32
   

Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

 
 
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:20 am
@Olivier5,
I wrote: "How many Americans who were told by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, and who considered Arabs in general to be anti-American fanatics of a different (wrong!) religion, were particularly finicky about taking names and kicking ass in the land of the towelheads/sand-niggers?"

Olivier5 responded: "Why does that matter?"

The "golden rule" isn't "He who has the gold makes the rules", it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If everyone followed this simple moral precept, regardless of their religion, would the world be different? Better, or worse?

Might we be having a different conversation today? ISIS began as a branch of al Qaeda in Iraq. The group that eventually became al Qaeda in Iraq piggybacked on popular disaffection with the occupation of Iraq; it began bomb attacks in August 2003, five months after the invasion, and pledged allegiance to the al Qaeda network in October 2004.

Given that al Qaeda would have had no traction without a preexisting insurgency, and that the insurgency could not have gained traction without substantial and persisting popular anger, we can now ask an important question: Why did the Iraqi public turn against their liberators?

When the U.S. military deposed Saddam Hussein, they were greeted with waves and cheers. By May, the insurgency began, slowly at first, most notably in Fallujah. Why Fallujah? Why May, when the invasion began in March and President Bush gave his famous "mission accomplished" speech on May 1?

According to the British newspaper The Independent:

"The Americans' conduct over the Fallujah affair -- and their highly implausible version of events -- has compounded the anger in Iraq over the killings, in which 13 people died after being hit by a hail of US bullets outside a school which the troops were occupying. It combines all the worst elements of the occupation: panicky troops firing at Iraqis instead of seeking to engage with them or understand their circumstances, then insisting that local people have no cause for anger."

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/44233-iraqi-rage-grows-after-fallujah-massacre

This was on April 28. Another such incident occurred two days later. Though there would in any case have been isolated incidents arising from malcontented former participants in Saddam Hussein's government, this was the seed for popular disaffection and the insurgency that began as a trickle of attacks in May. The U.S. response, beginning with Operation Peninsula Strike on June 9, was arbitrary mass detentions, home invasions and searches.

Treating the Iraqi people as second class citizens in their own country was a recipe for failure. So was failing to make good in a timely manner on promises to restore basic services like electricity, after infrastructure was targeted and damaged by the invasion forces. Iraq is a very hot place in the summer. Shooting up a bunch of protesters, mass home invasions and detentions, and in general treating the population like enemy aliens in their own country, while allowing them to stew in the heat, was not exactly an exercise in nation building.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:33 am
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
By May, the insurgency began, slowly at first, most notably in Fallujah. Why Fallujah? Why May...


Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh, PP?

Zarqawi, the (what is now) ISIS leader, had been an active terrorist, with an agenda of establishing a caliphate, since the early 90's if not earlier. He also had the goal of slaughtering shites, which went way back:

Quote:
“Zarqawi favors butchering Shias, calling them "the most evil of mankind . . . the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom."


I can recall stories from around that time where Fallujah residents expressed extreme gratitude for being liberated by the US, and which detailed extreme atrocities commited against them by Zarqawi's gang, while they were occupied.
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:46 am
@oralloy,
"15 March 2013 – The United States' ongoing drone campaign in Pakistan is a violation of the South Asian nation's sovereignty, as it is being conducted without the consent of its elected representatives or that of the legitimate Government, a United Nations independent expert has warned."

I might add that neither Syria nor Iraq has declared war on the United States. An invasion of both against the wishes of their sovereign governments is certainly not supported by the United Nations charter, as "any person with a minimal understanding of international law" would acknowledge.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:55 am
Quote:
For years, terror experts had been warning about their fears of terrorist attacks in Europe and, in recent days, they appear to have become reality. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris and Copenhagen at the beginning of 2015 weren't isolated cases, Peter Neumann, a professor of security studies at King's College London, warned in his new book "The New Jihadists," published in September in German. He believes what we have just witnessed are the "first, very dramatic warnings of what will play out on the streets of Europe in the next decades." Europe, he cautions, is standing "at the precipice of a new wave of terror that will still occupy us for a generation to come."

French journalist and jihad expert David Thomson offers a similarly bleak assessment. "Attacks like this will no longer be something completely extraordinary," he warns. "I can't say whether something like this will happen every six months or every year."

Thomson says that, according to his research, an Islamic State unit led by a Frenchman is currently preparing attacks in Europe. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, Western intelligence agencies intercepted communications between Abaaoud and Islamic State leadership in Syria. There had been similar clues after the attack in Beirut the day before and also after IS brought down a Russian jet carrying vacationers over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. When IS issued a claim of responsibility for the plane crash a few hours later, it provided no information about the perpetrators. But German authorities say this is standard practice for IS: The order is issued by the leadership, but it is then carried out solely by the terrorist cell.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/paris-attacker-abaaoud-offers-insights-into-is-strategy-a-1064902.html

Well damn, they know all that and they still followed Merkel? Ain't no cure for stupid.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:14 am
@layman,
I don't claim to be any kinda expert on Iraq, Islam, or anything. But from what I understand, the shite/sunni sectarian rivalry and animosity goes back for centuries. As I recall, Hussein was a Sunni and Sunnis were given favorable treatment under his regime.

