There was a pro-Palestinian demo in Oslo last week, (a bit subdued - swastikas have gone out of fashion), and as I watched someone handed me a flyer for a new group called the Committee for a Free Iraq.

A historic struggle is taking place in Iraq. After two wars and the UN sanctioned genocide which killed more than two million people, the Iraqi people is now fighting against the brutal and illegal occupation by the US and its allies. The resistance of the Iraqi people against the occupation forces is legitimate according to international law and the UN charter.

This also includes the right to lead an armed resistance. The Iraqi people is excersising its undeniable right to national sovereignity and independence.

That's why on September 30, in relation with the support event for the intifada, which is directed both against the occupation of Iraq and of Palestine, we will create a solidarity committee for the resistance in Iraq. We invite everyone who supports the resistance in Iraq to participate.

Strong words, (2 million dead in genocide?!), and not a word about terrorism.

According to their blog, the purpose of the committee is to provide the Iraqi resistance with medical equipment. Again, I find not a single word about terrorism - except for this:

As the Norwegian people had a right to fight with all necessary means against the [German] occupation power, so also do the Iraqis have a right to resist the occupation. It is not the resistance, but the occupants that are terrorists!

It's easy to conclude that the Committee for a Free Iraq sees all Iraqi resistance as legitimate, and intends to donate medical equipment to terrorists. They certainly do little to discourage that impression. But that is not the case.

We don't support attacks on civilians who have nothing to do with the occupation, and neither does most of the Iraqi resistance. On the other hand it is both right and just to attack American targets and the Iraqi quisling police.

The Commitee for a Free Iraq believes there's a legitimate resistance and an illegitimate resistance, and they intend to support the legitimate one. Is that possible? How do you make sure your donations don't end up in the hands of terrorists? I asked spokesman Lars Akerhaug (RV) to clear up this and other questions about who they are and what their goals are. Here's his reply:

The purpose of this campaign which is being started, the Committe for a Free Iraq, is to gather funds for medical equipment. This will be one time equipment such as gloves, needles, etc. This is equipment which also, as far as we know, is legal for private individuals to transport. Furthermore this is what there is the most need of in Iraq as the situation is now. The intention is to send medical support to areas the resistance movement controls. We have no capacity or opportunity to control how such equipment will be used. When we launch a campaign like this it is to give people in Norway an opportunity to give political support to the struggle against the occupation. Our contacts in Iraq are a group which in Arab is called tajammu-al-wataniyy-al-iraqiiy, "The Iraqi Patriotic/National Alliance", or more literally the Iraqi Fatherland Alliance. The group consist of several opposition groups against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

We oppose murder of and attacks against civilians. We consider American soldiers, the American trained quisling police and security guards and other private companies which provide direct military support to the occupation to be legitimate targets for an Iraqi resistance movement.

As for your questions about the political character of the resistance movement and the situation in Iraq today, as we see it any people has a right to resist an occupation. Furthermore it is obvious that the situation today is far worse than it was under Saddam Hussein, and that it will continue to get worse as long as the occupation continues.

We can't deny the possibility that there will be fighting between groups in Iraq when the occupation forces leaves the country, but the way the situation is developing now this danger is increasing as long as the American presence continues.

As for who's behind the committee, it is individuals with a background from Iraq, and from the Norwegian political left. Among them are members of SV and RV: As for humanitarian organizations etc. we currently have no such contacts.

That was clear on the intentions and the agenda: The group consists of Norwegian left-wingers who want to provide medical support to what they see as a non-terrorist resistance group in Iraq, the Iraqi National Alliance. Akerhaug pointed me to an interview with the leader of the group, Jabbar al-Kubaysi. Al-Kubaysi is something of a hero to the extreme left, which has condemned his recent arrest by the American forces. Kubaysi's political programme sounds like a cross between Western anti-imperialism and Arab anti-semitism:

1) All foreign troops must leave Iraq and the occupation must be ended. We stand for a fully sovereign, independent and united Iraq.
2) All means to resist the imperialist-Zionist project of occupation are legitimate.
3) The occupation is completely illegal. Therefore we demand full reparation by the aggressors.
4) All institutions created by the occupant are null and void. We will not accepted them and the resistance will regard them as legitimate target even if they are iraqised.
5) The liberated Iraq we are fighting for is based on equal rights for all citizens, on political freedom, on a constitution decided upon by the people. It will protect the Arab-Islamic culture of Iraq.
6) The US occupation of Iraq is inextricably linked to the Zionist one of Palestine. There is a common imperialist-Zionist project to oppress the Arab people which the Arab nation has to defeat commonly.
7) The political front is open for all forces even if they decide later to join us.
8) The aggression and occupation of Iraq is only one part of the grand strategy of the US to erect its global empire. Therefore our struggle is an integral part to defend humanity against its greatest enemy, the US.
9) We will take steps to build an Arab and international front for the liberation of Palestine and Iraq and to defeat the American empire.

On the other hand, Al-Kubaysi does not speak like an Islamist, and he openly opposes terrorism and hostage taking. Does he tell the truth, and does he have the same definition of terrorism as we do? I asked Lars Akerhaug how he plans to ensure that the organization they support does not carry out terrorism, or that their support will not end up in the hands of organizations that do.

As I said, the INA has come out against things like the hostage taking of the Italian women. As for who will benefit from our medical aid, we have no opportunity to control this in detail, nor any wish to do so. In any case, all parties in a conflict have a right for medical assistance.

Not very reassuring. So what are we left with? A Jihad charity with a left-wing face? I don't believe so. These people believe that the Iraqi National Alliance is part of a non-terrorist resistance movement in Iraq, and that it is possible to separate such groups from the terrorists. That rests on a lot of claims I can't verify - perhaps others can - but they may be correct.

On the other hand, they don't seem to be very concerned that their medical aid may find its way into the hands of terrorists. "All parties in a conflict have a right for medical assistance", right? Nor do they seem concerned with terrorism as a threat to Iraq today. "It is not the resistance, but the occupants that are terrorists!"

In fact, the Committee for a Free Iraq mentions non-state terrorism only when they speak to outsiders. It's like it's not their problem. They've found an angle from which the Iraqi conflict can be seen as a variation of the old tale of third world rebellion - native freedom fighters vs Western imperialists. That's all that matters. And they know that the audience, fellow left-wing anti-imperialists like the ones who presumably show up at pro-Palestinian demos, feel the same way, so they don't even bother to mention any other aspect of the issue. Not with a word.

