Iraqi Insurgents spike in April '05

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

"Definitely, violence is getting worse," said a U.S. official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "My strong sense is that a lot of the political momentum that was generated out of the successful election, which was sort of like a punch in the gut to the insurgents, has worn off." The political stalemate "has given the insurgents new hope," the official added, repeating a message Americans say they are increasingly giving Iraqi leaders.

Source

As the month of April 2005 came to a close, it was reported that the insurgency in Iraq reached a new peak. With violence neither decreasing nor stabilizing, what do you make of the insurgents?
Is there even a glimmer of admiration for these individuals who are sacrificing themselves on an hourly basis to resist an occupation they deem so patently wrong, or are they just written off by the masses as lunatics impeding the process of the inevitable?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,695 • Replies: 66

No top replies

They seem to plant bombs indiscriminately in public places, where it is a certainty that non-combatants will die, as when they bombed, and threatened to bomb election sites. They threatened to kill people who voted. They slice civilian hostages' heads off as they scream for mercy. Recently, they saw a living person among the wreckage of a helicopter and executed him on the spot. I've got to say I don't admire them too much.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

They seem to plant bombs indiscriminately in public places, where it is a certainty that non-combatants will die, as when they bombed, and threatened to bomb election sites. They threatened to kill people who voted. They slice civilian hostages' heads off as they scream for mercy. Recently, they saw a living person among the wreckage of a helicopter and executed him on the spot. I've got to say I don't admire them too much.

hmmmm....would these guys be doing this if the US was not present?
I think that there is a statement being made by the insurgents, but it's just one that you disagree with.
IMO, they will do anything and everything to pressure the US into leaving their country--even if that means strapping bombs to oneself in hopes of killing just on American.
Just like Pearl Harbour, the US is facing an enemy that has a stronger will to win than themselves, and are stopping at nothing to achieve that end.

Should I ever be faced with an opponent that surely overpowers me in a fight, you could guarantee that I'd through all rules of engagement and bite, scratch and pull whatever helps me gain an advantage.

I guess I respect the insurgents' will in the same way that I respect the monk or ascetic renunciate--not that I agree with their end, but the ability to be so determined to stiock to their means.

0 Replies

The insurgents are murdering Iraqis, who want to be free law enforcement officials in their own country.

We can leave as soon as the Iraqis live long enough to be trained to police their own country.

If the enemy at Pearl Harbor had a stronger will to win, why didn't they?

Interesting to meet someone who supports the murdering insurgents.

Rumsfeld, are you believing this ****?

Hitler stuck to "his means", too. How'd you like him?

0 Replies

Lash wrote

Quote:

If the enemy at Pearl Harbor had a stronger will to win, why didn't they?

They did win at Pearl Harbor. It was the war that they lost.

0 Replies

A cheap sneak attack is hardly evidence of a "stronger will to win". More evidence of cowardice and lack of character.

The stronger will is evidenced in the perseverance... and the victory, IMO.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

A cheap sneak attack is hardly evidence of a "stronger will to win". More evidence of cowardice and lack of character.

The stronger will is evidenced in the perseverance... and the victory, IMO.

War is hell. How did the U.S. attack Iraq? Sneak attack!

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Lash wrote:
A cheap sneak attack is hardly evidence of a "stronger will to win". More evidence of cowardice and lack of character.

The stronger will is evidenced in the perseverance... and the victory, IMO.

War is hell. How did the U.S. attack Iraq? Sneak attack!

They knew we were coming. Hell the whole damn planet knew we were coming. Or did you miss the footage on CNN or Foxnews of the B-1 bombers lifting off? We told them we were coming and he knew we were coming. To call it a sneak attack would be looking at the wrong war.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
They seem to plant bombs indiscriminately in public places, where it is a certainty that non-combatants will die, as when they bombed, and threatened to bomb election sites. They threatened to kill people who voted. They slice civilian hostages' heads off as they scream for mercy. Recently, they saw a living person among the wreckage of a helicopter and executed him on the spot. I've got to say I don't admire them too much.

hmmmm....would these guys be doing this if the US was not present?
I think that there is a statement being made by the insurgents, but it's just one that you disagree with.

Exactly correct. I would not saw non-combatant's heads off as they beg for mercy, shoot prisoners of war, deliberately target non-combatants, or murder civilians who want to vote. As you say, I disagree with it. I don't think one can maintain that Abu-Ghraib was a travesty by American soldiers (which I think it was), but be fine with the insurgents shooting (source) captured POW's.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Lash wrote:
A cheap sneak attack is hardly evidence of a "stronger will to win". More evidence of cowardice and lack of character.

The stronger will is evidenced in the perseverance... and the victory, IMO.

War is hell. How did the U.S. attack Iraq? Sneak attack!

You weren't on this planet during the build up to that war...?

People in caves knew.

It was no sneak attack.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Lash wrote:
A cheap sneak attack is hardly evidence of a "stronger will to win". More evidence of cowardice and lack of character.

