Did Sheehan call the Iraqi insurgents "Freedom fighters"?

[Quixote1818]

If she did, I wish she hadn't, as politically it sounds about like Jane Fonda posing with the North Vietnamese. Even if some of them are freedom fighters or what ever the hell they are Sheehan has basically handed the Right wing their talking points to undercut her credibility and "swift boat" her.

Donahue and Wes Clark and anyone who defends her always seems to have to skirt around this issue. If she didn't say it then why weren't Donahue and Clark prepared to throw it back in O'Reilly's face?

[libnnc]

1. where the hell did you hear that?

I was there at the rally and I heard no such thing.

[Quixote1818]

4. Bill O'Reilly said she said that when debating Donahue and Clark

If she said it then it was before the protest Saturday because O'Reilly brought it up in his debate with Donahue last Wednesday night.

[libnnc]

6. and you actually believe Bill O'Liely because...?

never mind. waste of time posting in this thread.

[Quixote1818]

12. Then why didn't Donahue and Wes Clark nail him for lying?

They just let it go right buy! Hell we have people here on DU that are calling them "Freedom Fighters". Just look at this thread.

[devilgrrl]

28. Pfffft!

:eyes:

[Rex]

171. Yes, look at the thread you started.

Flame-bait deluxe.

:popcorn:

[Dark]

173. It's not whether WE believe she did.

It's whether moderates believe she did.

[SunDrop23]

51. Bill O'Reilly is full of shit. If I was on my death bed, I would refuse...

a blood transfusion from him if that was the only was I could be saved.

[Arkana]

60. I wouldn't put much stock in anything O'Falafel says.

He's a lying fuckbag. Always has been.

[Individualist]

91. "Bill O'Reilly said"?

You're quoting Bill O'Reilly?

:rofl:

[SemperEadem]

114. O'Lielly? On Fox?

he'll say anything and they'll cablecast it and neither give a fug about it.

[genius]

30. They are FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Any other label is a lie.

Why would you want her to lie?

[malaise]

44. Correct

Iraqis are in their own country trying to get rid of invaders.

[MildyRules]

46. Right...

Freedom fighters who conduct suicide bombings against their own people and kill thousands of innocent fellow countrymen. Yep, sounds like fighting for freedom to me.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Yup...

Fightin' for freedom by blowing people up with car bombs in marketplaces.

[manic expression]

168. Welcome to non-black and white world

the groups that detonate bombs and target Iraqi civilians are NOT the groups that we are talking about. Those terrorists are hated by the insurgents as much as anyone. The insurgents are fighting against the US occupation for their country (some are religious, some are nationalist, others have other motivation), they have NOTHING to do with the terrorist groups who target innocents.

[txaslftist]

62. Suicide bombers who target civilians...

...are now freedom fighters in your world?

There are a lot of reasons to look at them as something less than terrorists, but 'freedom fighters'? Hardly.

[bryant69]

69. Right on

I don't understand why someone is eager to lionize groups who target innocents to further their political agenda. Unless you believe that all the individuals they kill are really CIA spies or something.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tx_dem41]

101. Its easy to understand.....its the old canard...

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Or my "hero" sadly enough in this case. Of course, people that follow this philosophy soon marginalize themselves to the point of irrelevance.

[okieinpain]

92. uh, they are not freedom fighters, terrorist, thugs, gangsters, yes

freedom fighters no.

[confludemocrat]

140. so by definition fighting a US illegal invasion/occup means terrorism

Better reexamine your morals. To free your own country of another power that has destroyed everything, I mean literally everything in your country and tortured it's people and levelled its cities and killed thousands of noncombatants is to be referred to as thuggish and gangsterism?

[genius]

155. By the definition of some, George Washington was a terrorist.

We better stop celebrating his birthday. We could call it the National Terrorist Holiday.

[Dark]

162. No. George Washington didn't slaughter children.

George Washington didn't purposefully kill innocent civilians.

He wasn't a terrorist.

[Dark]

161. No, terrorism is attacking someone who is trying to keep the peace.

America is trying to REBUILD the country. American soldiers don't ride around in Humvees trying to find children to slaughter. They are trying their best to create peace in Iraq, and they are failing BECAUSE of these 'freedom fighters'.

A freedom fighter is someone who tries to liberate his country as peacefully as possible. A freedom fighter respects human rights.

A terrorist does neither, and the insurgency is doing neither.

[confludemocrat]

176. Thanks for a comicbook/fantasy version of a freedom fighter. REBUILD? you

can't be serious. So just give Bush a chance, he will get around to rebuilding eventually, i guess.

[okieinpain]

166. I didn't say we weren't thugs. but you can't call the insurgents freedom

fighters, unless it's ok with you that women are stoned to death for getting raped.

[okieinpain]

169. see link below, freedom fighters on the march

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1807465&mesg_id=1807465

[donheld]

181. Exactly. What Reagan called freedom fighters is no different

than what the insurgents are now.

[radwriter0555]

2. The Iraqis are fighting for their freedom from US tyranny & oppression so

indeed they are absolutely Freedom Fighters.

Sheehan needn't have ANY shame in identifying them as such.

The USA is patently WRONG to be in Iraq under ANY pretext. To stand on any other position is to be a republican and supportive of bush and his treasonous, Hitler-esque policies.

[okieinpain]

106. yeah and the nazis were liberators from oppressive religions. WOW.

[ScreamingWhisper]

133. Targeting Innocent men, women and children do not a freedom fighter make.

Think about it, this is the exact same description of targets for the WTC attacks, the Madrid train bombing and the subway bombings in London!
These terrorists in Iraq are not targeting the US invaders who have the ability to fight back, instead they cowardly target the men, looking for jobs in their shattered society, even with the growing police and military forces that will be in place after the US pulls out. That's why they target the recruiting stations and the smaller police stations. Driving a van into a crowd of 30-50 children being handed supplies and candy, then explode yourself with the van, does not a brave soldier or movement make.

And as for everyone who believes other than yourself being "...a republican and supportive of bush and his treasonous, Hitler-esque policies." Then THANKS for taking the narrow road of free-thought. To blindly follow a belief and paint that person who differs from your "only I am right, and all you others are wrong" belief looks oddly similar the the very same goose-stepping followers to whom you referenced.

[confludemocrat]

146. As if we didn't do the same right to the letter but w/jets&choppers&tanks

These people are doing essentially what was pictured in parts of "Red Dawn" a movie about a foreign takeover of the US made by a right-winger.

[ScreamingWhisper]

164. Ohhhhh yeah. 1984, great year for cheese.

If the validity for your opinion on terrorist who target the innocent civilians being freedom fighters, resides on the cold-war inspired, ham-tongued lines delivered by Patrick Swayze...I really stand here amazed. This is not the cold war nor is this a movie.