And let us not forget that, for all their opposition to terrorism, the Committee for a Free Iraq applauds every time an American soldier dies in Iraq. When Iraqi policemen and members of the "quisling" government are killed, the Commitee for a Free Iraq applauds that too. They even support the murder of Norwegian forces. It's good that they don't also applaud random massacres of Iraqi civilians, but let's keep in mind what we're dealing with: A group which actively supports the enemies of a free, democratic Iraq.

Hey-
Are these "authors" Iraqi immigrants to Norway who create this group, or just another bunch of whining and sniveling asylum seekers looking for a purpose in a land that is not their own?
I personally invite each of this groups members to come on over to Iraq to meet the men and woman of the US forces on a personal level. Perhaps we could have lunch before we begin a "dialogue" with you nutcases.
Come on little jihadists- we'll have lunch with you and then step out into the desert for a little hand to hand combat. The US male soldiers will referee and judge the event, and our female solidiers will fight you and knock and beat you so deep into the sand your beards will never again be the same.

If the people in Iraq want the US to leave all they have to do is stop killing people. It's really that simple. If there were no apparent need to US troops to keep the peace they would all leave quickly Public presure (in the US and else where) would demand it. So either the people in Iraq are idiots (possible) or they really don't want the US to leave (unlikely). Really I just don't get it. Do they understand Americans and the situation so poorly? Or are they just afraid that the population of Iraq will get used to the idea of peace, safety and democracy?

The uS will leave iraq at some point obviously, as all we are looking to do is implant some sanity into minds that stillthink it is the 7th century. Once the US begins to pack up and ship out the cries of "no, please stay!" and "betrayal!" will be heard throughout the region. Just look at the german response to US troop departure.
It will be impressive for the world to just once, see the muslims take care of themselves without a need to flee to the west for an education, free shelter and free monies. One day maybe even a patent will come out of the middle east.

Pato: Are these "authors" Iraqi immigrants to Norway who create this group, or just another bunch of whining and sniveling asylum seekers looking for a purpose in a land that is not their own?

Huh? Which authors are you referring to? And what's with the vitriol? "Whining and sniveling" asylum seekers? Jesus.

Just spoke today with Iraqi co-worker (secular Shia) whose husband, against her and many other people's (including my) advice just spent a couple of weeks in Baghdad. Adding to her worries were the fact that he's a Kurd and a Sunni.

Quickish summary :

Things are really bad and it's really dangerous everywhere in Baghdad.
As far as she's concerned they need to drop a lot more bombs on Fallujah (the only thing they'll understand were roughly her words).
Iraqi Shias don't want to have the dominating role in the government.
She (and I) hope Sistani stays alive for as long as possible, things could go very badly without his calming influence.
The insurgents are a) Sunni's afraid of a reprisals for their cooperation with Saddam b) north Africans (with a sprinkling of others)
In spite of everything she's fairly certain things will be better in the middle to distant future.

Pato sounds about right from my view.

This is wrong. This is unfortunately, "leftism" gone bonkers.

I was, and I still am, opposed to the war in Iraq. I don't care much for either the Bush-administration or its foreign policys, but this is not the way to go. This is supporting terrorism, in a naive sort of way. They are making Iraq the "final" battleground against, what is percived to be, US-imperalism, and its the iraqi civilians who get caught in the crossfire.

On the other hand the war/occupation/liberation, in its current form, isnt bringing much needed stability and security to the country either.
A UN led coalition, if the US would relinquish its control, might have greater credibility and therefor more success ? But I digress...

This has, as far as I can see, been initiated by people from the radical left in Norway and as such has very limited support in the population as a whole.
I for one, as a leftwinger, do not support it.

BTW: Kudos to you Bjørn for a well written and fairly balanced blog...a good read even when I disagree..=)

What kind of world we live in ? resisting occupation of your homeland becomes terrorism while killing thousands of muslims becomes ' collateral damage' !!

I guess the french were also terrorists for resisting the nazi occupation of France in 1940s !!

Maybe George Washington himself was a terrorist afer all for fighting the British to gain independence for America ?

Maybe, we the Finns, were also terrorists for fighting the Russian occupation of our homeland !

How about the Vietnamese ? I am sure there were also terrorists for resisting the American invasion of their homeland !!

Bjørn ! I have never expected such absurd pathetic analysis from intelligent people like you.

Bjørn,

Its hardly surprising that one sees more and more of these groups taking their cue from the times, any more than it would be surprising how many of them had Che t-shirts under their jackets. This group is another piece in the unfolding cracks opening up in Western civilisations foundations, and the weak point at which tyranny in various forms is aiming its rhetoric.

Ultimately, if one is asking the question of what the goals of the United States in Iraq are, there are of course numerous angles one could take to answer it, and an endless supply of nefarious sounding side issues one could cite. But if one is in earnest (a human quality in short supply within a relentless discourse that associates such a desire with primitiveness and a lack of sophistication), the question must hinge on whether or not the US is truly seeking to help bring forth a free Iraq.

Then... if that is indeed what they are doing... is it a worthy cause?

This will not be addressed by the ideological enablers of the left any more than it was ever addressed at any meaningful level by the Soviets... and for simlar reasons. Better to cling to icons of indignation and foment hatred for illusory causes.

It seems that for all too much of the ironically self labeled "progressive" left, this "freedom" thing is not worthy of attention. The level of rationalization for PR aside, this group like many others, is motivated by the deisre to see America humiliated, and Americans killed. That their "intellectual roots are neo Marxist or a twisted anti globalization or whatever other convoluted ideological bane that may be the outer garment for their tyranically conformist flavor of "freethinking", the result is the same. Any pretense towards Iraqi "self determination" or liberation from the Americans is laughable... at best. In truth it is deeply diturbing as it is bound to an almost mindless adherence to "againstness" which asserts... nothing. Its inherent nihilism is what binds it to the likes of Islamo fascism and Baathist tyranny, even as it binds itself to the rest of the ideological morass of the "Left". Its adherents are automotons to hatred, whatever "cause" they may dress it in.

When the US, after struggling endlessly harder and sacrificing more of its blood and treasure and at the cost of thousands more innocent Iraqi lives, has at last crossed the tipping point in Iraq where Liberty is grasped by the bulk of Iraqis and the despoilers of it are on the run... it will have done so in spite of all too much of Europe. This means Europe's regimes, as well as its organized "activist" citizens... who, quite sickeningly, proclaim moral self righteousness as they enable and even empower tyrants and mourderers to make there play at snuffing out the asperations of a nation towards freedom, and the foundation of their own civilisation towards security.

History, and the US itself for a long, long time... will mark this well.

And I fear there may be very dark times in store in the interim.