The stronger will is evidenced in the perseverance... and the victory, IMO.

War is hell. How did the U.S. attack Iraq? Sneak attack!

The sneak attack: very sneaky

0 Replies

Re: Iraqi Insurgents spike in April '05

candidone1 wrote:

As the month of April 2005 came to a close, it was reported that the insurgency in Iraq reached a new peak. With violence neither decreasing nor stabilizing, what do you make of the insurgents?
Is there even a glimmer of admiration for these individuals who are sacrificing themselves on an hourly basis to resist an occupation they deem so patently wrong, or are they just written off by the masses as lunatics impeding the process of the inevitable?

I believe that the insurgency currently depends upon Sunnis, many or most of whom are likely to have been Ba'atists with a stake in Hussein's government, and depends upon foreign recruits. So many right-wing ranters went on and on at the beginning of this war about it being better to fight "the terrorists" there than here. But that was self-fulfilling prophecy. Absent the war, those people were not welcome in Hussein's Iraq--espeically not Bin Laden, who, as a Wahabbi, was a member of despised and persecuted religious lunatic fringe in a resolutely secular state. However, the insurgency has created an opportunity for those who wish to kill Americans to get a shot at it. The Kurds have no stake in an insurgency. The Shi'ites, in the main, have no stake in an insurgency (with the caveat that opportunists from minority Shi'ite sects are not above using such violence as a tool of self-promotion). The odds are very good that those members of the Sunni Arab population who were from marginalized minority tribes would like to have a part in governing Iraq, which can only come about when the insurgency is brought under some kind of control. Certainly the Kurds (who are a blend of Sunni, Shi'ite, Christian and Animist--the latter being observed more in the breach--they are mainly Sunni) have nothing to gain and much to lose from an unstable Iraq. The Shi'ites have the most to gain from a stable Iraq, and the most to lose from a successful toppling of the government by insurgents.

I doubt that the Iraqis "write off" the insurgents as lunatics. Being native speakers of Arabic, they recognize the foreigners immediately--they know better than we can ever hope to the extent to which their nation has been infiltrated. They also understand the political equation of Iraq, a tortured and complex equation. Americans, and particularly fanatical right-wing Americans, are largely clueless about factors which must be combined to produce a stable government there. The Iraqis are all to well aware of the complexity of the issues, and the degree of difficulty in acheiving stability and peace. Certainly many of those participating in the insurgency are truly unhinged, and truly terrorists. However, a great many are simply venal, brutal and murderous thugs on the make, hoping to seize the main chance in the chaos which is Iraq today.

0 Replies

Many of them are crossing the Syrian border--and that's where the US forces have trailed them.

I'm personally glad they're getting erased from the earth.

Fanatics, particularly fanatical leftists, don't have a clue as to the reality of what's going on in Iraq. But, don't concern yourself. They won't be in charge of anything any time soon.

0 Replies

That's hilarious coming from the right, who have been cheering on Rummy and the dirty little war with bags over their heads for more than two years now.

0 Replies

Its hilarious that you think you can get away with such a broad statement.

And, as Democracy breaks out all over the ME, the Dems are the ones with bags over their heads. It is a shame that their party puts them at opposition with Democracy, freedom, and success.

0 Replies

You tryin' out for propagandist to someone's newly imposed regime?

Democracy breaking out all over the Middle East? Prove it.

0 Replies

By the way, i'm not a Democrat. I refused to specify a party when i registered to vote in this state, and raised a stink until i was allowed to register. Ohio no longer requires a specification of party affiliation when registering.

You are Republican, smart mouth?

0 Replies

If TOS has changed, and we are now approved to call one another names, please advise.

Otherwise, as not to mount a sneak attack, be forewarned I will hit that report button without hesitation, unless you remove the ad hominim.

Additionally, I don't care what your politics are. What you say is what matters. You made a broad, useless comment about fanatical right wingers, and I returned the favor to the other side of the spectrum.

You seemed to take offense.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Its hilarious that you think you can get away with such a broad statement.

And, as Democracy breaks out all over the ME, the Dems are the ones with bags over their heads. It is a shame that their party puts them at opposition with Democracy, freedom, and success.

You've derailed the debate Lash, but I greatly respect your opinions irrespective of mine.
Explain to me how the Dems are against democracy, freedom and success...without discussing the contempt the left has for the right, and vice-versa.
Do the Dems wish to impose non-democratic rule in the US, infringe upon the freedoms of individuals, or somehow harness individual or group success?...or is this a statement simply opposing the left's opposition to the Bush administration's version of force fed democracy, Patriot Act-esque "freedoms",....and their, uhhhh, successes...where??

0 Replies

Hit the button, Lash, i don't give a ****. All the evidence one needs of the ignorance on the part of the right in America of political realities among the Iraqis can be found in the pages of this site.

Do your worst, it's immaterial to me.

0 Replies

Iraqi Insurgents spike in April '05

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know