When he was deposed, many Sunni's felt that had suddenly been deprived of what was "rightfully" theirs. Some were determined to undermine the US and restore their position of supremacy in Iraq. The US did not create those pre-existing divisions amongst Iraqi's.
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:18 am
@layman,
Regarding Zarqawi's group:

"The group is believed to have started bomb attacks in Iraq as of August 2003, five months after the coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq, targeting UN representatives, Iraqi Shiite institutions, the Jordanian embassy, provisional Iraqi government institutions."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim_Qaidat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn

layman wrote: " I can recall stories from around that time where Fallujah residents expressed extreme gratitude for being liberated by the US, and which detailed extreme atrocities commited against them by Zarqawi's gang, while they were occupied."

Fallujah is and was Sunni, not Shia. And again, Zarqawi piggybacked on a preexisting popular insurgency:

"Last week, with U.S. troops battling their way through the Sunni Muslim stronghold, several Fallujah residents said trusting the foreigners who turned the locals’ humble stand against foreign occupation into a sophisticated terror campaign had been a grave mistake."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2004/11/zarqawis_falluj.php
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:26 am
@hawkeye10,
"But German authorities say this is standard practice for IS: The order is issued by the leadership, but it is then carried out solely by the terrorist cell."

But "the order" in the case of western nations like France was merely a public exhortation to sympathizers to carry out attacks whenever they could, in response to coalition air strikes and other military action.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:27 am
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:
The "golden rule" isn't "He who has the gold makes the rules", it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If everyone followed this simple moral precept, regardless of their religion, would the world be different? Better, or worse?

Might we be having a different conversation today? ISIS began as a branch of al Qaeda in Iraq. The group that eventually became al Qaeda in Iraq piggybacked on popular disaffection with the occupation of Iraq; it began bomb attacks in August 2003, five months after the invasion, and pledged allegiance to the al Qaeda network in October 2004.

If Islamic State had never been created due to a different course of history in Iraq, we'd be facing a much more powerful al-Nusra right now. "Worse" is a distinct possibility.

Regardless, we can't shape the past, only the present, so the thing to do now is step up our attacks against Islamic State. Loosen up the rules of engagement instead of worrying obsessively about collateral damage. Time to blow stuff up.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:28 am
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:
"15 March 2013 – The United States' ongoing drone campaign in Pakistan is a violation of the South Asian nation's sovereignty, as it is being conducted without the consent of its elected representatives or that of the legitimate Government, a United Nations independent expert has warned."

Fanatics say all sorts of goofy things that are entirely untrue.


puzzledperson wrote:
I might add that neither Syria nor Iraq has declared war on the United States. An invasion of both against the wishes of their sovereign governments is certainly not supported by the United Nations charter, as "any person with a minimal understanding of international law" would acknowledge.

That is incorrect. Any person with a minimal understanding of international law will acknowledge that the West has the lawful right to invade and destroy Islamic State and al-Nusra. We also have the lawful right to restructure the region in order to ensure that such organizations do not rise again after we leave.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:39 am
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
"Last week, with U.S. troops battling their way through the Sunni Muslim stronghold, several Fallujah residents said trusting the foreigners who turned the locals’ humble stand against foreign occupation into a sophisticated terror campaign had been a grave mistake."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2004/11/zarqawis_falluj.php


You have quoted quite selectively from this site, PP. Did you even read the article? I haven't read all of it, but I didn't have to go far before I came across this:

Quote:
The citizens of Fallujah have grown disenchanted with Zarqwai’s terror. Hannah Allam documents the buyer’s remorse of the residents of Fallujah and the indigenous Iraqi insurgents. Zarqawi attempted to instill Taliban-like atmosphere in Fallujah, much to the dismay of the residents. It seems their zeal in murdering innocents and their brand of Islam was too much for the locals to countenance.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:47 am
@layman,
Here's some more:
Quote:

Fallujah residents, most of them now displaced by the fighting, said hundreds of non-Iraqi Arabs had been in the city before the U.S. offensive began Monday. But, they added, the ties of brotherhood had mostly unraveled and the remaining foreign fighters had tried to intimidate residents into staying as human shields.

Other residents said foreign militants wore out their welcome months ago, when they imposed a Taliban-like interpretation of Islamic law that included public floggings for residents accused of drinking alcohol or refusing to grow beards. Women who failed to cover their hair or remove their makeup were subjected to public humiliation. Those accused of spying for Americans were executed on the spot, residents said.