KM

Ex C "resisting the occupation of your homeland" Is that what you call car bombs targeted at civilians day after day? How odd. As for the examples you give, I don't seem to recall wholesale civilian targeting by the "rebels", but then again the "rebels" were not Moslem in the examples you gave. As for the French resisting the Nazi occupation that may be one the larger non-sequitors that has appeared on this blog.

"What kind of world we live in ? resisting occupation of your homeland becomes terrorism while killing thousands of muslims becomes ' collateral damage' !!"

I'd say a good number of these muslim casualites are being killed by muslim fanatics. The US didn't set off car bombs to kill moslem children, you can thank moslem fanatics for that.

I opposed the invasion mostly because I thought the W administration would fuck up the aftermath, but I generally try to defer to the opinion of the Iraqis I know and have come into contact with. It's not a big number, but none of them support the insurgents (who are mostly not Iraqi) nor do they (and this is more important) know any Iraqis besides former Baathists who do. Their main anger is not at the occupation forces (though they're frustrated at the many and obvious stupid blunders made by them) but at the non-Iraqi insurgents who are clearly not acting in the interest of Iraqis.

I have a great deal of respect for Sistani (a valuable ally who's been misunderstood and treated shabbily by the US) but as far as I'm concerned, the sooner several kilos of lead enter the body of that megalomaniac freak Sadr the better.

MICHAEL f "the sooner several kilos of lead enter the body of that megalomaniac freak Sadr the better" HMM? NOT A VERY POLITICALLY CORRECT STATEMENT :-)

"NOT A VERY POLITICALLY CORRECT STATEMENT"

I've been known to indulge ...

As for who's behind the committee, it is individuals with a background from Iraq, and from the Norwegian political left. Among them are members of SV and RV: As for humanitarian organizations etc. we currently have no such contacts.

The fact that RV are represented here doesn't surprise me, at all. But when people from SV are involved then it pretty much screams hypocrazy. I had thought many SV members to be pacifists. Oh well, i guess they are more the revolutionary kind.

It would be very interesting to know who theese people are? Are there members of this organisation that are MPs?

Kevin:
"This means Europe's regimes, as well as its organized "activist" citizens... who, quite sickeningly, proclaim moral self righteousness as they enable and even empower tyrants and mourderers to make there play at snuffing out the asperations of a nation towards freedom, and the foundation of their own civilisation towards security"

So who was helping Saddam earlier again? Was it not US? The thing Europe has understood, that you guys hopefully will also understand one day is that you should try to act according to international law, and not just on a whim. Of course, now it has been proven that there WAS NO reason to attack Iraq. I for one, am happy that Saddam is gone, but I think the means of doing it was wrong.. It also sets a dangerous example for other countries that might want to attack their neighbour "because they are a threat", when they actually are not. Does the US have the 'steadyness' of keeping this from happening as well? I doubt that.. Of course you can say that Europe would not have this 'steadyness' either, but neither did we show them how to do it either.

"but as far as I'm concerned, the sooner several kilos of lead enter the body of that megalomaniac freak Sadr the better"

And make him a martyr? nah.. put him in jail, like other criminals.

Ex-Christian:

>How about the Vietnamese ? I am sure there were also terrorists for resisting the American invasion of their homeland !!

Minnesota has just recently accepted 15,000 MORE Hmong refugees! (We already have the third largest Hmong population)

Refugees from WHAT?

America LOST that war. The war that Kerry called "the biggest NOTHING in American history".

Why are they refugees? Why come to America? The land of EEEEVIL!

What is so wrong with the Communist PARADISE of Viet-Nam that they had to flee to the land of EEEEEEEEVVVVIIILLLLL?

If only Viet-Nam had ended the way Korea did.

Aqualung: The Hmong were recruited by the US to fight on the US side and as US allies were subject to reprisals from the local governments after the US left Indochina.
Rather shamefully, the US was content to leave them to their fate for many years.
That the US is finally living up to decades-old obligations is not something to crow about.

And hoooooooolding down a key is not a substitute for a good argument.

"And make him (Sadr: maf) a martyr? nah.. put him in jail, like other criminals."

I tend to think he'd be a longer-lasting martyr in jail. He's had chances to work with the system and has chosen to work against the interests of the majority of Iraqis who do not want either a return to dictatorship or a theological government.
What I'd really like is for him to be discredited and then killed, but then it's so hard to have everything.

Cute BS

"He's had chances to work with the system and has chosen to work against the interests of the majority of Iraqis who do not want either a return to dictatorship or a theological government.
What I'd really like is for him to be discredited and then killed, but then it's so hard to have everything"

Obviously he has to have some kind of support, otherwise he would not have been such a figure. Of course that does not make what he does right, but from a neutral point of view, I havent heard of him doing terrorist acts, except fighting against american forces. BUT, that might be because I have been practically hiding from the world last weeks because of uni assignments...
I dont believe in death penalty, and since its definately outside of this thread.. I'll refrain from talking more about Sadr and whether he should go to jail or be killed.

Allan,

"Of course, now it has been proven that there WAS NO reason to attack Iraq. I for one, am happy that Saddam is gone, but I think the means of doing it was wrong.."

All I can say to this Allan, is that it is par for the course. It has certainly NOT been proven by ANYONE that there was no reason to attack Iraq. You indulge yourself in the media parsed version of every document to fly out in the aftermath of the facts ... even the politically motivated ones. I imagine you think the EUs giving of itself a clean bill of health last year in its internal inquiry into funding terror means it has been "proven innocent"?

Furthermore, it continues to fascinate me how so many are able to spout off the the tiresome "I'm happy Saddam's gone BUT..." tripe, and simply NOT acknowledge one's own moral inconsistency. In your case, I don't even think you permit yourself to see that you have a dilemma.

Such is the nature of walking in the nuanced dream of "international Law" as it is contrived today, as though it were something that is about Justice or Liberty... or, presently... even inspired by such things.

It is not.

I note how after laying out the idea that the US is... whatever (but surely wrong), you erect a facade of "equanimity", through the illusory deployment of moral equivalence. As in- the US is all that bad stuff, but ho-hum, Europe may have to learn some things too.

They are all "bad" in your mind then?

How nice.

Its that kind of indulgent "reasoning" (which is little more that a fluffy rehash of what the "progressive" elite cynically prattles off daily), that is the only explanation I can make for this impossible to untangle conclusion of yours Allan. To wit:

"Does the US have the 'steadyness' of keeping this from happening as well? I doubt that.. Of course you can say that Europe would not have this 'steadyness' either, but neither did we show them how to do it either."

Right. Ok then Allan.