[confludemocrat]

177. The idea of suicide attacks and all-out resistance is not outside our ken

as shown by that movie. So only under a cold war scenario is that kind of resistance conceivable? Now that eras over and it's now invalid as what we could imagine. Now I stand amazed.

[ShaneGR]

175. I would agree if they were actually blowing up us....

Except they're not, 90% of insurgent action casualties have been Iraqi's, particularly Sunni's targeting Shia's.

[glitch]

3. Maybe sarcastic - after all is was Reagan's term

either for the mujahadeen or the contra (maybe both).

[Art_from_Ark]

17. Reagan used the term for both groups

He referred to the mujahideen as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."

And he actually called the contras "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers"

:banghead:

[glitch]

63. That's right! I forgot the founding fathers quote.

:puke:

[tuvor]

5. If there's a problem, it's because freepers are mentally limited.

I've always regarded the "insurgents" as Iraqi citizens who just want their own country back in their own hands.

If that makes them "freedom fighters" then so be it.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. As the saying goes

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sure the British would have viewed the American Patriots as "terrorist's.

[radio4progressives]

8. I don't know if she did or not - but you know something?

the courage to tell the truth matters more than what reactionaries are going to say about it- to them, if Cindy Sheehan said the sky was blue they'd find something evil in that and twist it to smear her.

And the fact of the matter is, any nation and a people who are attacked by a foreign nation occupied by a foriegn army decide to defend themselves and fight for their own home land, are in fact FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

We are the INVADERS.

We ILLEGALLY ATTACKED, INVADED AND OCCUPIED A SOVERIGN NATION that had posed no harm, nor threat to our own country.

Remember that fact!

And also remember that the Repukes who mindlessly worship and cherish Ronald Reagan - made the famous statement when referring to the Taliban 20 years ago - that one "man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" ..

I don't believe Reagan had any idea how true and prophetic those words were, at that time he spoke those words and throughout the years and decades since.

If Cindy said that, it is indeed in this context - so throw away that Hanoi Jane Fonda canard and stand tall with courage and conviction - in the face of these evil smears from these war mongering morons and creeps - give it right back at 'em in the words of their hero as stated above.

[Quixote1818]

18. I think you are flat wrong

The term is so politically toxic that even Donahue, the most liberal talk show guy on the planet won't defend it.

And personally I am not sure even I buy the "Freedom Fighter" name. The Iraqi people have voted and weather we as liberals like it or not the elected Government has asked us to stay. Meanwhile the so called "Freedom Fighters" are killing thousands of Americans and innocent Iraqi people. I would hardly celebrate them being pure and wonderful. They are a bunch of Religious Fanatics that just know how to work out problems through violence. In my opinion they were freedom fighters BEFORE the Iraqi people voted but not now.
Freedom Fighters? Give me a break!

Neither side is pure and perfect here. Both sides are wrong! Violence is NEVER the answer especially after the Iraqi people have voted.

[radio4progressives]

23. Nope...

The only thing i was flat wrong about - was the source of inspiration for the term "freedom fighters" - as i was just reminded in that great animated history cartoon - Reagan was referring to the Contras as freedom fighters not the Taliban as i incorrectly stated in previous post.

Your impression of the Iraq election is based on a whole lotta false spoon fed propaganda from the MSM - and not based on much in the way of actual facts.

And by the way, Americans wouldn't be getting killed in Iraq if they're leaders didn't send them there to kill in the first place.

but - that's fairly obvious - so i gotta ask, are you in grade school or are you in high school?

[Quixote1818]

27. Is it necessary to go to the gutter and attack my intelligence

using pre-conventional moral reasoning? And you are calling me a child? Amazing!

Of course it's obvious that Americans wouldn't be getting killed in Iraq if they're leaders didn't send them there to kill in the first place. However, (and I won't denigrate into humiliation tactics as you did)that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread or anything I said.

It's not hard to believe the Shiite Muslims won OVERWHELMINGLY in a country that is primarily Shiite! And if you are so sure the MSM is spoon feeding me stuff then why didn't the candidate Bush had hand picked win?

Go ahead and keep celebrating people who kill to solve problems. Gandhi would be real proud of you!

[Dark]

159. WE didn't illegally do anything. Bush invaded them, and now

soldiers who thought they were defending America are paying the price.

[file83]

9. Once again, OUT OF CONTEXT

sources:
newsmax
world(nut)daily

Read the entire quote:
"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

If you look at the context, Cindy doesn't JUST call them "freedom fighters" - she also calls what they are doing "terrorism". Between the lines, Cindy is illustrating the concept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But of course, discussing the chaotic complexities doesn't serve the agenda of the PRO-WAR political pundits, so they take what she said out of context, spin it, and serve it on a platter in an attempt to label her a "nutcase" or "anti-american".

If it works on you, then you might want to check your thinking skills, because it is only designed to work against the shallow thinkers (Bush's voter base).

[txindy]

11. Very nice first post. That nails it, exactly.

Welcome to Du. :toast:

[LittleClarkie]

20. Welcome and thanks for coughing up what I was just about

to call for. Needed the transcript or a context. Thanks for delivering newbie.

[Mr_Spock]

61. THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Imagine if someone did a little research instead of believing Bill O'Liely :eyes:

[Sparkman]

108. Thanks for the BEST injection of fact this page!! Pro-war Dems=Repukes

[confludemocrat]

151. Yes, true and simple fact: pro-war Dems=Repubs

got that Kerry, Biden, Bayh Clinton, Lieberman? being for this war and ocassionally voting liberal won't cut it, because, this is not simply another "policy matter" or a vote like any other.
Get right, big Demos or pay for it.

[Sparkman]

156. wolves in sheeps clothing....I didn't know so I pander to my corporations.

[Mari333]

10. for the record:

When my stepson returned from his stint at ABU Ghraib in Iraq, he just looked at me and said " this isnt a war, its an occupation "..and he said it as a soldier. Hes not even that well versed in leftist phraseology, so for him to say that to me was pretty profound.

[file83]

13. Here's a link to help you understand the term....

Just watch this little animation:
Pirates and Emperors

It's entertaining AND educational. Then look at what Cindy said. Maybe then you'll "get it".

[Quixote1818]

15. It doesn't matter if I get it or not. What matters is that it's so

politically toxic that even Phil Donahue won't defend the term and he is about as left as they come. I just watched Wes Clark distance himself from Sheehan when O'Reilly brought it up.

