"We want to tell (Americans) that we are not Qaeda, we are Iraqi resistance ... all we want is...

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSYAT654156

Iraq insurgents post first video clip in English

BAGHDAD, Sept 26 (Reuters) - An Iraqi insurgent group said on Wednesday it had produced the first video clip in English that shows attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and which it said was intended to show Americans their troops are losing the war.

The Islamic Front for Iraqi Resistance said it recently posted the 18-minute clip on the Internet (www.sms-2-us.com).

The hard-hitting video shows roadside bomb attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq interspersed with numerous messages written in English and accompanied by Hollywood-style orchestral music.

Saif el Deen Mahmoud, spokesman for the Islamic Front for Iraqi Resistance, said the clip aimed to show Americans the dangers faced by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Some 3,800 American troops have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. snip

"We want to tell (Americans) that we are not Qaeda, we are Iraqi resistance ... all we want is to liberate our country," he said.

[babylonsister]

1. Way past time to get out of there. I'd want to liberate my country, too. nt

[Zandor]

2. self-delete n/t

[msongs]

3. this is the worst thing they could do: give fuel to the occupiers' superiors

by showing they kill Americans.

doh, stupid.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

4. Whew, brother. They are going to be hunted down and killed, ASAP.

The empire does not respond to those resistent to their power,....ESPECIALLY over perception.

Dead men walking. Dead men walking. Dead men, along with their wives and children and friends and any associated with them, walking.

On edit: Your resistence WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS "TERRORIST-RELATED".

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelly Rupert]

6. That's great, you stupid fucks.

If you hadn't decided to blow the fuck out of everything within 50 yards of an American flag, perhaps we would not still have so violent an American military presence in Iraq. As it turns out, when you fucking shoot people, they shoot back harder. It doesn't matter who started it. It's still the same principle. It's a lesson our guys aren't learning, and it's a lesson y'all aren't learning.

Now, while there have been a few exceptions, violent armed resistance generally does not lead to peaceful societies with functioning democracies. The few exceptions, you might also notice, started as peaceful political-rights pressure campaigns that gradually escalated. They did not start with roadside bombs, AK-47 ambushes, and blown-up UN centers.

You are nothing but violent, homicidal, testosterone-driven fuckwits, willing to kill other people for the sake of a piece of rectangular cloth with some cheap dye on it. You are absolutely no better and no worse than the people you wish to expel. Naked violence is a counterproductive means of resistance no matter what the situation.

You are making your country worse. You are harming innocent civilians. You are harming Americans. You are harming yourselves.

You are not heroes, you're not big, you're not clever, and no matter how wrong the war is, and no matter how badly the United States needs to withdraw, you are part of the problem. Don't get me wrong, you aren't the *only* part of the problem. Now don't think I'm giving you a hard time, there are a dozen other groups--my government certainly included at the top of the list--that are also parts of the problem. But please, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't mind not killing people.

Thank you for your time.

[gaspee]

7. If you had

foreign troops occuopying your country, you would resist through peace marches?

I don't think of them as heroic but I can't really comdemn them when I would take the same action were an occupying power to invade my country.

Like I said previously, I don't want to see Americans killed. We need to get out.

[Kelly Rupert]

9. Let us take two historical examples of dealing with a foreign occupier with a free press.

One of these men engaged in nonviolent resistance that ended up expelling the occupier from his lands.
Another engaged in a campaign of targeted violent resistance that ended up turning his lands into a multi-decade tit-for-tat death circus.

Which of these was more effective?

[populistdriven]

12. you forgot General Washington

And his resistance

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Three reasons why that does not apply.

First, the American Revolution began as a peaceful political-rights movement decades before war broke out, and it was the moral high-ground that they had achieved in doing so that allowed them to successfully wage the war they did.

Secondly, that was an outright shooting war, against a regular army, in which the decisive battles were fought openly and with little risk to civilians. There was no war for "hearts and minds;" the Americans had accomplished that in the years before the war broke out.

Thirdly, there was no insufficient free press or elector control in Britain at the time, meaning that political pressure alone was nowhere near as powerful as it became in later centuries.

[populistdriven]

21. Ghandi failed and India was partitioned.

The lesson of Gandhi's failure is clear: In interracial relations a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. Shrewd ethnocentrism is more politically powerful than compromising tolerance. We could call that a sociological law, if it were not so obvious.

The use made by Mahatma Gandhi of the theory of non-violence as a political weapon has nothing to do with Hindu tradition. Non-violence is a strictly individual technique of personal improvement. It cannot serve political ends and cannot play a role in the governing of states. All of the Bhagavad Gita is in fact a lesson given to Arjuna, who wanted to renounce violence and thus to shirk his duty as a prince and soldier. Gandhi was in fact, thanks to his theories on non-violence, the instrument of massacres on a scale almost without historical precedent, which preceded and followed the partition of India, which he had accepted.