KM

By the way: Who was helping Saddam out earlier? Check your figures my friend. It was Europe who made a boon of Saddam and traded every weapon that Oil could buy. This is no small matter, because the numbers are huge. Yet you still bite the "US used to nurture Saddam" meme. I imagine the idea that the "CIA created Osama" meme carries traction with you too?

After all ... thats been proven too Allan! Don't you "feel" that it has?

It is no wonder we have a legal body that drifts further and further away from a moral purpose and into a increasingly meaningles fog of nuance and political servitude... when people are so easily encouraged to feel... and not think.

I suppose that this is also the work of Western Imperialsts and/or Zionists:

"MULTAN, Pakistan (Reuters) - At least 40 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in Pakistan on Thursday when a car bomb exploded at a rally to commemorate an assassinated militant . . . Sunni Muslim leader Azam Tariq.

The attack came just days after a suicide bomber killed 30 people at a minority Shi'ite Muslim mosque in the eastern city of Sialkot on Oct. 2."
* * *

The above to Allan etc. was from me.

Wish there was some way to automate identification...

Bjørn?

KM

I don't know if this is bad blog etiquette, but this is a simply great post from the Instapundit, and I really feel like pasting it below.
....

UNSCAM UPDATE: Is this a surprise?

[** Long article deleted. Yes, Kevin, this is bad blog etiquette. See posting rules #3 and #4. Here's the original Instapundit post. -BS]

Kevin,

Are people supposed to be shocked or outraged at the link? A cursory readthru indicates that Saddam did what any leader of a small country likely to be invaded would do. He used official and unofficial channels and bribed some people, it's called Realpolitik and he didn't invent it and all countries practice it.

This seems to be the least of his many and terrible crimes, the equivalent of getting upset at a porn star who kisses on the first date (not that I have anything against porn stars or the valuable services they perform).

Michael,

WOW! Is that all it was?

Well... I suppose I stand corrected. I wonder though, what the world be like if your casual dismissal was the "standardless standard.

Perhaps we are already getting a preview.

Curious. Do you dismiss all such monstrosities with a wave? Or are you selective?

KM

Bjørn,

Sorry. I like totally never look at rules you know. I'm like, such a total anarchist.
;-)

Cheers,

KM

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-10-06 18:57 | Link
Pato: Are these "authors" Iraqi immigrants to Norway who create this group, or just another bunch of whining and sniveling asylum seekers looking for a purpose in a land that is not their own?

Bjorn- Huh? Which authors are you referring to? And what's with the vitriol? "Whining and sniveling" asylum seekers? Jesus.
I was referring to the authors of the flyer you recieved.

It is truly amazing how quickly the euronuts accepted US efforts to stop the yugoslavian slaughter, and then the Kosovo (non-UN authorized war)intervention with US technology, blood and money. All this occured within just the last decade. Albanian muslims riot in kosovo and german and french "peacekeepers" hide in barracks letting churches be torched. Now that is impressive work for a modern force, yes?
It is amazing that those in the "eu" would permit the US to step into europe's fields (after having rightly fled from them for centuries!) to free many of you peopple from fascist dictatorships, but yet you howl with child-like nonsense when someone else's country needs such a make-over.
The grand impotence and cunning duplicity shown by the current european "community" is a disgrace to western society.

"Curious. Do you dismiss all such monstrosities with a wave? Or are you selective?"

Okay, Saddam is such a monster (I agree) and you're shocked that he stooped to bribery and dreamed of wreaking havoc? Or are you shocked that it's possible to buy politicians. I hope you never find out where that cheeseburger came from ....

Oddly Michael, your sarcasm strikes true.

I am not at all surprised that Saddam sought to bribe and coerce in order to empower his own ambitions at the cost of the Iraqi people. Neither am I shocked that France and Russia were complicit in gutting the stated purpose of a series of UN resolutions for venal and stunted ends. I am not even "surprised" (since the word 'disillusioned' defined literally is an inherently good thing) that the UN was a clearing house for a network of corruption so ghastly, that it inverts and renders meaningless every principle that this body is supposed to stand for.

I'm just surprised at the great PR all these parties get.

"Kevin, Are people supposed to be shocked or outraged at the link? A cursory readthru indicates that Saddam did what any leader of a small country likely to be invaded would do. He used official and unofficial channels and bribed some people, it's called Realpolitik and he didn't invent it and all countries practice it."

Slightly off-target, Michael.

Don't you think it would be appropriate to express a little shock and outrage about the French and Russian "politicians, journalists and diplomats," and the Total company, whose participation apparently justified Saddam's expectations?

That seems very much a standard to which the US is held.

While I may agree with you that this group is much like any other group seeking to gather funds so they can send them to the "oppressed people fighting for their freedom", whether it be a Muslim group, a Irish group or any other group that supports killing in the name of getting "thier message across". I just find a need to point out that the democratic elections soon to be held in Iraq may be excluding two thirds of the total population of Iraq. Which seems to me to go a long way in making any democratic vote in Iraq be worth as much as a politicians word.

All the muslims who are murdering muslim children in Iraq are claiming to be heroes? That is very interesting. And the Europeans who accept their heroism, their child massacring ways, present themselves as genuine humanitarians.

Most intersting.

Pato:
"And the Europeans who accept their heroism, their child massacring ways, present themselves as genuine humanitarians" Tah.. where you get this view from is beyond me...

"It is amazing that those in the "eu" would permit the US to step into europe's fields"
That is a bit outside this thread dont you think?
And a purposeful degradation wont make you right by the way, I can also say EU and "us" in the same sentence.

Kevin:
"Furthermore, it continues to fascinate me how so many are able to spout off the the tiresome "I'm happy Saddam's gone BUT..." tripe, and simply NOT acknowledge one's own moral inconsistency. In your case, I don't even think you permit yourself to see that you have a dilemma"
So whats morally inconsistent about that? Is it that I think Saddam should be removed from power, BUT that the manner in which we do it play a role?
I guess you think that as long as the intention is good, then it doesnt matter how we do it? is that it? That reminds me of an old expression which I think is quite true in this instance: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

"As in- the US is all that bad stuff, but ho-hum, Europe may have to learn some things too"
UH? yes??? Everyone, and every society has something to learn.. You think your american dream is perfect?

"You indulge yourself in the media parsed version of every document to fly out in the aftermath of the facts"
And you indulge yourself in fantasy and conspiracy theories not even Fox Mulder would buy...

"They are all "bad" in your mind then?"
I have no conception of bad and good.. I dont think people are either totally evil or totally good. Therefore I tend to focus on issues rather than persons. But I know, thats a little to far from your black and white, good vs bad world.
Kevin, you have been watching to many movies my friend...