[Proud_Lefty]

19. They were caught off guard and know they need to be

careful in responding. Bill O'Reilly is pissed off because Sheehan said she would never go on his show, because he's dangerous. He has been on the attack and saying that she said she hates America. Then he goes on saying she's putting down Israel. She hasn't said anything close to what he claims. I heard Randi Rhodes ask her about those allegations and Sheehan completely denied such statements.

I personally haven't heard her called insurgents freedom fighters, but I have heard people who have personally been in Iraq call them that. That happens to be a reality. So if she did speak the truth, she's compromised herself? Come on, even Donahue and Clark came back after realizing the B.S. involved and said they thought Cindy was honorable and would continue backing her. PERIOD.

Can we stop being so sensitive to the outrageous bullshit from horrible sleazes like Rush and O'Reilly. If freepers want to follow this, what more can we do but distance ourselves from it.

[bananas]

21. Phil Donahue is a moderate.

[longship]

37. No, you're correct. What matters is whether she said it or not.

And if you read the quote in context you will see that she did not. So before you take anybody down for their opinion, make sure that it *is* their opinion.

That's my opinion.

[me b zola]

14. It's a non-issue

It is not skirting around an issue to simply agree with Cindy that it is time to bring our troops home. Repukes will dumpster-dive to find any way to discredit any effective voice for our side.Whether what they come up with may have a grain of truth to it or not is irrelevant.

Cindy's son died in an illegal war that was based on LIES. Period. She has the right to question bush* about those lies, she has the right to speak out on behalf of countless other family members who still have loved ones in harms way. Any Dem supporting her message need only respond to that, the rest is all rovian bullshit.

[ladylibertee]

16. I agree with you.So what.? Seriously dude, So what?

[Quixote1818]

22. Good Points. I hope you are right! nt

[me b zola]

25. Thank you for responding

The truth is, as they run candidate after candidate that is dirty or a coke-sniffing alcoholic who got into trouble for insider trading, they pick apart anyone who may speak/act on behalf of the American people.

We must get out of this pattern of being scared of our own shadow. Shit, look what they did to a war hero named Kerry. They turned his service to his country into a negative. Hell, they had the audacity to MOCK HIS PURPLE HEARTS. Screw those bastards and their smears from hell.

[Quixote1818]

31. I have to admit that Phil Donahue absolutely wiped the floor with

O'Reilly by sticking to the points you so eloquently expressed above. O'Reilly was probably hoping Donahue would take the bate as I just did and get bogged down in a denigrated meaningless argument. Hopefully most Americans can see through the Archie Bunker mentality that O'Reilly was dumping on them. Phil made it clear what was important!

[Chi-Town Exile]

150. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[PatriotMom]

24. They absolutely are FREEDOM FIGHTERS and....

We would be the same if another country invaded our land and began an occupation here. It may end up that we fight for freedom against our own in a civil war before it is all done, then we will be called terrorists and insurgents. But for now we are "non-existent"

[MsConduct]

32. I agree, you took the words right off my keyboard. The Iraqis

did NOT invite us into their country. We are the interlopers, not the so called "insurgents". Let's get real.

[Quixote1818]

33. Before the Iraqi elections I would agree with you however

the elected government has asked us to stay. The Shiite's won overwhelmingly in an overwhelmingly Shiite country and now we are stuck in the middle of a low grade civil war with a number of Jihad terrorist fighters coming across the border to attack the United States.

Frankly I am a little stunned at a few here on DU who actually support the insurgents who are up against our inocent sons and daughters who are caught in the middle of this. The US was flat wrong to invade Iraq however now that the elections are over the Insurgents (mostly those who lost power but are in the minority) are killing innocent Iraqi's and Americans for nothing more than power. They are not freedom fighters. They are people who supported Saddam who are out of power and want it back. They are mixed up desperate people who use violence to solve problems, NOT angels and saints!

We were wrong and they are wrong! The best thing for anyone to do now is try to find peace and work out problems in a non-violent way. Unfortunately that probably won't happen and so we need to find a way out!

[radwriter0555]

34. The ELECTED government? Please. Name the guy who was elected

president, as opposed to the ones who were appointed by the bush regime pals in power in iraq.

The elections were more of a farce than the US elections.

The Iraqis have the RIGHT to oppose the US occupation using any force and means necessary.

After all, the colonists who settled in the Americans were neither terrorists nor insurgents, they were freedom fighters too, when seizing their independence from British rule.

I have your way out. Planes and ships. Put all the US troops on them and LEAVE. That's it.

Then make halliburton stay and clean up the mess on their nickels... the ones they stole from you.

[Quixote1818]

35. Wrong, Bush's man lost in a landslide! Remember?

The Government that is in their now is heavily influenced by Iranian Shiites and that is just a FACT. This is a low-grade Civil war. Call them what you want but that doesn't make them wonderful people. The far left using the term Freedom Fighter for the insurgents is no different than the Right wing nuts calling our boys Patriots! It's the same BS just gone full circle! Glorify the riotousness of your side so that their violence and death are patriotic, glorified and beautiful. It's all the same fucking bull shit crap that I am sure has Gandhi rolling over in his grave!

Both sides are wrong! We were wrong to invade and now that the elections are over they are wrong to be killing Innocent babies and civilians.

[PatriotMom]

36. Please read this article I thought it was pretty good

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau02032005.html

[radwriter0555]

39. that article is the most concise and accurate depiction of the events in

Iraq that have been laid out... thanks, I can use that.

[MildyRules]

47. So we'd conduct

suicide bombings in crowded markets, bus stops, police stations, etc. and kill thousands of our fellow citizens to rid ourselves of an invader? I think not.

[ET Awful]

55. No, we would not, the reason is because we have billion dollar bombers

to do the job for us. As has been proven time and time again, we'd just drop thousands of tons of bombs on the target and call the civilian casualties collateral damage.

[MildyRules]

57. So we'd use

our billion dollar bombers to bomb our own populace in order to force out an "invader?"

[ET Awful]

59. If you really doubt that Bush would, you haven't paid attention to

how willing he is to sacrifice American lives. Look at New Orleans for how willing Bush is to disgard American lives, it's a prime example.

If you honestly believe that there aren't contingency plans for just such situations, you don't know much about how the US government operates.

If the US had to sacrifice Newport News, Virginia to repel an invasion force, do you really think the government would hesitate to obliterate the city?

[MildyRules]

64. I think you have missed

the thrust of this particular, limited issue. Please re-read the post to which I responded. The government's response has nothing to do with this issue of "freedom fighters."

[ET Awful]

66. You're criticizing ME? The person who totally misrepresents my

statements one post down is criticizing me? That's rich.

The government's response has EVERYTHING to do with it. When you consider the power of the US military, they are who would respond to an invasionary force. Iraq has no military, so government response in that country is not applicable. However, in the US, an invasion force would be met with US military, not civilians with guns. So, my statement above still stands as written.

