Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Lawnboy:

What this shows is the lengths that the terrorists are willing to go to in order to prevent Iraq from moving forward. To date they have shown a willingness to use any means to prevent a change in government, even if it hurts their own country and people.

To date they have targeted civilians lining up for jobs, they have bombed oil pipelines that can bring in money for the people, they have targeted civilians along with soldiers, and have venally used mosques and other religious areas as “shields” for their activities.

Now, they have killed a member of the governing council—the very same group that is charged with helping create a new Iraqi government for the people of Iraq.

Lawnboy, you call this a “negative for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq”, and I agree. But its important to recognize that the terrorists who are fighting against virtually any improvement in the situation are the ones to be fully blamed. By force they try to prevent people from finding work, or from joining the IRAQI army etc. They take away the free will of their own countrymen by force.

Lets call the spade a spade.

Funny, I didn’t think I had blamed anyone in my original post. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with.

joebagodunuts, your application of the word terrorist gives it no meaning whatsoever. It would appear that any act that retards U.S. efforts and goals in Iraq are terrorist by your use of the word. By your use also, the entire Confederacy of the U.S. was no more than a huge terrorist organization.

Might it have been a murder? Might it have been a Kurd insurgent acting to prevent a Shiite dominated rule? Neither of these actions could be defined as terrorist. The latest polls show over 80% of Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq. Could it not have been an act by one of these who simply wants the invader to leave. We began this war and any who oppose us may correctly be called combatants, but, to call any who oppose our goals and intentions a terrorist is a very, VERY, dangerous mindset, as President Bush is learning.

I agree with David’s comments for the most part. My first thought in regards to the assassination of Izzedine Salim is that to simply point fingers at “terrorists” is simplistic and doesn’t take into consideration the countless groups who might carry out sich an attack and towards what ends.

Was it pro-Saddam loyalists? Was it al Quaeda as an attack against American interests? Was it an attack by those who want Iraq ruled by Iraqis—not American puppets? Was it an attack by those who want a theocratic state rather than a secular democracy? Was it an ethnic attack by Kurds or Sunnis against a Shi’ite leader?

The situation in Iraq isn’t a black and white us. vs. them situation, as much as Bush likes to paint things that way. To simply dismiss it as anti-democracy terrorists—the usual administration line and the sentiments echoed by joebagodunuts—is incredibly narrow-minded. What those in Iraq consider “moving forward” may mean many different things to different people, and they are all acting in way to influence the outcome in their favor.

hey joe, maybe going into Iraq wasn’t the best Idea the U.S. ever had, huh?

David- I would counter that the war of Northern aggression on the sovereign CSA was the real act of…… Let’s not go there!

But this was a suicide bombing of a political target. In modern times this tactic is rather unique to the Islamists who gain great reward in heaven as a martyr. I would doubt you would get many Kurds or dissatisfied Iraqis to adopt such a technique.

George, who killed JFK? A terrorist? Or a power hungry conspiracist - murderer? We do need to make these distinctions if we are to know what the hell we are doing in Iraq. I am pleased to see Bush backing off the word “terrorist” in reference to Iraq unless there is some evidence of a tie to a known terrorist group. Damned expensive education for our troops - educating this President on the job.

Lawnboy:

I think perhaps you were looking for something that wasnt there. I AGREED with you, and simply took the information in your post a bit further.

David: I chose to use the word terrorist for good reason. A terrorist is someone who uses terror as a means to an end. The examples I used are perfect examples of terrorism. Combatants do not target innocent civilians, but terrorists do. Combatants do not cut off the flow of oil that benefits their own people, but terrorists do.

Notice that the incidents I chose to use as examples were NOT combatants fighting against an occupying force (the American led coalition), but rather are examples of terrorists using terror as a weapon. When a person or group indiscriminately bombs people waiting in line for jobs, and these people are their fellow countrymen, it can be nothing BUT terror.

David, I have no problem with you disagreeing with America’s policy regarding Iraq, but to see you justifying these actions is rather sad. Its a bit indicative of a mindset that does not seem to want to believe that anyone could possibly be worse than us evil Americans. Next perhaps you will be supporting the execution of Nick Berg as simply a combatant group fighting for their freedom.

joe,

Fair enough. I thought you were doing the same thing ;)