candidate lists could not be released until the day of the election for fear of being killed, when up to 3 days before the referendum a large percentage of Iraqis had not even laid eyes on a copy of the constitution, when people took their lives in their hands to go and cast their ballots only to have Condoleeza Rice announce the results before ballots had even been counted...this is your idea of free and fair?
You say that "If America really wanted to make the decisions, we would have destroyed everything and kept a military gov't in place during the reconstruction"...well I hate to break it to you but that is essentially what has been done anyways...America did destroy everything and continues to, and seeing as the Iraqi gov't has no real control and is pretty much a tool of the Bush administration ( even some of the drafters of the "Iraqi" constitution have alleged that a draft originally came from the US)...it is the US military that is running the show on the ground in Iraq much to the detriment of the civilians that get caught up in the search for "insurgents". You make the comment that some people don't know their own history...well I would have to say that clearly some people are pretty clueless as to the realities of what their country is doing in the present...congrats on being a successful Bush-brainwashee...
Now does anyone who is from Iraq and really knows what is going on have anything to say on all this?
Maple Leaf
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm usually pretty lenient about deleting comments, but calling Hassan a few choice epithets and praying for his family to be blown up is just a bit much for me. So, good bye, Anonymous, don't let the door hit you on your way out...
Thank you MC
Yeah I think that anonymous didn't even read the post. There is realy nothing in the post than can make someone that angry is there??. Looks to me like he is just looking for an Iraqi to swing at...
Sonsa Rae,
I don't want to put words in Hassan's mouth, but I think the idea of the US troops staying being equated to Saddam Hussein's reign is comparing apples to oranges. The idea that I think everybody who sees value in American troops staying has is that the troops will gradually be pulled back until they are pretty much non-existant on the streets of the typical Iraqi town, and will only be used when there is a situation that the IP and IA can't handle for whatever reason.
Right now there are battles going on that simply cannot be fought by the individual IA/IP units. In addition, the technology available to the IA/IP through their coordination with the American units such as predator drone surveillance, force multiplication in large firefights, etc. are invaluable to the newly minted IP and IA units. I think those are the things most people want to see the US troops stay for. The less the Aemricans are present and visible on the street, the easier the situation will be on the IA/IP and the Iraqi people as a whole. But getting to that point will still take time, and pulling them out now would be effectively taking the rug out from under the new IA/IP units and giving free reign to militias like Sadr's thugs and the Al Qaeda animals.
One thing that we miss on the evening news most places is that something like 12-15 of the 18 Iraqi provinces are largely peaceful, and US troops are not regularly involved in combat situations there. In those places, the troops are largely involved in rebuilding efforts and helping to train additional army and police units. It is only in places like Baghdad, Mosul, and a few other places that combat and explosions are a daily occurrence. That doesn't mean there aren't bombs or battles fought elsewhere, it just isn't a daily occurrence the way it is in the few areas where the public still believes that the "freedom fighters" are accomplishing a worthwhile goal.
If you read any of the military blogs, it is clear despite the body count on the evening news that while the sophistication of the attacks on the troops is increasing (likely due to outside assistance, probably from places like Syria and Iran), the number of attacks directly on the troops is declining greatly. The "freedom fighters" are instead attacking places like schools and mosques or restaurants used by journalists, because these are relatively insecure targets where people aren't likely to shoot back at them. As a result, while they may kill a couple of Americans in each of the attacks, the vast majority of their victims are Iraqis, and have been for many months. Thus, I can't see how anybody who truly loves Iraq and its people can find themselves supporting those kinds of animals. Michael Yon has done some great reporting from Mosul while imbedded with a US unit there, and I think he really captures the full picture of what is happening in terms of who is winning and losing in Mosul. You need to go back a few pages as he hasn't been in Mosul for a month or so, but if you start at the beginning of his time there and read of the kinds of battles they were fighting and then follow through to the end where the battles were mostly being fought by Iraqi units with American support, I don't think you can question who is "winning", and you certainly won't see a "new Vietnam", despite what the American left would like to portray Iraq as. I don't mean to say that life in Mosul is "back to normal", because it clearly isn't as anybody who reads Najma or her family's blogs could tell you. But at the same time, in reading their blogs, you can also tell that some of the problems they previously faced in regards to security have become decidedly less difficult and some of their basic needs like electricity and gasoline have improved, even if only incrementally.
I don't know if the "average Iraqi" likes or dislikes the American troops. I am not sure that the "average Iraqi" even exists. Iraq is a complex country with people from many different religious sects, tribal affiliations, and political backgrounds, and to try to capture all of that in one "average opinion" is probably a hopeless task. I have seen pictures of children and adults swarming US troops and bringing them gifts of thanks. I have seen pictures of people cheering as American troops were blown up or attacked. The "majority opinion" probably varies as you move from town to town and family to family.
I heard somebody on the radio recently describing how the concept of "forgiving" an "enemy" was not present in Islamic teachings and was pretty much a uniquely christian concept among the world's major religions. I don't know if that is really true, and I don't mean to suggest that the Iraqi people are incapable of forgiving the Americans for some of the mistakes that have been made over the last year or two. But I do know that because of the religion barrier (with many Iraqis having hard set beliefs that the Americans invaded to protect Israel or that the invasion was an attack on Islam that is the beginning of a religious crusade), it will be hard for many Iraqis to really ever get past their previous beliefs about America to be able to look back clearly and decide if they should like Americans or not. I don't blame them for that and simply hope that they can get past whatever feelings they may have about America and embrace the opportunity that has been brought to them in the form of democracy and the ability to elect a new government to truly represent them.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/01/belgium.iraq/index.html
Oh look, its another freedom fighter exercising her "legitimate right to oppose the occupation of her homeland". Oh wait...She was born in Belgium and her husband was from Morocco. But she attacked Americans, so she is still within her rights isn't she? I mean attacks on Americans are "legitimate" aren't they? Even if this woman had no connection to Iraq other than the Islamic religion she shares with most of the Iraqi citizens? Or is she just a terrorist, even though she attacked Americans? And what is she going to do with 72 virgins hanging around her anyway? :D
Post a Comment
<< Home