[MildyRules]

71. I'm not criticizing you at all

I was responding to this statement; "They are freedom fighters and we would be the same if another country invaded our land and began an occupation here."

No we would not use suicide bombings to kill innocent fellow Americans in order to drive out an occupier.

Now tell me what that has to do with us as insurgents using B-2 bombers to kill our own people?

[ET Awful]

75. Once again, since you apparently have had trouble comprehending so far

If there was an invasionary force on US soil, the military would respond, not civilians. The military would, as bad as it may be, be perfectly willing to sacrifice an entire city to repel an invasionary force.

You have completely failed to grasp the simple fact that in the US, there is a military capable of responding to such an invasionary force, this is not the case in Iraq, thus the need for "insurgents" to fight. In the US, there would only be "insurgents" as a last resort, because there is a large force of actual military personnel to draw on which would be the first response.

You are comparing apples to golf balls. It's a completely invalid comparison, as there would NEVER be a situation in the US where such an action would have a remote possibility of being useful.

[MildyRules]

78. Sigh

No you are missing the point. The pot to which I responded posited a situation where we had been defeated and OCCUPIED. Like the movie Red Dawn. Not an invasion, an OCCUPATION. Geez, buy a friggen clue, will yah???

[ET Awful]

80. Personal attacks now eh? Good job.

First, a little tidbit of news for you . . . Red Dawn was FICTION.

Second, if you truly believe that actions taken in that movie would not cause civilian deaths, you're sadly mistaken.

Interesting that you would compare the most right-wing propagandized movie ever made to the current discussion though.

Oh, by the way, for there to be an occupation, there must first be an invasion . . . that's kind of the way it works. Enemy troops don't just materialize out of thin air (unless there's some new matter transferance beam I haven't heard of yet).

[MildyRules]

82. Who started the personal attacks?

Methinks it was you since the title of one of your posts was "Once again, since you apparently have had trouble comprehending so far.."

I know it was a MOVIE. You're missing the entire POINT. The poster was talking about a hypothetical situation. One where we have been OCCUPIED. I was responding to that HYPOTHETICAL. Good effing grief.

[ET Awful]

84. And I'm pointing out that said hypothetical could not occure without

other events transpiring first. You can't have an occupation without an invasion.

Repeating things in a different way since you did not comprehend what was said before is far different than "buy a clue."

[MildyRules]

86. You still don't get it

I was not making a judgment on the validity of the hypothetical. I was responding to it. There's a difference.

[ET Awful]

It's an invalid hypothetical. I do get it, in fact, I got it long ago.

It's you who apparently don't get it.

I'm through arguing with you. It's a waste of time.

[MildyRules]

88. Sigh

You TOTALLY miss the OP's point. Good bye.

[bvar22]

109. You are under the DELUSION that the "Iraqi People" are ONE !

The Iraqi People are NOT ONE HOMOGENOUS Population!
Many SUNNI view the Shiite AS an enemy and vice versa.
It IS a Civil War.
When a militant Sunni sect sends a bomber into a Shiite area, they ARE attacking someone THEY see (with some justification) as an ENEMY.
THEY would laugh to hear YOU call them their own people.


There is NOT ONE Central organizing Command structure that controls the Iraqi Resistance.
The only point of agreement is that they ALL hate the Americans and want them out so that they can have their Civil War without US interference.

It IS childish to lump all the Iraqi Resistance Groups into ONE, and then pass judgement.

Was General Sherman a Yankee Terrorist?
HE bombed his OWN people.


PS: The election was a sham (a Potemkin Election).
The ballots were blank until the day before.
When asked by the few independent journalists, the majority of Iraqis though that if they voted, the Americans would leave, which is what the Americans promised.

[tx_dem41]

102. Obviously many supporters of the "freedom fighters" on this thread..

would do the same thing. They're supporting the terrorists in Iraq that are doing that.

[ET Awful]

134. You too are trying to spin falsehood into facts.

I haven't seen anyone support them. I have seen folks (such as myself) say that to call them insurgents is incorrect since you must first have a legitimate government before you can have an insurgency. I've said that some of those fighting against US can be termed freedom fighters, some (namely non-Iraqis) can not. I've also said that there is little difference between those called "insurgents" and those who were once called "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan other than what they are called and what superpower they are fighting against.

I've also said that there is no difference between killing civilians with aerial bombs and killing them with car bombs. They're equally dead, and both actions are equally reprehensible.

Nowhere have I said I support them.

Gee, where have I heard that argument before . . . "if you disagree with me, you support the terrorists." What a load of horse hockey.

[tx_dem41]

138. C'mon....we're supposedly rational adults here....

Calling them "freedom fighters" and comparing them to George Washington aren't subtle code words.

[ET Awful]

142. Once again, point out where I called them freedom fighters.

Without lumping all those in armed opposition to the US occupation into one lump category. If you believe NONE Of them are freedom fighters, you're sadly mistaken. If someone believes ALL of them are freedom fighters, they are also sadly mistaken.

Are there freedom fighters fighting the US occupation, you're damn right there are. Are all of those engaged in armed conflict against US troops in Iraq fighting for freedom? Nope.

Your first mistake is trying to lump them all into one category, slap a label on it and call it good. That's like someone slapping a label on all Americans and calling them imperialistic warmongers. It's a bullshit label that doesn't fairly cover the entire spectrum.

Quit misrepresenting what's being said.

[tx_dem41]

147. Can you point out where I said YOU called them freedom fighters?

Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

[Ignoramus]

26. Tell the truth and stick to it

So simple and so powerful. Bush is gritty and real... so says the public, as much as it survives conflicting with reality these days. Why does it work for Bush and not for the limprocats?

Democrats carefully crafting what they say to the public is utterly obviously bullshit to all but the smartest of people strategising. Just be honest and stick to it.

Resisting the occupation is freedom fighting. Al Qaeda, or whomever, using the situation, doesn't change that. Just tell the truth and stick to it.

The media will select a sound byte and run with it. It works as long as the limprocrats, predictably, cave and adjust their policy and propaganda to fit what they think is palatable to their flock. If, instead, people continued to tell the truth, the media would follow instead of leading.

[PatriotMom]

29. Well said

I applaud you:applause:

[PsychoDad]

38. Looks like some of them..

Might be British Troops. :(

[fujiyama]

40. I agree that it's a poor choice of words

The insurgents are a mix - some are foreigners that have come in to destabilize the place further, many are homegrown and do feel they are fighting an occupying power (and that is certainly very understandable).

