BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Galloway makes another speech - what do you think?

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:02 / 05.08.05
WRT his style, it's horses for courses, isn't it? A good case could be made for saying that there are also a lot of people, on all shades of the spectrum, who are more inclined to listen to GG in the first place because he is a compelling speaker. So while his style may put off some people who would otherwise agree with him, it may also cause people to at least give him a listen rather than changing the channel. Whatever one thinks of Galloway, he's not boring.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:04 / 05.08.05
They are also mass murderers or prepared to be, and Galloway has never addressed this.

Wait a moment - so, Galloway is failing to call people who aren't actually mass murderers mass murderers? When you look at it like that he is not only a moral relativist but, worse yet, a filthy empiricist.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I have a feeling he actually _did_ describe the July 7 bombers as mass murderers on the Today programme this morning, while distancing himself from them.
 
 
I'm Rick Jones, bitch
14:05 / 05.08.05
Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem* and Baghdad," Galloway said on Syrian television. "The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it.

*So much for the two state solution! So what Georgie is saying is that Jewish citizens born on Jerusalem soil are foreign "rapists", is he?

We can't ever have peace while there are rabble-rousing idiots on both sides stiring up the bile. I'm ashamed of George, and I consider the tone of this and the usage of all this flowery language like "foreign" and "rape" to constitute outright anti-semitisim (IE that anyone of non-arabic descent in Jerusalem has no claim to it and is defacto foreign). Anyone who supports a just peace ought to publicly disavow this nastly little man, so obsessed by his own image.

His poetry is total sixth form garbage, too.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
15:21 / 05.08.05
Haus - torture is torture and will always be wrong, I never meant to suggest that American torture was somehow morally superior to its Iraqi counterpart and I'm sorry if I gave this impression. What I've been trying to convey in my posts is that Galloway was wrong to portray the Iraqi insurgency as heroic resistance fighters, they are not, but this is not intended as an endorsement of America's aims and methods.
As for the next part of your post, I was arguing that Galloway's statement that Blair and Bush have more blood on their hands than the insurgency, while accurate, is meaningless as a moral judgement because doesn't have anything to do with the relative morality of both sides, as Galloway intended his statement to imply, but the assymetry of their forces. Yes I did use 'parallel world building' to get this point across but as far as I can see it's still valid.
As for your second post, his reaction the the July 7th bombings is a moot point, at least in this thread, which was created to discuss his comments on Iraq. Also, I have no doubt that applying the term 'mass murderers' to the Iraqi resistance is as valid as applying it to the Coalition forces. Please explain why you think killing 1800 U.S servicemen and many more Iraqis for no appreciable gain doesn't count as mass murder.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:32 / 05.08.05
So... you don't think an invading army (or more accurately, whoever gave the orders to invade) carries an additional culpability for the blood shed in a conflict? 'Cos it strikes me that those American servicement are yet more blood on Bush's hands...
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:41 / 05.08.05
Also (I'm repeating myself, but I think it is a key point), isn't it usually accepted in the abstract that resisting an occupation is legitimate? Or is the point that the brutal tactics of the Iraqi insurgents combined with the overwhelming might of the US make any resistance immoral? Because that line of reasoning would seem to imply that no one has any right to oppose any imperialistic power, no matter what the circumstances....which seems self evidently flawed.

Maybe I'm overcomplicating and the real objection to Galloway is that he refuses to accept that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:57 / 05.08.05
Going back a bit, Phex:

When exactly? Which killers? The Americans waging an illegal war?... Let me make myself very, very clear: I don't believe that *either* force in this conflict acts morally, their reasons for fighting are wrong and their methods of fighting are wrong. The world is not black and white, the fact I don't agree with the Iraqi resistance's aims and methods does not mean that I 'agree 100% with the neo-con agenda'. or that I believe that democracy can be exported.

If you don't believe that democracy can be exported, why all that stuff about a "superior form of government which has other means to effect change apart from violence, the ballot box instead of the roadside bomb"?