"I just find a need to point out that the democratic elections soon to be held in Iraq may be excluding two thirds of the total population of Iraq. Which seems to me to go a long way in making any democratic vote in Iraq be worth as much as a politicians word"

And a good point it is indeed :)

Allan says he has no conception of good and bad. That is something he should place at the beginning of each posting. Everything that follows could be seen in the light of that statement.

Hugo,

Yes, that was indeed my point, though sadly, Allan has both missed it and confirmed it is in his answer.

For the record Allan, one does not need to engage in "conspiracy theories" at all in order to explain the nature of your conformity with whatever is the domainant meme. That's the nature of the beast.

When everything is grey in ones mind, there is no need for distinctions.

The problem you see, is that in truth, everything is not grey.

This is your problem.

KM

"Allan says he has no conception of good and bad. That is something he should place at the beginning of each posting. Everything that follows could be seen in the light of that statement.Allan says he has no conception of good and bad. That is something he should place at the beginning of each posting. Everything that follows could be seen in the light of that statement."
Well, I try to discuss issues, and not myself. Its like introducing myself to another person and saying: "Hi, I'm Allan and I'm a christian".
Dont you think its better to discuss issues in regards to logical arguments and not in terms of preconception for your opponent? For instance, I usually disagree with Kevin on lots of stuff, but sometimes he might say something I agree upon.

But I think I should clarify what I meant; what I meant in this instance was: I have no conception of total goodness and badness in regards to one person or cause. It might have been formulated wrongly, but the point is still there, I dont believe in blindly following a cause, thinking it is perfect, because everything has flaws. And I know that everything is not grey, even though it might have been the impression from that post. I do for example think that it is evil to chop another person's head off, but that does not necessarily make the person doing it totally evil. Do I believe a person doing evil things should be punished? the answer is definately yes!
Am I able to recognise good and evil when I see it? YES!

"The problem you see, is that in truth, everything is not grey"
I havent said everything is grey. I only try to generalise to a lesser degree. Because exessive generalisation, like what Hitler did, even though it was useful for the stone age man in avoiding danger, will most likely bring harm in any modern society.

"For the record Allan, one does not need to engage in "conspiracy theories" at all in order to explain the nature of your conformity with whatever is the domainant meme. That's the nature of the beast"
Hehe, well, I can assure you that I have a history of not agreeing with the majority. But just because the majority believes something, doesnt mean that it is wrong either.. Oh, and the majority in this blog does seem to be of the same view as me, so according to your theory, then I should not be discussing this, since as the 'beast' I am, I should be conforming like you said.

Allan -- So who was helping Saddam earlier again?--

SIPRI (Swedish Institute...??) and since my computer's down don't have the link to the direct page.

Add Oil-for-Palaces-Terrorists-UN-Frogs-Russkies-Chinese and we'll start to cover it.

Friends of Saddam is a very informative site, along w/the Duelfer Report.

Tater was Iran's frontman until he blew it bigtime.

He was even knifed in a discussion.

To even begin to know the players in this episode, start reading Rantburg.

Michael - ho hum, this is the way the world works.

If this really ever seeps into the American consciousness, Americans will insist on less $ support of the UN. They really get mad, good-bye UN, which would be for the best. There are already other plans in the works to revise or start a new org.

I suppose that next they will be having a group hug for those poor oppressed Janjaweed.

Here are some questions vis a vis terrorism and iraq and how we support it.

How can you define a terrorist in terms that are not prejudiced in some way? Or does the whole thing just boil down to: "You people are threatening violence on my country and my people so I am going to kill you before you kill me?"

If you transcend this fear based mind-set and conclude that an impartial definitiion of terrorism is impossible, is the only ethically compassionate stance left then to refuse to support all violence?

If you eschew all violence and therefore refuse to give financial support to a group supporting the so called resistanace in Iraq should you not also refuse to pay that proportion of your taxes that supports (directly and indirectly) the violence inflcted on Iraqis by the occupying forces?

Or alternatively if you think violence is OK but believe in true balance should you not then give an amount to the Iraqi Resistance people that is equal to the amount you pay in taxes that supports the occupation?

As Frank Smyth points out in a recent article in Foreign Policy in Focus (the article is available at franksmyth.com or in Norwegian at www.dilettant.no), the "resistance" is reactionary, not progressive. You have the ex-Baathists dreaming of a return to their minority rule, you have extreme Shia-Islamists and you have extreme Sunni-Islamists.

Although there are other examples of armed resistance these are hardly worth mentioning. Then, you might ask, who are worth mentioning and who are worth supporting? I'd say support Iraqi labour unions, women organisations, secular leftists and moderate Islamists. Here you find people who are called "quisling" by the Norwegian left, but in reality they're normal people who have seen that the best way to make Iraq better isn't to contribute to further political violence, but to work for democracy. Even if that means working together with the US.

Norwegian and American leftists should learn a lesson from them.

Øyvind

the "resistance" is reactionary, not progressive.

Does simply using these terms not amount to imposing western norms on a non-western culture? What right do we have to make such distinctions vis a vis Iraq when they are based on a western intellectual, moral and poltical tradition?

who are worth mentioning and who are worth supporting? I'd say support Iraqi labour unions, women organisations, secular leftists and moderate Islamists.

In principle that has to be the right approach. We do not have any right to impose our values on Iraq or any other country as the Americans are so obviously doing but we do have a right to support those tendencies that we ourselves support.

If this was done with sensitivity and wisdom it would send a clear message to the Iraqi people -- "This is what we have to offer these are the conditions for having our support."

IMO nothing would more effectively undermine the power base of those individuals in Iraq who intend to exploit the situation to further their totalitarian violent ends.

But then there's the slight problem of the American imperialist agenda and their brutally insensitive methods to overcome . . . which after all is providing the popular base on which the violent Islamic extremists are building their "resistance movement". These people have to be isolated and shown into sharp relief for what they are. This will never happen so long as America is seen as representing Western values and ideals.

The radical left are guilty of uncritically supporting the resistance in Iraq but the moderate left and right are equally passive when it comes to their attitude towards American actions. They, like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk, have been bewitched by the notion that there is no moral equivalence in the situation and have become cultural fascists as a result.

Scott: How can you define a terrorist in terms that are not prejudiced in some way?

Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians to cause political change. That doesn't cover all of it, but I believe it's good enough.

Bjørn,

So the use of the doctrine of collective punishment in pursuit of terrorists would classify as terrorism?

Scott:

Yes, the moderate left and the right are definitely making mistakes, too, the most striking example being to play on a card called Ahmed Chalabi and his bunch of ex-royalists. Once more I agree with Frank Smyth.