The problem is that among them, there is a dangerous, and extremely violent element that is willing to kill many Iraqi civilians in the process. I would not label such terrorists 'freedom fighters'. Many of these people are jihadists. Some are pissed off Sunnis, angry that their power is gone.

I'm not sure if I agree about the legitimacy of the elections though. I think there was a large element of fraud in them. I remember this being documented to some extent by Symore Hersh in the New Yorker (I'll find a link and post it).

[txaslftist]

67. You are right. They may be insurgents, rebels, whatever..

They aren't "freedom fighters". That is a stupid, value laden term that really doesn't describe anyone.

[bowens43]

41. They are figting to rid their country of occupiers,

if that's not a freedom fighter, I don't know what is.

[ET Awful]

42. For them to be insurgents, there must be a legitimate government for them

to rise against. Since such does not exist, they are NOT insurgents.

A good sized segment ARE freedom fighters, many probably could not carry that title.

BUT, there is little or no difference between the Afghans we called freedom fighters while they fought the Soviets in the 80's and the Iraqis that are called insurgents today.

[MildyRules]

49. Your quote...

"BUT, there is little or no difference between the Afghans we called freedom fighters while they fought the Soviets in the 80's and the Iraqis that are called insurgents today..."

The Afghan freedom fighters did not use suicide bombers to kill thousands of innocents. Those who do so in Iraq, especially those who come from other countries, are terrorists, not freedom fighters.

[ET Awful]

54. Good job of taking quotes out of context.

The vast majority of "insurgents" are not using suicide attacks to, as you say, kill thousands of innocents (in fact, a very small number of the innocent civilians killed in Iraq are killed by insurgent bombs, the majority have been killed by US bombs or ground forces, as was reported several months ago). In fact, only 9% of civilian deaths in Iraq as of March were caused by "insurgents", over 30% were caused by direct US action.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

If you truly believe that the Afghan "freedom-fighters" against the Soviets didn't kill civilians, you haven't studied the era that closely. Those deemed to be collaborators were killed very frequently. The mujahadin who formed those "freedom-fighter" forces morphed into the Taliban and many became Al-Qaeda. If you wish to deny that Al-Qaeda has engaged in suicide attacks, feel free.

You will note in my original post that I already mentioned these facts in passing.

[MildyRules]

56. The debate isn't over

who has killed more innocent Iraqi civilians; obviously US forces have.

The issue is whether those who engage in killing innocent civilians, indiscriminately, via methods such as suicide bombings can justly be called "freedom fighter." No, they cannot.

Can you give me an example of Afghan "freedom fighters" using a car bomb in a market place to kill innocents and children indiscriminately? Thanks.

[ET Awful]

58. So tell me, if Afghan "freedom fighters" kill 1,000 suspected

collaborators, how is that different from using a car bomb against a few hundred Iraqi police that are "collaborating" with US forces?

There is no difference other than the method of killing.

You are falling into the trap of using biased terminology to differentiate between the two groups because one was opposed to our perceived enemey (i.e. the Soviet Union) and one is opposed to us.

The only difference between the groups is time and place. They are both using questionable methods to dissuade the populace from working with an occupying military power.

For that matter, how is using a car bomb different than dropping a smart bomb from 30,000 feet?

The only difference between them staging a suicide attack and the US staging an air strike is the uniforms and the funding.

Tell me the difference between a car bomb killing 100 civilians, an airstrike killing 100 civilians and a death squad (for lack of a better term) killing 100 civilians. The only difference is technique.

". . . the Northern Alliance rebels' seizure of Kabul merely resets the clock back to 1992, when as the mujahadin they took the city from Najibullah's Communists. Not only did the non-Pashtun mujahadin execute Pashtuns, and legislate the first limits on women's rights, but they quickly turned on each other. Their four years of in-fighting left 50,000 dead, and led Afghans and the West to welcome the Taliban as stabilizing "liberators" in 1996. Since then, Northern Alliance rebels have had a reputation as corrupt "looters and rapists," according to a recent statement by the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), and have taken control of up to 80 percent of Afghanistan's opium trade. The returning Northern Alliance rebels are again executing Pashtuns in the city, much as returning Albanians attacked Serbs in Kosovo two years ago. But the Northern Alliance seizure of Kabul gives it a central role in any new Afghan "coalition" government, because possession is nine-tenths of the law."

The mujahadin didn't kill civilians? I'm not sure which mujahadin you were paying attention to, but they must have been somewhere other than Afghanistan.

Once again, what's the difference between killing innocent civilians with guns and killing them with car bombs? They're equally dead.

BTW, why are you misrepresenting what I said in my original post? You'll notice that I made specific references to IRAQI fighters, yet you shift it to foreign fighters. You'll notice I said that many IRAQIS could not be considered insurgents. I also said that many so-called insurgents could not be called "freedom-fighters".

Do you always misrepresent other people's statements or are you new at it?

[MildyRules]

68. I've asked for, and am still waiting for,

your documentation that Afghan "freedom fighters" indiscriminately targeted innocent civilians? The civil war that broke out in Afghanistan, largely brought about by the Islamic extremists successful attempt to force radical Islam on the nation, was horrific, but had nothing to do, really, with defeating the Soviets as much as it had to do with establishing a hard right-wing Islamic state.

[ET Awful]

70. 50,000 Pashtuns killed isn't innocent civilians? Wow, you must

really need large numbers to qualify as targeting innocent civilians eh?

Someone who misrepresents the facts as much as you do and so willingly buys into the skewed BS simply because one group is opposed to the US and one was opposed to the Soviet Union should really re-evaluate their priorities.

I'm curious how you can discount the mujahadin trying to form a hard-right Islamic republic and still say they share nothing in common with those in Iraq seeking the same.

[MildyRules]

73. You're missing the point

between terrorist attacks against innocents and a civil war to subjugate an entire country. BTW, the Afghan "freedom fighters" quickly ceased to be deserving of such term.

[ET Awful]

77. So let me get this right . . . first, I'm wrong for saying that those now

referred to as "insurgents" are no different than Afghan "freedom fighters", then "freedom fighters" quickly ceased being deserving of the title.

Then, killing innocent civilians for reason X is somehow different or more acceptable than killing innocent civilians for reason Y or Z.

I maintain that killing innocent civilians for X, Y or Z are exactly the same, with only the technique varying. The civilians are equally dead. Their families mourn equally.

If your family is killed by a bomb, do you care whether it's a cluster bomb, a car bomb or a hand grenade thrown by a "freedom fighter"? No, you only know that your family is dead.

Killing innocent people is killing innocent people. Motive and method are irrelevant.

[MildyRules]

79. I didn't say that

killing innocents for reason x is more acceptable for killing them for reason y.