Something I read on a friend's blog seems very relevant here:

The other thing that really bugs me is a recent return among sections of the bloggosphere to whitey liberal anti-war, guilt-ridden remarks along the lines of, "I despise the invasion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am glad that the Hussein and Taliban regimes are over." We had a whole spate of this during the putative span of the 'wars', particularly in Iraq. And now a return to such tripe, by those who shall remain nameless. What I really hate about this comment is how it sits on the fence: 'anti-war', ostensibly, but tightly gripping that fantasy of the spread of Western democracy, liberty and egalitarianism to the poor benighted Others. It should be obvious that this fantasy is what's wrong to begin with. Even more so now when it's clear that the restrictions and violences of the Taliban never ended, when the body count in Iraq climbs, climbs, climbs more each day, when it's so evident that repressive regimes continue but in a different form.

Supposedly liberal, progressive, left-wing apologists for US/UK foreign policy are infinitely more dangerous than an Anne Coulter.

Furthermore, what threat do the occupying forces pose to Iraqi civilians, apart from a) actual attacks on training camps etc. in which there may be civilian casualties and b) when the U.S Army's oxymoronic intelligence incorrectly identifies civilian targets as being terrorists? Both are direct consequences of there being a resistance. It is not U.S foreign policy to kill Iraqis for a laugh.

I am genuinely staggered that you have the audacity to ask "what threat do the occupying forces pose... apart from when they kill people, and it is all the resistance's fault anyway". And you do the standard thing and claim that something is being said that is not being said - no, it is not policy to kill Iraqis "for a laugh". However, it is policy to kill Iraqi civilians in their thousands. It is the case that they have been tortured "for a laugh". But again and again, you blame the victim.

Also, if you feel the need to condescend me for suggesting that both sides find a peaceful solution (which will never happen, true, but would be the ideal situation) then please tell me what your plan would be?... What do you offer in place of a peaceful solution as an ideal outcome to this situation?

Occupation is not peace! (This is very reminiscent of many 'reasonable' liberals' reading of the Israel/Palestine situation: both sides are as bad as each other, why can't they just all lay down their arms and get along - ie, why can't the Israeli government/military be allowed to keep all the land they've taken by force, never be called to account for the people they've killed and the homes they've bulldozed, continue to treat Palestinians as second-class citizens at best and de factor terrorists at worst...)

No doubt there are individual and groups of insurgents who have committed atrocities; no doubt there are individual insurgents who are motivated by factors other than a desire to see an occuping power leave their home; no doubt there are individual insurgents who would exploit an equivalent military might and commit as many atrocities as the US has, had they the opportunity. In spite of this, are you seriously arguing that it is the duty of the Iraqis to lay down their arms entirely, and allow Iraq to remain under the control of an army who have pursued a policy of "shock and awe" bombings, who have tortured Iraqis for sport, and so on. Would you do the same if the country you live in was being occupied? Would you accept demands for you to 'move on' from people who simultaneously condemned any suggestion that the occupying army withdraw as unrealistic, foolish, short-sighted?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
18:44 / 05.08.05
Flyboy, I'll take your four points made over your two threads one at a time:

1) I've already said that 'ammount of blood on hands' is not an effective way to decide whether one person is more moral than another. Just because Ed Gein, who committed two murders, killed less people than Jeffrey Dahmer (seventeen) he doesn't become a nice guy. Indiscriminate killing is wrong, once you do it you've crossed the rubicon and you can't be considered noble or heroic. That is why I still maintain, and apparently need to state in every post I make, that neither force engaged in this conflict can claim moral superiority over the other.
2) Some governments are better than others. A government where you can vote, even in extremely flawed circumstances, is better than one in which a group of gangsters tell everybody living under their heels that Saddam has once again won the 'election' with 99% of the vote. The "whitey* liberal anti-war, guilt-ridden remark" that your blogging friend hates so much is perfectly justified. I despise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they were done so badly, because innocent people died, because cups of pudding that looked identical to cluster bombs were dropped, because torture was used, for all the same reasons any sane person opposed the war. And yes, I am glad that Saddam and the Taliban are gone, they are awful people and should not be running a country. The war the coalition fought was done badly, because of the 'shock and awe' tactics you mention being used. That's why I can say I 'despise the war', not because I don't believe that the war should have been fought or that there was a better alternative to war to remove Saddam and the Taliban. That's what people mean when they say they opposed the war and are glad that two dictatorships are gone. People aren't divided into the categories 'Libral Hippy douche' (Galloway, the 'Little Eichmans' guy) and 'Crazy gun-toting redneck'** (Coulter, the guy who writing Liberality) , and not agreeing with carpet bombings and torture should not means you have to agree with dictatorships.
3) I'm genuinely staggered you actually typed 'it is (U.S) policy to kill Iraqis in their thousands'. I mean, wow, I thought we had a difference in opinion, not a difference in which planet we're from.
4) The duty of Iraqis is to their country, yes, and that duty is not being served by a continued insurgency. Every suicide bomb, beheading and shooting makes the coalition forces stay longer, every Marine who wakes up in hospital to find that all his friends have died when their convoy was attacked is going to go back into the field looking for payback. If it was their genuine wish to see the U.S gone in as short a time as possible then yes, they should cease attacks. I seem to recall that an Indian fellow who got a massive empire occupying his country and committing atrocities to leave did so without killing anybody. It sounds crazy but it's true.
Would I do the same if the country I live in, the UK, was being occupied? Well if you're fond of hypotheticals, imagine if the British Nationalist Party, the nearest thing I can find in my current political landscape to Saddam's secular-nationalist Baath party, came to power, by hook or more likely by crook. Say that they killed dissenters, tortured political prisoners, and yes, even David Beckham ends up with hot coals on his feet. Say that the next time we had an election polling stations were non-existent and the BNP declared that they had won with 99% of the vote. Now say that America, for whatever reason, invaded Great Britain with the stated aim of removing the BNP from power and installing a democratic government. For some reason our best defence is technology that was dated in World War 2, so they steamroll over the BNP's army in a matter of weeks with very few casualties on their side and massive casualties on ours. Unfortunately, instead of using tactics and weapons that discriminate between combatants and non-combatants they carpet bomb towns and villages based on faulty intelligence, and thousands of innocent Britons who didn't support the outgoing regime die. Maybe some are my friends and family. Fast forward to two years later, there are few jobs, a still constant threat of being killed by occupying forces (who are now torturing other Britons who they expect are part of the resistance) and very few services. Say I am approached by a (surprisingly honest) former member of the BNP who has slipped by the U.S forces and he says: "Hey, me and some other British patriots have are looking to go cap some Imperialist Agressors. We've got right-wing fundamentalist nut-jobs from all over the world to help out. We want to things back the way they were, and we're willing to kill and be killed (possibly at the exact same instant) to get what we want. Now, I should tell you that for every one of them we kill they will lash out indiscriminately at any British person in sight, that it'll be completely impossible to even dent their administration's resolve to stay here 'until the job's done' because GW Bush couldn't care less about U.S casualties so this whole resistance thing won't actually achieve piss in the long run. It'll probably just get a lot of us killed. You might even call it "unrealistic, foolish (and) short-sighted". You in?"
Am I fuck.

*= Casual racism, always a good way to prove a point.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:55 / 07.08.05
I'm not sure I believe that the insurgency is as clear cut as you suggest in your hypothetical, Phex. I find it hard to believe that it is as explicit and uniform as that and I fear that it amounts to a straw man. One could turn your statements around and ask how occupation forces can possibly continue serving when they are being asked to torture, kill civilians, set up permanent military bases etc.

In fact, I wanted to say a few more words about Galloway after listening to Today interview here.

I think the interesting thing is that the interviewer decides that Galloway has gone beyond the bounds of civilised discussion when he suggests that Bush and Blair have killed more innocents than the terrorists. The interviewer seems pretty gobsmacked by this suggestion which, as far as I can work out, is pretty uncontestable. Thats an extremely odd reaction.
 
 
grime
21:42 / 07.08.05
bush and blair just haven't killed more white people than the terrorists. there's some sort of formulae, like 100 iraqis = 1 american person. people in the west just don't care enough.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:06 / 08.08.05
Unfortunately, Lurid, Tony Blair himself fervently believes exactly that (that the 'insurgency' is responsible for more civilian deaths than him and Big George's armies...)