But then I am a part of the radical left myself, and I find it tragic that people who believe in many of the same things as I do choose to support a reactionary insurgence in Iraq merely because this insurgency is targeting the United States of America. To me that tastes like anti-Americanism and believe me - there´s nothing I like less than when the rightwingers are indeed RIGHT...

Oeyvind

Oeyvind,

I find it tragic that people who believe in many of the same things as I do choose to support a reactionary insurgence in Iraq merely because this insurgency is targeting the United States of America.

Totally agree. And its not as though its the first time -- we really need to grow out of the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" idiocy. And it goes for right and left, after all it was at least partly responsible for the Saddam Hussein problem. If this and a few other ground rules were agreed upon workable compromise solutions could be found.

Really we desperately need that sort of political dialogue and it should be possible because there are basic prinicples in there that people across the political spectrum do broadly agree on. The problem is that they all too easily become compromised in the name of poltical expediency and primitive idealism.

Anti-Americanism is a real curse too. It must be self evident to any thinking person that you cannot blame all Americans for the attitudes and actions of an elite minority. And of course it takes attention away from criticising and exposing that minority when the right pounce on anti-Americanism and use it to caricature all criticism of America as the modern day equvialent of anti-semitism.

"Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians to cause political change"
This sounds a hell of a lot like the invasion of Iraq in my mind.
I dont think that the invasion is terrorism, therefore a better definition might be "Terrorism is the use of violence targetted at civilians to cause political change"

Allan,

The standard response to your charge is that the invasion of Iraq did not deliberately target civilians. The loss of civilian life is "regretable collateral damage" that is minimised through the use of "precision strikes".

Of course we all know that is spin. Precision strikes on what? A rumour of a safe house for *whoever* or a bunch of people on a street corner? That is the reality and to pretend otherwise is an insult to the intelligence. The civilian casualties resulting from the invasion were utterly predictable and could have been avoided by not invading. No defence there as far as I am concerned but logically the consistent at least.

What cannot be defended is the position on collective responsiblity and collective punishment. This is the one the Israeli's use all the time and lies at the roots of current US actions in Fallujah, Sadr City, Najaaf, Samarrah etc. It revolves around the argument that if you aid or assist "a terrorist" in any way you become "a terrorist" yourself. This then could be (and is) used as an argument to justify raising a whole village to the ground to eliminate a known terrorist suspect. The village itself has become "a terrorist". It is also at the root of Bush's "you are either with us or with the terrorist".

What is to terrifying about Bush's resurrection of the doctrine of collective responsibiltiy is that it was really something we were supposed to have left behind a couple of thousand years ago.

Heathen Viking society was based on the principle of collective (familial) responsibility and history records that with the introduction of Christianity we "advanced" into a period in which all were now equal before the law.

The resurrection of the moral doctrine of collective responsiblity to justify acts of barbarism today is IMO far more sinister than it ever was under heathen society. The Vikings didn't have an organised police force so collective responsibility had a sound pragmatic foundation. Today it is a calculated attempt to legitmate organised violence in pursuit of self interest. IMO that in itself is an act of terrorism.

Scott:
I happen to believe that to _willfully_ target civilians is terrorism. I doubt that what US is doing (perhaps a few cases of a stupid soldier or something, but nevertheless..) can be considered as terrorism from this basis. Of course, invading Iraq was not justified, but I dont think it should be put under the umbrella of terrorism, for the sake of not over-using the word until it looses its power.

"Of course we all know that is spin. Precision strikes on what? A rumour of a safe house for *whoever* or a bunch of people on a street corner? That is the reality and to pretend otherwise is an insult to the intelligence. The civilian casualties resulting from the invasion were utterly predictable and could have been avoided by not invading"
True, but still not under the umbrella of terrorism in my mind. Of course, it could be discussed what is worse, but I guess thats not relevant here.

However, I do think that it would be correct to have an independent inquiry into the REAL reasons behind the Iraq war, and when found guilty, Bush would have been forced to resign, or even go to jail like other criminals.

Here is another side to the nature of the resistance in Iraq that suggests that it is far from being driven by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and also supports my thesis that it is being fueled by US military action:

From the BBC:

Inside beseiged Falluja:

Fighters are engaged in skirmishes with US forces in the eastern and southern areas. US positions are about half a kilometre from Falluja.

No single militia force controls the whole city.

Different clans in the city have their own militias but they all seem to be working together to fend off US forces.

Ninety-nine percent of the fighters here are Fallujans.

The ordinary people of Falluja still want a peaceful solution - but they knew war was inevitable when Prime Minister Iyad Allawi issued his ultimatum earlier this week.

They say the Americans are attacking them because of wounded pride. They say they are motivated by revenge.

http://tinyurl.com/5d4xs

But of course the BBC is a filthy communist news media in the hands of the international left wing conspiracy to besmirch the USA and so can be dismissed out of hand.

Scott:
This might back your argument up a bit further

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency"

tx Allan :-)

I was actually looking for the opposite, but could not find, so in the end I just posted this. I still believe that the american rule in Iraq is better than Saddam for the Iraqees. Hopefully at least in the long run (that is, if Saddam is not replaced by another one just as bad).

I think we have to acknowledge the fact that the Americans (together with the British) are doing their best to clean up the mess they made. Actually, if it was ever a time for Europe to prove their point, then they should send people down to Iraq now, to help clean up the mess that the Americans and British made.

Allan,

I agree with the general point you are making, but I'm afraid I've become very very pessimistic.

Too many indefensible things have been done (Abu Ghraib being the worst -- Guantanamo Bay is also a bad advert) and an intenable situation has been created.

I also agree that an International Peace keeping force would probably be the only answer.

But, IMO, that would be predicated on a complete climb down by the Americans. They need to apologise unreservedly to the Iraqii people. If that was done it might provide a workable foundation to steer things towards some sort of stable society for the people.

For those who seek to black ball and demonise those who they see as "supporting" the resistance in Iraq I strongly recommend they read this Article by Naomi Kline

I make no apologise for the length of this *snip* from her defense against one dimensional propagandists like Christopher Hitchens.

"It was an instructive lesson about who Sadr actually is: not an anti-imperialist liberator, as some have cast him, but someone who wants foreigners out so that he can control large portions of Iraq's population himself. But neither is Sadr the one-dimensional villain painted by the media, a portrayal that has allowed many liberals to stay silent as he is barred from participating in elections and to look the other way as US forces firebomb Sadr City.