Here's the difference: The Afghan "freedom fighters, when they began were fighting the occupiers. They were indeed freedom fighters. Once they began their civil war, they relinquished that moniker and became, in effect, what many of the "insurgents" in Iraq are today - TERRORISTS.

[ET Awful]

81. But you did indeed say that killing innocents for x was more acceptable

You have yet to acknowledge that a 500 pound cluster bomb dropped on a civilian population is just as atrocious as a car bomb.

By failing to acknowledge that you are by default stating that one method and motive for killing civilians is more acceptable than another.

[MildyRules]

83. A 500 pound bomb

dropped indiscriminately, or purposefully on a civilian target IS just as bad as a car bomb.

A bomb intended for a military target, that accidental kills or wounds civilians is a different matter.

Method does not matter, but motive does. Difference lies in the motive, does it not?

[ET Awful]

85. So, using your standard, since technically, Iraqi troops trained by the US

are, in a manner of speaking, a military target, a car bomb attack against them that kills civilians as well is acceptable?

[MildyRules]

87. Not when you know that the likelihood

of killing civilian targets FAR outweighs any military benefit likely to be gained. See proportionality.

[ET Awful]

89. So once again, you are saying that killing civilians for reason X is

more acceptable than killing them for reason Y.

Look no further than Fallujah for an example of what I'm referring to. The city was utterly destroyed, thousands of civilians killed by US bombs. Where was the military gain?

[MildyRules]

94. Yes, I am saying

that SOMETIMES the death of civilians, when accidental, is more acceptable than other times. It's not a black and white world out there.

Where did I say I support what happened in Fallujah?

[ET Awful]

95. You have implied you approve of Fallujah by default. When you

defend civilian deaths caused by US bombs, Fallujah is included in that number.

Once again, there is no difference. Killing civilians is killing civilians, motive and method are irrelevant. If you drop a bomb on a military outpost from 40,000 feet in the air and kill 100 civilians, they are just as dead as if you parked a carbomb in the same military outpost and killed the same 100 civilians. There is no difference. . . save one, from a plane you don't see your victims.

[MildyRules]

97. Yes, there is a difference

motive ALWAYS makes a difference. You and I will just have to disagree on that. And I don't defend all civilian deaths caused by US bombs, especially in those cases where bombs have been dropped indiscriminately.

[ET Awful]

98. Okay, let's try this again - explain to me the difference between

dropping a bomb from 40,000 feet on a military barracks and killing 100 civilians as a result and parking a car bomb outside a military barracks and killing 100 civilians as a result.

Both are military targets. Both carry civilian casualties along with them. What is the difference? Delineate for me. Break it down. How is one better than the other?

[MildyRules]

100. A. We don't drop bombs from 40,000 feet

B. Dropping a bomb on a military barracks doesn't carry the same risk of killing 100 innocent civilians as exploding a car bomb outside a military barracks.
C. The intent of the car bombers IS NOT to kill just the military; they MEAN to kill civilians and you know it.

[ET Awful]

103. First, if you honestly believe that an aerial bomb is less likely

to kill civilians than a car bomb, you really need to educate yourself. See, aerial bombs are develope specifically for the purpose of killing people and causing damage. They have billions of dollars of research going into how to make them more effective at killing and destroying.

(Gee, for someone who so adamantly stressed his adherence to a hypothetical, you sure like to wander away from it don't you?).

You have completely failed to answer the question.

What is the difference between dropping an aerial bomb on a military target which kills 100 civilians and using a car bomb against a military target which kills 100 civilians? Don't try to tell me that an aerial bomb is less likely to kill civilians, you and I both know that's bullshit. Don't tell me that a car bomb taken to a military target is intended to kill civilians, if that was the case, it wouldn't be at a military target.

Both are intended to destroy a military target, both have no regard for the civilians who are killed as a consquence. To state otherwise is a complete and utter falsehood.

Once again, why is one better than the other? Because of your devout willingness to believe that those in uniform are righteous and those who aren't are evil?

[MildyRules]

104. Really?

"aerial bombs are develope specifically for the purpose of killing people and causing damage. They have billions of dollars of research going into how to make them more effective at killing and destroying."

That statement right there shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Different kinds of "aerial bombs" have different functions. With a low-explosive SDB, one can destroy a target with little to no collateral damage. Can't do that with a car bomb.

The fact that you can't bring motive and intent into the equation shows me you only see things in black and white. The real world isn't like that. Ever wonder why we have a whole range of terms for homicide? Not all homicides are Murder 1. Think about that. I'm done with you; we're talking past each other.

[ET Awful]

116. Once again, you ignore the premise . . . you have yet to answer the

question.

What is the difference between an aerial bomb dropped on a military site that kills 100 civilians and a car bomb parked at a military site that kills 100 civilians.

Don't insult me, don't attack my intelligence. Just answer the question.

I know it's tough since you are so convinced that you're right. But you still haven't answered the question.

What's the difference?

If 100 civilians are dead as the result of a bomb used against a military target, regardless of the type of bomb, there IS NO DIFFERENCE.

You can try to spin it anyway you like, but you aren't changing the facts.

[MildyRules]

120. Yes there IS a difference in culpability and

in blame. INTENT and MOTIVE are critical. Hey, if you want to equate USAF pilots with terrorist, suicide bombers, knock yourself out. Why don't you drive to the nearest AFB and do just that, okay?

[ET Awful]

126. You haven't answered the question.

Once again, what is the difference between a bomb dropped on a military installation that kills 100 civilians, and a car bomb targeting a military installation that kills 100 civilians?

Answer the question. Quit skirting the issue and presenting non-sequitur BS rhetoric.

[MildyRules]

128. Let me spell this out for you.

M
O
T
I
V
E.

[ET Awful]

130. Once again, since you STILL HAVEN'T ACTUALLY READ WHAT I ASKED

We are discussing two explosive devices, both targeting military establishments, both killing civilians. What is the difference?

The motive in each case is to disrupt the military capacity of the military target. You are attempting to present facts not in evidence in your immediate rush to defend your position.

Once again, two explosive devices, one a car, one aerial. Both are targeting a military installation. Both result in civilian casualties. What is the difference? Don't try to bring motive into it, because unless you are the person or persons carrying out the bombing, you know nothing about motive other than your conjecture which is irrelevant. Both are explosives, both target military targets, both result in civilian casualties.

Either you are opposed to those civilians being killed universally or you are presenting a hypocritical holier than thou argument. You can't have it both ways.

[MildyRules]

154. If the motive is to kill civilians as well

as militarily related targets (the motive of the terrorists), I condemn and mourn. If the motive is to attack militarily related targets and avoid civilian casualties, I mourn, but do not condemn accidental loss of civilian life. There is a difference.