He stated as much to the world's media on July 22nd at a press conference.
 
 
robertrosen
17:06 / 08.08.05
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:02 / 09.08.05
Robertrosen: Welcome to Barbelith. This thread is discussing, with a degree of scopecreep, the ethics of George Galloway's recent pronouncements on the Middle East and, more broadly, the basis for his statements and their validity. We'd be grateful if you read the thread before posting and then made your post relevant either to issues being discussed or the introduction of a new idea germaine to the topic.

Phex: I think I may be misunderstanding you. You believe that as soon as a party uses violence, it cannot be considered moral, and therefore that both Coalition and insurgent/resistance/fishcakes forces are acting immorally, right? However, the number of people killed does not actually matter. One either is a killer or is not, and degree is not a relevant distinction.

On the other hand, replacing tyrranies or oligarchies with dictatorships is always a moral action, even if the democracy is corrupt, imperfect and/or ineffectual and even if more citizens of the newly democratic state are dying from damaged infrastructure and violence than were dying during the days of the tyrrany. Therefore, the Coalition is doing the right thing, and the moral imperative to do the right thing overcomes the moral imperative not to cause death. Is that about right so far?

(There's a supplementary question about how somebody like Dostum, say is much _better_ than the Taliban, but that's probably outwith the scope of the discussion).

Now, the insurgency/resistance/fishcakes is not aiming for a morally goood outcome such as the establishment of democracy and therefore, although no side has the moral high ground, their high ground is quantifiably lower than that of the Coalition. This is because they are instead killing people to no purpose, as their actions will only delay the withdrawal of US troops, which will happen as soon as the insurgency/resistance etc ends.

I think there are a lot of questions that this structure raises. Most obviously, leaving aside questions of morality, there is the question of whether the aim of the insurgents is for the Coalition forces to leave Iraq. I'm not convinced that it is, and therefore I am not so sanguine abbout accepting your argument that their actions are counterproductive.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:35 / 09.08.05
Assume you meant 'democracies' not 'dictatorships' in that third paragraph Haus?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:35 / 09.08.05
Oopsy. Yes, quite right.
 
 
grime
17:01 / 09.08.05
there is definately a "ends justify the means" vibe with the invasion. the end being a prosperous and stable democratic iraq. many westerns must believe it's worth the investment of money, time and lives. of course it's pretty easy to do when all you do is watch the whole thing on tv.

i'd like to leave behind my opinions of the war and the opposing sides for a moment and think only of bush's ideal iraq v. zaraqawi's ideal iraq. maybe it's because i'm a white north american, raised in a democratic, capitalist system, but i bet bush's ideal iraq would be a lot better.

but maybe i prefer bush's iraq because all people want democracy and capitalism.

the real question is which version of their country the iraqi people want. i won't even come close to thinking i can answer that question, but whatever iraq they choose, they'll find a way to justify the means, just like everyone else.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
17:51 / 09.08.05
but i bet bush's ideal iraq would be a lot better.

It's that term again - better

Perhaps a refresher on this thread is in order, and we can look at what you mean, and for whom.
 
 
grime
18:23 / 09.08.05
i guess i didn't use enough qualifying statements earlier. what i was trying to say is that i personally would prefer to live in bush's ideal iraq, rather than zaraqawi's.

of course i'm saying this knowing that it would be the hieght of arrogance for me, or you, to suggest that we know what the iraqi people prefer.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
20:45 / 09.08.05
Haus - That is a pretty accurate summary of what I've been saying, but just to clarify on a few points.

One either is a killer or is not, and degree is not a relevant distinction.

Well, obviously a serial killer is morally inferior to somebody who has only killed one person, because although they both have basically the same ability to kill, one chooses to do it more than another. This isn't useful when talking about Iraq because one side has vastly more ability to kill than the other.

the Coalition is doing the right thing, and the moral imperative to do the right thing overcomes the moral imperative not to cause death. Is that about right so far?