The situation requires a more principled position. For instance, Sadr deserves his right to publish a political newspaper - not because he believes in freedom but because we supposedly do. Similarly, Sadr's calls for fair elections and an end to occupation demand our unequivocal support - not because we are blind to the threat Sadr poses but because a belief in self-determination means admitting that the outcome of democracy is not ours to control.

These distinctions are commonly made in Iraq: many people I met in Baghdad condemned the attacks on Sadr as evidence that Washington never intended to bring democracy. They backed Sadr's calls for an end to occupation and immediate elections. But when asked if they would vote for him, most laughed.

Yet in North America and Europe the idea that you can support Sadr's call for fair elections and an end to occupation without endorsing him as Iraq's next prime minister has proved harder to grasp. For arguing this position, I was accused of making "excuses for the theocrats and misogynists" by Nick Cohen, in the Observer, and of being a "socialist-feminist offering swooning support to theocratic fascists" by Christopher Hitchens, in Slate."

I wonder how much Cohen and Hitchens get paid for writing their crap and by whom?

I still believe that the american rule in Iraq is better than Saddam for the Iraqees. Hopefully at least in the long run

The only way I could see that happening is if this catastrophe sees the end of the revolutionary right wing cabal in the US that instigated it. If they were booted into the dustbin of history and -- with them out of the picture -- Iraq was able to achieve self determination then, yes, it could turn out to have been "a good thing".

From some of the comments, it would appear that not all of the SS troops left Norway. Or, at least, their progeny remains. The facts about Iraq should be reasonably clear to anyone of at least average intelligence by now. The U.S. invaded Iraq for purposes of revenge for 9-11, (any towelhead will do)and to make the oil fields safe for Haliburton. Secondly, be reminded that all U.S. troops there are mercenaries - that is, they are hired killers. Thirdly, be reminded that both Osama bin Laden and Saddam was cozy with the CIA for many years and that Osama was initially hired and trained by the CIA to shoot Russians. Forthly, the U.S. has no intention of "rebuilding" Iraq or even making it habitable.
The sewer systems in 20 years will still be dumping crap into the rivers (when it is even able to dump)and the power stations will still be running at about 30% or less. Hopefully, Iraq will become another Vietnam for the U.S. to mull over.

To read this, and think about where I came from ashames me. I am a American Citizen, yes, however, my family has roots in Norway, hence the last name Mortensen, son of Morten. My family has held pride on the country from which our ancestors came from and for the country that they immigrated to. Consider this, many of the men and women fighting are of European descent. You consider far off branches of European families targets?

Please also consider this, the families here in America have PERSONAL REASONS to support this war. We would like our families to come home safely once their job is done. I know I want my father to live.

Sincerely
An American Citizen

1.I don't give a damn what reasons Amerikkka claims to be using this week for its illegal invasion of Iraq, it was unprovoked. It has changed its story three times. Iraq didn't want this war. America did. Now that its citizens have seen its a real war and not just a one-sided beating where no Amerifascists get killed, then they don't want any parts of it. It didn't even take 1,500 dead occupiers before the squeamish American public lost stomach for it. Most Americans think it was not worth it, and they don't hardly even know 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead (mostly from the air force). Whatever means they use to resist are justified.
They are the only LEGAL fighters in this war.
2.It is not as if America's so-called military is actually fighting bravely even in this illegal war. Far from it. As soon as they encounter ten guys with rifles they cower and call in the air force to do the fighting for them. When was the last time any of their "infantry" actually FOUGHT as infantry and not as forward air controllers?
3.Let's see the "big bad-ass world's only superpower" talk to Iran the way it talked to Iraq. Let's see it talk to North Korea like it talked to Iraq. Let's see it talk to China like it talked to Iraq...What's that?? Sounds awful quiet... The big bully lets North Korea, Iran and anyone else who can ACTUALLY FIGHT BACK do whatever they want, and not a threat, not even a whimper... If Bush "looked at the 'intelligence' and perceived a threat" regarding Iraq, what does he see with North Korea?? North Korea says "Come on you big COWARD, pick on us... come and spread "democracy" and "freedom" to North Korea if you're so brave". But they aren't. Just like every other bully, they are at heart, a COWARD... Really quick to jump on a small country you think won't fight back...Whole different matter on one like North Korea. America is the WORLD'S BIGGEST SUPERPUSSY.

Furthermore, has anyone ever noticed how if the same exact situation befell a caucasian country, then the resistance fighters would be called "freedom fighters" or "patriots" or some such, but as it is a nation of people of darker, swarthy complexion who are of the Muslim faith, then they are "terrorists" or "insurgents"??
They are doing precisely what any country whose people have GUTS would do if they're invaded and made a colony. Even Norway had some resistance fighters when it was occupied. Care to call them "terrorists"? There's no difference, except that the ones in Iraq are having a MUCH more noticeable effect than Norwegian resistance fighters ever did and are every day punishing the fascist coward occupiers (and yes, Norwegian troops who are helping America occupy Iraq deserve what they get as well as Americans). Iraq was not a threat to America but if their nation is forcibly occupied they certainly can (and have) become a threat to the occupiers. Maybe American so-called "troops" getting their asses kicked every day will effectively get it through Americans' thick skulls that they DO NOT have the "right" to attack whichever country they feel like attacking (and notice they're pretty selective, choosing one that's crippled by 10 years of sanctions and carefully avoiding challenging countries that would give them a hell of a fight as soon as they crossed the border).Americans (and anyone siding with them) should be ashamed of themselves.

I see a lot of tribute paid to the American troops who fall every day under the hits of the Iraqi resistence. They suddenly become freedom fighters who crossed the seas to bring freedom to an oppressed people, while none of them dares criticize Dubya back in their homeland, in post 9/11 America..The problem is that little do people think how many civilians,women, children and men these "fallen heroes" have killed, tortured or mutilated for life in order to serve the interests of Halliburton and co.
What's really more irritating is that many Americans (I read their comments in every forum)still believe that they are fighting for freedom and that this is the human cost for spreading "democracy" in the Middle-east (Thanks for Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and the scores of torture camps spread in Iraq and the world!!!)(as for Iraqi victims, they "don't do body count" as one of their generals said).. as a matter of fact, this is either a very naive explanation (which shows that Americans keep on repeating what their leaders tell them no matter how foolish and ignorant these leaders are and no matter what nonesense they say) or an explanation highly immoral which shows that they really don't care to others' lives (and that is another proof that shows the true nature of the American people which they have been trying hard to cover it with layers of humanitarian make-up such as, human rights, democracy, animal rights, respect of the law and all the fake values and bullshit they sell in their batman and spiderman movies. The truth is that most of them are blood-thirsty profiteers who would stop at no limit until they reach their goal no matter how hideous it is.
Any way, any occupation is doomed to end and it is clear that the americans are far from victorious in iraq..otherwise, can anyone tell me why they are fiecely fighting any source of information and any sites or press which provides evidence of their true defeat? AND WHY THEY ARE HIDING THE NUMBER OF THEIR DEADS IN IRAQ AND THEY SHIP THEM SECRETLY AT NIGHT?
You can find a lot about this in the following sites:

http://www.unit731media.com/frames/frameset.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/

LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DAY THE WORLD WILL BE CLEAN FROM ALL THE G.W.BUSHES, RUMSFELDS AND CHENEYS, hoping that the end of this EVIL EMPIRE is near at hand and that Iraq would be to the USA what Afghanistan was to the USSR in the 80's.

to Mofakkir,
i would like to say this:

....so you really think the iraqui people were living in a paradise of freedom and civil liberties under the most benign rule of Saddam and his sadistic sons and evil cronies?