But like I said, I expect to see you at a nearby USAF base calling our pilots terrorists and comparing them to suicide bombers since you do not see the difference.

[bvar22]

115. Motive makes NO DIFFERENCE

to the DEAD!

[ET Awful]

117. Bingo!

There is a voice of reason here.

[MildyRules]

123. So everyone

guilty of involuntary manslaughter has committed the same crime as someone guilty of Murder 1 then, right?

[ET Awful]

127. There you go with your strawman arguments again.

I am comparing two explosive devices targeting military installations which result in civilian casualties.

You are attempting to manipulate that to meaning killing someone in a car accident is the same as shooting someone point-blank in the face.

You are trying to switch an apples to apples comparison into an apples to oranges comparison and pretending its a valid analogy.

Quit being intellectually dishonest and answer the question posed.

[MildyRules]

129. Not a strawman at all.

If you do not understand the concept of motive; I can't help you.

[ET Awful]

132. Once again, unless you are the person carrying out the attack

you have no knowledge whatsoever of motive other than your conjecture, which is irrelevant. Try a different tactic like actually answering the question instead of trying to spin out from under it.

[bvar22]

131. Empathy

Empathy is the ability to share in another's emotions, thoughts, or feelings in order to better understand them.
Some people don't have it.


12 year old Ali is thinking that everything is OK
because the American bomb that blew him apart
and killed his family had a "good motive".

[MildyRules]

121. But it does to the living.

[ScreamingWhisper]

157. I've been reading this thread and found it disturbing

that for some reason, some people cannot recognize there is a difference between; 1)a military air-targeting specific enemy targets (laser-guided, not mass carpet bombs which are indiscriminate in their target-path)with regrettable civilian casualties and 2)a terrorist-sponsored insurgency who targets civilians with the off-chance they also injure the military / security providing protection for those civilians.

[bvar22]

158. You DO KNOW that the US used (and IS using) "cluster munitions"

"depleted uranium", and "Napalm" in Iraq?

[MildyRules]

160. Yes

Yes, and "uncertain." And does the use of any of those TARGET civilians?

[bvar22]

180. The ONLY targets in Iraq ARE civilian.

ALL Iraqis killed by the US ARE CIVILIANS!

There is NO Army in the field opposing the US.
The Iraqi Army surrendered and was disbanded in the first month of the invasion.
ALL Iraqis killed ARE CIVILIANS.
Some of them are crrying guns, and wish to do harm to the American occupiers, but they are civilians.
There are a multitude of civilian militias in Iraq, but there is NO opposing Military Force.
The US Forces are currently engaged in supressing a CIVILIAN RESISTANCE to a Foreign Occupation Force (US)

"Insurgent" does not apply. Insurgents rise up against an established government.
There is NO established government in Iraq, only the Rule by a Foreign Occupation Force
whose commanders are currently living in the Royal Palace of the defeated dictator. (Meet the new boss....)


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. I know the Whole Friggin' Iraq War is a King Size Cluster FUCK

But that doesn't stop its apologists from blathering the same ol' tired bullshit in its defense.

Methinks if they're so sure its the right thing to do, they should be over there right now.

[ima_sinnic]

43. sheesh. I just love it when people wail and gnash their teeth over

what Cindy said, or didn't say, or shoulda said. parsing every word out of her mouth is sooo productive. NOT!

Cindy Sheehan is speaking from her heart. She's not reading from teleprompters and cue cards like *some* people I know. She doesn't have speechwriters writing, editing, rewriting and refining her every word. She doesn't have sound bytes carefully crafted and faxed to the far corners of the realm.

Anyone who doesn't like her choice of words is free to stick their necks out and put themselves on the front lines and show the rest of us how it "should" be done. I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving up your day to day life for the next, oh, six months to a year or longer in order to get the exact right words out there.

oh and by the way, the "insurgents" ARE freedom fighters. anybody who thinks the Iraqi "elections" were somehow reflective of the will of the Iraqi people should lay off the Kool Aid. you can't take a USA model (that is so imperfect to begin with it has become a joke, in a way) and lay it over a Middle Eastern country like one size fits all, with tanks, guns, planes and the entire mighty might of the US military to "make it work." and it is absolute lunacy to think that the occupiers can oversee "fair elections."

the elections in Iraq, if indeed that is the system they finally end up with, won't be "fair" until the people can participate without being in somebody's gun sights.

[flordehinojos]

45. please excuuuuuuuuze me interjecting an opinio here.

Iraqi insurgents are freedom fighters. They are fighting to throw the U.S.A. occupiers out of their land... the same as we would do if any other nation tried to occupy us. So, if Cindy Sheehan did not call them "freedom fighters", in my humble opinion, she should have .

were any of you listening to the marchers on 9/24.

[tx_dem41]

48. And the self-marginalization by many DUers continues.....

Most of the replies on this thread read like they're right out of "How to Become and Irrelevant Party 101"

[txaslftist]

74. How dare you!

You are probably one of those folks who thinks the DC protest was diluted by the pro-Palestinian, pro-Haitian and pro-Cuban speakers. Why, you probably didn't even like the free-form poetry that went on for (AAAARGHHH !!!) thirty fucking minutes.

[tx_dem41]

99. The poetry was one of the best parts.

:) Thanks for the laugh!

[The Stranger]

52. Bullshit. The majority of Americans now oppose continuing the war.

She is telling the truth. Stop worrying about right wing talking points and construct and disseminate truth talking points.

[tx_dem41]

53. "Truth talking points"

Ummm...nice spin. :eyes:

[The Stranger]

90. Umm . . . glad you liked it.

:eyes:

[Avalux]

65. Please post a link to her comment.

You have started a controversial post with a question, then go on to assume she said it when you have no proof. Not very cool.

[txaslftist]

72. Quixote, you are exactly correct.

Thanks for your post. "Freedom fighters" is a value laden, bullshit term used to describe no one who has ever actually fought in any conflict.

Like in any war, our opposition in Iraq involves disparate groups: foreign agitators, local insurgents, Baathist remnants, Sunni/shiite/kurdish partisans and plain old criminal opportunists. Some of them have legitimate greivances; some of them don't. Some of them are terrorists, plain and simple.

There are no "freedom fighters".

[Bridget Burke]

76. Please read post #9 to see the context of her statement.

A "newbie" took the time to investigate.

[tx_dem41]

107. Sadly, many supporters of the terrorism (as Cindy calls it) on this thread

haven taken the quote out of context as well.