I wouldn't say it was so cut and dry. Although it was undeniably a good thing that Saddam was removed (and I hope the same happens to Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il etc.) the American-led Coalition deliberately chose tactics that would cause more civilian casualties than other alternatives. Doing the right thing involves both picking a right cause and fighting for it in the right way. That's why Superman doesn't crush Lex Luthor's head, and this is why people can be for removing Saddam, but against the war.

leaving aside questions of morality, there is the question of whether the aim of the insurgents is for the Coalition forces to leave Iraq

This is what Galloway seems to believe, and it probably is true of a good portion of insurgents. If it is not then the alternatives are hardly more appealing: revenge, creating a government similar (or worse) for the majority of Iraqis than that before or a desire to kill Americans as part of Al-Qaeda et al.'s larger ideology. All of which are essentially violence for its own sake, as America is too powerful and its administration too disconnected from its troops' suffering to let the insurgency win. None of them convince me that the insurgents are doing the right thing, in moral terms and in relation to what's best for the Iraqi people, though perhaps I'm missing another motive. Also, if it's not their main aim then wouldn't it at least be a major part of an ongoing strategy, as it can't be conductive to their plans to have a massive and powerful army on their doorstep?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:48 / 09.08.05
Why not, exactly? Israelis in Palestine and Americans in Saudi Arabia have been two of the great recruiting coups for al Qaeda et hoc genus omne.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:53 / 09.08.05
Not sure the alternatives you're presenting there really take account of the depth and complexity of what is probably going on.

I mean : 'revenge'. Could you explore this a little bit deeper to check what you're talking about? And 'installing a government similar (or worse) to the previous one'...hmmm. Is it that monochromatic?

Complex stuff. Deep history and politics. Not good vs. evil.
 
 
grime
23:09 / 09.08.05
americans in iraq is definately a great recruiting tool for al qaeda, but what's the point of prolonging a war just in order to recruit people to fight it? besides, that's just playing into america's hands by keeping the war in iraq.

it dosen't seem like anyone who was recuited due to the war has attacked american interests anywhere else.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:35 / 10.08.05
Well, Madrid and London might be seen as attacks on American strategic resources, as might the closing of the embassy in Riyadh, the soaring price of oil, the increase in radicals in other areas of the Middle East ... I think you need to broaden your understanding of what constitutes an objective.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:21 / 10.08.05
Words. Mouth. Took. Mine. Haus.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
13:48 / 10.08.05
Money $hot: By 'revenge' I meant that I'm sure that some Iraqis who have had friends and family killed by the Coalition have joined an Insurgent factions (even foreign controlled ones like Al-Qaeda) because they offer training and weapons with which an individual Iraqi can persue a vendetta against America. I believe that in Iraqi society the relatives of someone who is killed have an obligation to seek revenge (though Saddam's regime killed plenty of Iraqis and there wasn't much of an insurgency against him, and if true it also doesn't explain why some Iraqis don't seek revenge against the insurgents who have killed Iraqis as collateral damage).
As for the second part, I don't think it's monochromatic as such, I didn't say that the new government would be a Utopia whereas the government that Al-Qaeda and others are aiming for would be a Dystopia. I said, and I believe, that a hard-line Islamist government, such as that in Iran, would be worse than an, admittedly flawed, democracy, both for Iraq and the world at large.