.....i have no great love for Dubya , but to paint a broad brush and characterize brave american soldiers as murderers of 'innocent' civilians is indicative of your capacity for exaggeration and propaganda!

....additionaly to consider abu ghraib and guantanamo as torture camps is really revealing of your capacity for hyperbole which suggests that you are arab or speak arabic and is imbued with the gift for hyperbole :)

هل أنت مسلم من تونس ؟

...so the americans are foolish and ignorant and do not care for other people's lives ,,,,hmmmm are you sure you are not referring to all the sundry despots in islamdom????

...oh so the americans are bloodthirsty profiteers and the arabs and sundry islamites are not bloodthirsty and not profiteers....care to read your history again?

.... Ahh sooo you wish for Iraq to be like Afghanistan ?...you envision a beautiful Jumhuriyah islamiyah ul-Iraq replete with equality, peace, human rights, democracy, animal rights . Funny I don't remember recognizing any of all the aforementioned virtues in all the countries of Islamdom currently on the world map !

as Spidey would say " 'nuf said ".

Sister Aisha Nyanyaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults

to kim sook-im.

it's interesting to read your point of view which, somehow, seems to me a bit familiar..!

first of all, YES I AM A MUSLIM FROM TUNISIA.. it does not require anyone much to understand it.. (I hope your question does not mean that if one dares speak about American crimes it means that he/she is a muslim, hence a TERRORIST; and let's not forget 9/11...!!!) (honestly, I DON'T CARE where you are from, or what religion you believe in.. it's the least of my concerns!!!)

second, i think that you were beside the point interpreting what i wrote..so let me put for you in other words if you don't mind!

..the concept "paradise of freedom and civil liberties" is a utopian crave that i doubt anyone in this world has ever achieved it or would ever.but just because a population is being oppressed by some dictator (so many of them in the third or "free" world) (i'm afraid you mistake me for one of them) does not give anyone the right to invade them, destroy their lives and country, kill, maim, emprison, torture them or insult their culture or history claiming that it is "a history of bloodshed, torture", SO "let's bring them some democracy and turn them into human beings!!!"

SO, "WE WILL FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND WE WILL DROP NUCLEAR AND CLUSTER BOMBS THAT CONTAIN UP TO 3000 SMALL(2-kilo) BOMBS, WE WILL ANNIHILATE ENTIRE CITIES (Fallujah, Ramadi, Qaim) AND KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILLIANS (OOOH YEEES, THEY'RE FREEEEEE NOW) LEAVE BEHIND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN.. AND WE'LL SPREAD DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ (AMERICAN STYLE)...and in the way we should be "rewarded" for that and get OUR POCKETS FULL of their oil revenues and their historical treasures.. and this is not theft we are just reconstructing the country!!!.."

hmmmm..Are you really serious about it?

notice "kim sook-im", in case you didn't know, that the same pretexts have been used through history and since the dawn of times to justify slavery, exploitation and colonisation in every corner of the world (i'm afraid YOU don't read your own history!)

as for describing american troops as "brave" I think that you watch too much Rambo stuff, for this is both a DISPLACED and RIDICULOUS word to use in this context and I'll tell you why..

1-A soldier is brave if he defends his own, his family, his country from an attacking enemy and he is willing to die for that..NOW tell me "kim sook-im" what do american soldiers in Iraq defend? please don't tell me (9/11, war on terror) and all the bullshit Bush has been selling his people for years now(he was successful not because he was a smart guy but i'll let you discover that on your own..it does not require much reflection)..they're just dying for nothing.. can you imagine your life going in vain.. HOW FRUSTRATING!

2-everybody knows that american soldiers are "brave" only in their "Saving Private Ryan" stuff.. but the truth is that they can't go to war against strong countries.. they're pretty selective (Japan after it lost WW2, Somalia, Iraq after 10 years of sanctions..) and everybody knows that without air raids and massive bombards, american ground troops are worthless..(I invite you to seek news elsewhere than in CNN or Fox News, and you'll see how a fistful of Iraqis who don't have 1/10 of american war technology kick these "brave soldiers" butts every day.. and believe me, this is not propaganda as you accused me before for nobody can do propaganda as americans do..with one difference..that nobody believes them now!!)

I think that when there is something wrong an honest person must not keep silent..rather than seeking maculate spots here and there .. for no people's history is clean .. whatever!

I hope you don't mistake me for Bin Laden or Zarqawi this time (although i strongly doubt that any of them has ever existed or at least not as Bush uses them to terrorize his own people and have a free pass everywhere.)

I hope we will one day have the courage to be equal citizens of the world..no prejudice..no greed..and no injustice.... WELL, CAN WE?

I'll be eager to read your comments..

Oeyvind, Bergen | 2004-10-16 16:3 wrote:

".......But then I am a part of the radical left myself, and I find it tragic that people who believe in many of the same things as I do choose to support a reactionary insurgence in Iraq......"

aah haa....so i finally got it from the horse's mouth RADIKKKAL LEFFFFT....AND I THOUGHT YOU WERE A MODERATE SOSJIALIST?"

hmmmmm Herr Oeyvind Stroemmen...certainly gives new meaning to your interpretation of 'strictly controlled lying is permissible in islam'. Now i see why you are enamoured with Isssslam. Makes sense now as to why such revisionist and apologist ideologies regarding islam and islamists - such objects of endearment to radikkkal leftologists of the west.

...surely Allåh will have mercy on U , kaffir though you may be and still destined for Jahanam per their cultic tenets hå hå...!!!

Loving Søster Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim
أختك المفضّلة ....عائشة نيانيابونيكا كيم
너의 마음에 들는 자매 - 김

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1450