The late Mahatma Gandhi's much admired "nonviolence" was moral violence; not: "Do this, or else I kill you!" but: "Do this, or else I kill myself! ... knowing that you hold my life as indispensable." It may look "nobler." In fact, it is just the same -- apart from the difference in the technique of pressure. It is, rather, less noble because, precisely on account of that subtler technique, it leads people to believe that it is not violence, and therefore contains an element of deceit, an inherent falsehood, from which ordinary violence is free.

[foo_bar]

24. you're plagiarizing a neo-nazi website

The lesson of Gandhi's failure is clear: In interracial relations a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. Shrewd ethnocentrism is more politically powerful than compromising tolerance. We could call that a sociological law, if it were not so obvious.

The lesson of Gandhi's failure is clear: In interracial relations a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. Shrewd ethnocentrism is more politically powerful than compromising tolerance. We could call that a sociological law, if it were not so obvious.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/gandhi.htm

[populistdriven]

28. LOL!

People always lose their arguments when they accuse the opposition of being Nazis.

It's a de-facto law of the Internets.

[foo_bar]

30. Devi and Gautier didn't write the essay you plagiarized

It's credited to "Arjuna & Irmin", and only found on a neo-nazi website here. I don't think Godwin's law applies to actual nazi supporters.

On further inspection, here's "Arjuna & Irmin":

But when Islam became powerful, Allah's eternal message changed. Islam could now "call people by the sword" -- that is, compel conversion -- and accordingly "verses of the sword" were conveniently revealed to the Prophet, verses that sanction and indeed command conversion of the Infidel by armed violence, which historically would be Islam's preferred method. Sura 2.256 was thus abrogated by a later verse, composed after Mohammed had conquered Mecca and was preparing his new Muslim empire for Jihad against the non-Muslim world: "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush" (Sura 9.5). This "verse of the sword" not only abrogates 2.256, but also abrogates well over a hundred earlier verses that formerly taught peace and tolerance toward non-believers.

Only the later, abrogating verse now represents authentic Muslim teaching.



Islam: "Religion of Peace"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1251972/posts

From the nationalist article you cited without citation:

Hindu ethno-nationalists were political losers in the debates and infighting during the decade leading up to Indian independence, but subsequent history has demonstrated that their analysis was correct:

German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic races -- the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifest here. Germany has shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.

The preceding sentences, written in 1939 by Madhav Golwalkar, the leader of the nationalist RSS, are frequently quoted today to discredit Hindu nationalism, but their substance happens to be true. Nationalism and multiculturalism are indeed antonyms. It is, as a matter of fact, "well-nigh impossible ... for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole." Gandhi believed otherwise, and history proved his error.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/gandhi.htm

[Cameron27]

53. WTF is going on here? Someone's quoting a Nazi to make a point?

Thank you so much for pointing that out.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. Yes, actually, she literally was.

Savitri Devi Mukherji (September 30, 1905, Lyon, France — October 22, 1982, Essex, England) was a French writer, of mixed English, Lombard, and Greek ethnicity, who became enamoured with Hinduism and Nazism, trying to synthesise Hinduism with Nazi philosophy and racial ideology and proclaiming Adolf Hitler an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi

It isn't Godwin if they are actually Nazis.

(Edit: I see you've no changed it to remove the "So Savitri Devi is a Nazi?" part)

[populistdriven]

34. They are Hindu Nationalists - not Nazis

[Kelly Rupert]

36. She was a Nazi. Read the article.

A honest-to-God Nazi.

[cali]

75. LOL! Look at that. An out and out plagiarist caught

and trying to weasel, by turning things around. Plagiarism is disgusting. You lose.

[SlowDownFast]

62. Da-yum!

Caught red-handed!

For shame!

:wow:

[Kelly Rupert]

27. That's an interesting philosophical reading of Gandhi.

It's also completely irrelevant. First of all, India was partitioned due to the political demands of Indian Muslims, not due to any failing in his relations with Britain, which is the relevant aspect of this comparison.

Secondly, one can look at the process of nonviolent resistance all one wishes to. Calling it "moral violence" is a neat turn of phrase, and perhaps an accurate one. However, it affirms a rather import truth--it is resistance based on the emotional state of the enemy instead of the emotional state of one's self. It is designed to pressure an enemy into withdrawing, and does so effectively. Violence, while nominally intended to do so, does not actually provide any real pressure to withdraw--it only induces the enemy to escalate. By the time violence induces a withdrawal, the human cost is absolutely catastrophic.