[Sparkman]

111. What play book should the Iraqis use now? That of the U.S.? just a quest'n

Is is OK for the Iraqis to target U.S. military for Killing?
Horrible thought, but just what does an occupied nation do, when the most violent Imperialists target them for 14 years of sanctions (over 500,000 deaths of innocents) and many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by U.S. "smart" bombs, D.U. (depl. Uranium, not dem under-g) contamination and OIL companies and their lackies in Washington treating them like animals?
I want to know, what would you do here in America, under similar circumstances?

[MildyRules]

112. It's PERFECTLY legitimate

for them to target US Military. Where'd you come up with your 500,000 number?

[Sparkman]

122. Estimates I've HEARD range from none to Ramsey Clark's 500K?

[MildyRules]

124. So

No link?

[Sparkman]

141. UNICEF? 2003 deaths alone 110K (under 5 yrs old)....

I'm too lazy to do more, but here's one ref:
www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq.htm
edit: here's UN report...
http://www.elmandjra.org/deaths.htm

[bvar22]

145. I am surprised you don't know this number

since you have already formed such immutable opinions about the morality of the American War on the Iraqi People.
Here you go:

"It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

This is only one reference. There are MANY more.
BTW: this number was the 1995 estimate. That estimate his 10 years old.
There are now many more innocent victims of American Bombs.
But of course, those are only collateral deaths, which makes them OK.

[tx_dem41]

119. I would do what about 90% of the Iraqis are doing....

I would form my own government and hope that it represented the entirety of my own country. I would strive with all my might to man an army and internal police force to quicken the exit of any outside force. I would also protect my borders to keep out external players from SA, Syria, Iran, etc. And, most importantly I would legitimize my judicial institution and start harshly prosecuting murderous terrorists.

If on the other hand, you would want to blow up kids and old people in America just come out and say it.

[Sparkman]

125. sounds fine. Can't remember...occupied India played along too, how long?

[bvar22]

136. You would form "your own government"

under the guns, economic rule, and sanctions of an occupying Army??!!!
:rofl:

Didn't Vichy do that in Nazi occupied France?
Now THERE was a legitimate government!
The French loved the Vichy government.
The French Resistance also targeted Vichy collaborators.

[tx_dem41]

143. Why don't you try actually try thinking on your own for a change...

read, listen, and then read and listen some more...Life in an echo chamber makes you miss all the shades of grey that are out there.

[bvar22]

149. "Ad Hominm" instead of honest rebuttal?

"An Ad Hominem argument is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem

:patriot:

[ET Awful]

137. How can you state that 90% formed their own government when less than

50% actually registered and voted?

[tx_dem41]

144. Using that criteria....you can delegitimize any government....

outside of Cuba, N. Korea, and the rest of the old Communist bloc.

[ET Awful]

148. You're the one that pulled the 90% number out of thin air, not me.

Once again, where do you get 90% forming their own government when less than 50% were involved in the process and the candidates weren't even announced?

[Sparkman]

152. LEGITIMIZE???!!! Are you claiming OCCUPIED Iraq is legal? It's WAR CRIME

CENTRAL...OCCUPIED IRAQ CAN'T HAVE A LEGITIMATE government!!

[ScreamingWhisper]

163. Why not let the Iraqi people decide for themselves

how legitimate their chosen government may be?

[Sparkman]

165. At the point of a gun,don't we get U.S. colonies? No democratic examples,

BUT plenty of failed U.S. invasion/occupations. Divided Korea, Divided then failed Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Venezuela? ITS THE OIL!!!
How many dances can the U.S. neo-cons do to fool us into ignoring the billion barrel monster in Iraq, OIL!

[Warren DeMontague]

174. They mostly agree on one thing:

They can't stand us and want us gone.

[Q]

93. "These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers."

-Ronald Reagan, 1985 on meeting the Mujahiddin

[LincolnMcGrath]

105. Bam!

:hi: Q

[KoKo]

110. Thanks "Q" it's good to have Reagan's view on this...!

:toast:

[Sparkman]

113. See "Art_from_Ark" #9 above, this is good stuff.

[cassiepriam]

96. If she said it, she is correct. And they will win in the end.

They are fighting for their freedom, their land, and their lives. Just like Viet Nam, they care a hell of a lot more for that piece of land than we do.

[Sparkman]

118. The success of Ghandi's peaceful revolution worked. Iraqi voilence may not

The smartest and surest way to freedom is to humiliate the U.S. neo-cons, not to adapt the long standing methods of the euro-American model of grinding and lying and killing any resisance to U.S. imperialism. Iraq doesn't have the backing of the 2nd largest power in the world like the Vietnamese and Cubans did. Until China or Russia takes a side, they can win with pacifism.

[newportdadde]

135. They are not fighting for 'freedom', they fight for who is the next ruler.

To say so is almost as lame as our nice slogans about freedom or 'over there so we don't fight them here'. They are fighting for POWER, who will become the next ruler/Saddam of Iraq and with it the spoils now that the old power system is gone. We are witnessing a low grade civil war, demonstrated by all of the civial attacks in markets and other areas.

These mostly aren't resistance strikes against US military forces, these are groups of people, mad because of loss of power or the desire for power battling it out with their own countrymen to see who will set at the top of the hill, control the oil, make decisions on religion etc.

Saying garbage like how they are 'freedom fighters' is the kind of PR nightmare we continously seem to throw ourselves into. Ugh.

[PatriotMom]

139. Kick and nominated, this is a fantastic thread

I don't agree with the views of the person that started the thread however I think the topic is excellent. It brings out a great discussion. Thanks for posting this question.

[shance]

153. Of COURSE they're freedom fighters!! Its THEIR COUNTRY!!!

This is why the criminal Administration needs to be tried for putting these innocent kids into a war zone in the name of FREEDOM.

How many lies and deaths and murders will this Congress continue to allow?

Our troops are in harms way because of delusional leadership.

THE ADMINISTRATION is guilty for every single death that has taken place on Iraqi soil.

[ElectroPrincess]

167. This is a distraction ... what Sheehan said exactly ...

It's a ruse. The point is that we WANT OUR TROOPS BROUGHT HOME. Also this is AN IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL occupation of a Sovereign Country.

Damn the NeoCons for twisting the issues. I blame the intelligent a**holes from the AEI the most because they KNOW that they are selling propaganda to the people. Shame on these vampires!

[Malikshah]

170. Dance, puppets, dance!!! (i.e. Here we go again)

When will they ever learn...when will they eeeevvverrrr learn.

:) Back to the circular firing squad with you all.

[Warren DeMontague]

172. Weren't the Contras "Freedom Fighters"?

Shit, I'm so confused. :crazy:

[confludemocrat]

178. Exactly, they were ordained with that title by rightwing criminals now not

allowed, since it's against us. Massacres of women and children, bombings, drug running, clandestine trading with an enemy--all for "freedom's" sake.