It will be interesting to see if the citizens of other Iraqi towns and cities are eager to host his network after the tyranny and abject failure in Fallujah. Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq is looking like a weak horse at the moment, and as the residents of Fallujah have learned, cooperating with this loser comes at a great cost.
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 02:51 am
@layman,
I didn't quote selectively. In fact, the quote you used agrees with mine ("... several Fallujah residents said trusting the foreigners who turned the locals’ humble stand against foreign occupation into a sophisticated terror campaign had been a grave mistake."

So, according to the locals, what began as a stand against foreign occupation was subsequently subverted by Zarqawi's group.

0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:06 am
@layman,
layman: "Fallujah residents, most of them now displaced by the fighting, said hundreds of non-Iraqi Arabs had been in the city before the U.S. offensive began Monday."

This is taken from an article published November 15, 2004. The "U.S.offensive" wasn't the initial invasion. Of course al Qaeda in Iraq was in Fallujah AT THAT TIME. They weren't part of the locals' initial insurgency against foreign (U.S.) occupation in May of 2003.

Please stop wasting my time with foolish misreadings that require correction. Stop disagreeing simply to disagree. I have some previous replies to catch up on and your inanity is preventing that.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:10 am
@puzzledperson,
From an article in 2013 printed in an Egyptian rag:

Quote:
Sunni rebellion in Iraq As the Shia-Sunni disputes in Iraq remain under the spotlight, the country has been rocked by a Sunni rebellion, writes Salah Nasrawi

Sunni Arabs seem to have opened a new chapter in their struggle to regain prominence a decade after the 2003 US-led invasion of the country that toppled the minority Sunni regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and propelled Iraq’s majority Shias to power.

The Sunni protests came as sectarian violence spiraled across the country following the US troop withdrawal last year. A series of bombings across Iraq this week killed more than two dozen people, many of them Shias who were performing pilgrimages to the holy city of Karbala.

The Sunnis’ anger has been growing louder for several months over what they perceive as their mistreatment in Shia-run Iraq. The complaints have included the arbitrary use of anti-terrorism laws and the prolonged detention and mistreatment of prisoners, particularly women, in government jails.

Sunni dissatisfaction with the government has been building for years, stemming from claims of marginalisation, unequal distribution of wealth, repressive actions and the government’s failure to provide jobs.

Most Sunnis rejected Iraq’s new constitution drafted after the 2003 US-led invasion...Some protesters carried the Iraqi flag of the Saddam era and shouted anti-Shia slogans...the anti-Shia rhetoric has infuriated many Shias in Iraq, including those who are opposed to Al-Maliki.


http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/800/19/Sunni-rebellion-in-Iraq.aspx

As I said, these are problems inherent to the internal affairs of Iraq, and not a direct result of the US invasion. They existed before we came, and after we left.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:13 am
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
Please stop wasting my time with foolish misreadings that require correction. Stop disagreeing simply to disagree. I have some previous replies to catch up on and your inanity is preventing that.


Time to go play with your kindred brother, Setanta, eh, PPP (pretentiously pompous prick).

I'm sure he will be more receptive to your Anti-US agenda.
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy: "...the groups that have been subject to intense dronestrikes have been gutted."

Then why has the number of Islamic terrorism incidents soared since drone strikes began, both in the countries where drone strikes occurred and elsewhere in the world? Here's a graph courtesy of the Washington Post:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NINNLV-O2ew/VHT4TTQx4pI/AAAAAAAAB40/A5O_jM_3uZE/s1600/imrs.png
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:34 am
@layman,
layman: "As I said, these are problems inherent to the internal affairs of Iraq, and not a direct result of the US invasion. They existed before we came, and after we left."

If by "these" you mean Sunni/Shia conflicts, that's obviously true. But the May 2003 insurgency began in response to abuses by the U.S. occupation force, as I have documented, and was directed specifically against them. The Coalition Provisional Authority, run by the occupation forces, ruled until June 2004; there was no Shia dominated Iraqi government at the time the insurgency began in May 2003.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:40 am
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
But the May 2003 insurgency began in response to abuses by the U.S. occupation force, as I have documented,...


You've "documented" no such thing. Nor can you. Sunni desire to regain control of the country is what precipitated this "resistance."

Your commie-ass attempt to make it appear as though it was all the result of the US mistakenly gunning-down a handful of civilians is rather pathetic. Your agenda is clear.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:54 am
@layman,
The sunni have always hated the sgia with a passion, since centuries. But the US and the UK have a responsibility in the emergence of ISIS. If Saddam was still in power none of that would have happened... Then the US disbanded the whole Iraqi army... Then what would become the top leadership of ISIS met in Abu Ghaib... I suppose PP is also right to point out that the constitution should have been more federal, like the US' own constitution.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 03:57 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
...the US and the UK have a responsibility in the emergence of ISIS. If Saddam was still in power none of that would have happened...


Right, something else would have happened, i.e., Saddam would still be in power abusing Shias. What's the diff?

I'm not saying the US invasion played no role in what's happening in Iraq. It certainly did.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 06:09:59