[tkmorris]

23. The British didn't leave India BECAUSE Gandhi was peaceful

The Gandhian ideals are always great to contemplate but they are not the reason the British left by themselves. You seem to believe that if the Indian people had engaged in more violent resistance (and they frequently did you know) that Great Britain would still be there.

Hogwash.

[populistdriven]

25. Ghandi allowed and encouraged millions to be slaughtered

[Kelly Rupert]

29. And the violent resistance that Indians engaged in

led directly to violent retaliation by British forces.

Britain left because of political pressure, not because of violent resistance.

[populistdriven]

32. And the non-violent who were slaughtered for nothing, god bless em

[Kelly Rupert]

33. That is correct. Violent resistance leads to the retaliatory death of innocent civilians.

Glad you're catching on.

[populistdriven]

37. This is exactly what happened in Red Dawn

Resistance is Futile

[populistdriven]

39. see post 53 nt

[madeline_con]

45. Israel uses bigger tits. n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

49. Certainly they do. Incidentally,

I knew an Israeli girl who went home to join the IDF, and she was stacked. That's honestly what I thought you were referring to at first...

[madeline_con]

54. Good one!

Look out behind you! Here comes an "offended" DUer to rant about women and sexism ad nauseaum...

:rofl:

[AntiFascist]

83. It is important to note that....

Bush and right-wing neocons wish to group all these fighters together as "al Qaeda", but in fact much of the Iraqi resistance wants al Qaeda out of the country because they are pitting Iraqis against Iraqis. There is much speculation that it is also the strategy of the neocons to pit Sunnis against the Shia, particularly in preparing to attack Iran (a Shiite stronghold).

[populistdriven]

8. Resistance is futile

[Kelly Rupert]

10. Violent resistance fails more often than it succeeds,

and when it succeeds, it does so at enormous human cost.

[Emit]

11. So, would you tell a rape victim just sit back and enjoy it?

Jeesh.

[Kelly Rupert]

13. I hardly think that's an appropriate analogy.

For one, rapists are usually not state actors with elected leaders and a free press--the only situation in which nonviolent resistance generally works.

[populistdriven]

16. Yet the emotional core is the same: Do what I want or I will let myself be destroyed

It is self-violence of the worst order to not defend oneself

[Kelly Rupert]

20. Acting on your *own* emotions leads directly to recurring violence.

Acting on your *enemy's* emotions leads to slow but near-certain victory.

Getting revenge for injustices by shooting other people does not work. It's simply violence. The Iraqi resistance is not helping the people of Iraq.

[populistdriven]

38. I agree with that statement, But they are helping the future Islamic Republic of Iraq

They are religious fighters, so much as I disagree with them. Our being there is futile.

[Kelly Rupert]

I can certainly agree with you on that. n/t

[populistdriven]

42. Peace

[Kelly Rupert]

43. Likewise n/t

[Megahurtz]

50. America Is Raping Iraq,

I think it fits.

[Kelly Rupert]

51. Again,

rapists are usually not state actors with elected leaders and a free press--the only situation in which nonviolent resistance generally works.

[Emit]

63. Huh? Are you saying that the Iraqi resistance fighters

are state actors with elected leaders and a free press?

[Kelly Rupert]

70. No, I'm saying the Americans are. n/t

[PsN2Wind]

14. Sure, you got it

the whole thing is the Iraqis fault. If those that survived the "shock and awe" had just rolled over and played dead everything would be just as Dick Cheney and the Neocons promised. The nerve to want an occupying force out of their country. Ungrateful bastards all.
:sarcasm:

[Kelly Rupert]

17. If you had bothered to read it through,

I say that the American government is the biggest problem in this affair. World ain't black and white.

[Emit]

19. Yeah, I saw you got that part in. n/t

[PsN2Wind]

35. But the point you stress is that the Iraqis

should NOT be trying to force an occupying force from THEIR country. That they should just wait until the benevolent government of the US has decided that they have been democratized enough, or their oil is gone.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

18. Yeah!

Just like rape victims who wear short skirts are "asking for it".

:sarcasm:

I can't believe what I'm reading here.

[Kelly Rupert]

22. It's ironic, given your username,

that you would scoff at a critic of violent resistance.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

26. eh?

That is NOT what my username means. Keep fishing.

[madeline_con]

44. Now, hit our side with a similar tirade.

It's only fair.

[Kelly Rupert]

47. I think I've been venting off steam at them for the last six years.

Hard to work up a good rant nowadays; we've been fucking things up daily in our actions around civilans since we started. Haven't gone off on the "other guys" since they blew up the UN HQ in Iraq in 2003.

[madeline_con]

48. This certainly is a hot little thread.

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

56. "It doesn't matter who started it."

That's right, the minor matter of the U.S. regime launching an unprovoked war of aggression on their country is a triviality. We're just worth more than they.

[Kelly Rupert]

58. Neither party's lives are worth more.

The lives of civilians are worth the most, and the insurgency's actions are most detrimental to that group.

[JackRiddler]

60. Who armed the factions in the "civil war"?

No doubt most of the gear was inherited from the dissolution of the Iraqi army. Otherwise, one side is armed by the U.S. The other side is armed by the U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, which is about to get another 60 billion in U.S. arms sales. Why do you fall for this scam?

[Kelly Rupert]

71. What scam am I falling for?

The United States government is most to blame for the Iraqi tragedy. Saudi Arabia shares blame as well. The Iraqi insurgency shares blame as well.

(There are not two sides in the Iraqi civil war. There are far more.)

[JackRiddler]

72. Take responsibility for your own government's crimes first then -

and get out.

[Kelly Rupert]

73. Why are my government's crimes my own?

I am no more to blame for Bush's actions than an Iraqi civilian is for Saddam's.

[baby_mouse]

76. Of course it matters who started it.

It's of the UTMOST SIGNIFICANCE who started it.

[Kelly Rupert]

81. Not really, no.

A mother who dies in a marketplace bombing is equally dead whether she was killed in an act of "justified resistance" or in an act of "unjustified" violence. A father who is shot dead when trying to repair electricity lines for $10/day is equally dead whether he was killed for "helping the illegitimate occupier" or if he's killed by a Blackwater merc firing into a crowd.

"He started it" really ought to stop being a legitimate excuse for wanton violence by the second grade.

[L. Coyote]

40. Remember the American Revolution "all we want is to liberate our country"

And that was from taxation, not an occupation by an invading army that overthrew the existing order.

[L. Coyote]

41. 403 Forbidden on that link: www.sms-2-us.com

I'm in a public library right now. I'll try later elsewhere.

Is anyone else blocked from this domain?

[L. Coyote]

57. 403 Forbidden again, from another location now. DOMAIN is blocked. ANYONE?

able to view the OP's link?

http://www.sms-2-us.com

[ConsAreLiars]

61. Of course it is blocked (for me also). The Burma Generals are a bit cruder than the US Fascists.

The generals have to shut down the whole net while more sophisticated Corporatist powers like the US and China use selective blocking.

[L. Coyote]

65. First they came for the pinko commie atheists .. now my domain is blocked too.

[Megahurtz]

46. End The Occupation!

Now!:bounce:

Can anyone blame them for feeling this way?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

52. I sure as hell can't!

You think certain people in this thread felt grief/sorrow/anger when Soviet soldiers were dying in Afghanistan? According to some people non-American blood is cheap.

[Kelly Rupert]

55. I have lessened grief for dead combatants.

Dead civilians, on the other hand...
(and the families of dead combatants as well)

[mmonk]

59. Not too bright, are they?

[janx]

64. I was going to say that I can't believe it has come to this...

but I can. This is so utterly screwed up.

[L. Coyote]

66. And look what that has done for the price of oil. It is a huge boom if you invested wisely!

[janx]

67. I'm spending $350 on gas per month as it is...

a hellacious commute to work and back.

Did you see the viable link to the video (post #10)?

The video doesn't seem to carry the same message that the spokesdude does--not exactly, anyway.

[lonestarnot]

68. Trade it in for a hybrid. Feeding the enemy sucks a hole in your wallet.

[janx]

69. Is the appearance of the monkey in the video

a coincidence? :shrug:

[AngryAmish]

74. These are the real heroes of Iraq

We must support their noble sacrifice.

[Pavulon]

77. Really. I should support guys who INTENTIONALLY

kill women and children, as policy. Market bombings are intentional. You can support that if you want, not me.

[NOLALady]

79. We support our troops.

[liberalsoldier5]

80. Bullshit. None of the insurgents are "heroes".

That kind of sentiment is exactly how we'll win national elections; saying the guys purposely blowing up our troops and intentionally killing women and children are "the real heroes" is a great idea! :sarcasm: What you said was just plain sick.

[Kelly Rupert]

82. Bull. Shit.

They're testosterone-fueled violent young men. On one hand, the fact that Americans wear uniforms means the insurgents are indeed less likely to shoot civilians in confusion or murder them in frustration. On the other hand, they don't have a UCMJ to provide a disincentive to outright target and kill civilians who "work with the enemy," so insurgent militias frequently kill civilians who wanted nothing more than to buy some groceries, or repair a police station and earn some money for their family.

[NOLALady]

78. Who can blame Them?