Haus: I was a little confused about why you said the attacks in London and Madrid were attacks on 'strategic resources'. I can see how rising oil prices damage America's ability to wage war, making life easier for Al-Qaeda, and how the attacks in Madrid may have spurred the Spanish government to remove troops from Iraq (though as I understand it their newly elected government were going to do it anyway). I don't see how the attacks in Madrid and particularly London really helped Al-Qaeda or impeded Britain and Spain's ability to fight against them (since the attack in Spain may have caused the Spanish government to remain in Iraq). Also, you still haven't said, beyond recruitment, what the Iraqi insurgency's objectives are, accepting that they're not a unified force, that there are Sunni and Shiite militias, that there are foreign Mujahadeen there etc.
 
 
grime
14:48 / 10.08.05
"I think you need to broaden your understanding of what constitutes an objective. "

i think you need to narrow yours.

rising oil prices? amateur night on the tube?

these aren't strategic strikes against american interests, they're isolated acts of desperation.

like i said, americans in iraq is a great recruiting tool. but the only people to be hit in retaliation for the war are spain and the uk.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:17 / 10.08.05
And I for one, speaking as an American, don't feel those to have any relevance whatsoever, nor that those who died in those attacks could be considered in any way to be important.

Um.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:38 / 10.08.05
I can see how rising oil prices damage America's ability to wage war, making life easier for Al-Qaeda, and how the attacks in Madrid may have spurred the Spanish government to remove troops from Iraq (though as I understand it their newly elected government were going to do it anyway).

Not quite - there is a belief, primarily promulgated by Fox News, that the Spanish elected a Socialist government shortly after the bombing because they promised to withdraw from Iraq. This is inaccurate.

However, while I would not wish to attempt to ennumerate the specific objectives of the various elements fighting in Iraq, I'm surprised that "more terrorism against nations with troops in Iraq" is not considered of interest at least to some of the forces operating within Iraq's borders.
 
 
grime
17:12 / 10.08.05
so haus, was that supposed to be ironic?

do americans really care?

because, i honestly can't tell.

i supppose watching their allies get hit must cause some abstract worry about america getting hit . . . but no one really cares about worryists.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
18:34 / 10.08.05
Well, I'd like to think that the majority of Americans do care about their Coalition partners being attacked, and the statistics bear that out (support for the war is at around 38%, many of whom believe that the U.S should leave within a year, some in two years and only a tiny percentage believe that America should remain indefinitely). It's not the American people who decide on policy though, it's the American government. They're firmly for staying 'until the job's done' and it seems like no ammount of casualties will sway them (remember that roughly 100 times more servicemen died in Vietnam).
Haus (and everybody else) - I'd like to get this discussion back onto Galloway, and off the intricacies of the Iraq war, which has been discussed elsewhere. What I've been trying to say is that George Galloway's claim that the Iraqi resistance are noble freedom fighters is erroneous; they're not good people, and if they were fighting to drive occupying forces out the society they would not create a better Iraq, but one based on violence, ignorance, tyranny and a view of Islam that many Imans and Koranic scholars would say is heretical. Yes, I have no doubt that many of the resistance fighters have motives other than this, particularly the Al-Qaeda contingent that needs more warm bodies for more 'Amateur Night' bombings.
I'm a little confused about where you're coming from here. You're obviously not saying that fighting an occupation is the primary goal of the insurgency, as Galloway believes, so what is your take on Galloway's speech? Is he right in calling the Iraqi resistance heroes and 'martyrs' or would I be more accurate when I say they're pissing away Iraqi lives for no appreciable gain?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:23 / 11.08.05
I think you've constructed a simplistic binary which simultaneously claims to be above the moral posturing of the sides involved but also depends on setting up your own approved set of objectives that the insurgency is allowed to judge its success by. Therefore, since you are representing any aim not directly involved with forcing a Coalition withdrawal from Iraq as functionally and morally worthless, and any attempt to force a Coalition withdrawal that does not have as a stated aim the establishhment of a democratic state of Iraq as morally repugnant. Since you believe further that the actions of the insurgents are not forcing a Coalition withdrawal, or doing so with an aim inimical to democracy, you can entertain no answer other than that the actions of the insurgency are functionally and/or morally worthless. We're still not really talking about Galloway here, but about your understanding of the insurgency. I stated above that I was not in a position to ennumerate the objectives of the various groups makign up the insurgency, but you have:

and if they were fighting to drive occupying forces out the society they would not create a better Iraq, but one based on violence, ignorance, tyranny and a view of Islam that many Imans and Koranic scholars would say is heretical.

I would like to know where you're taking this set of objectives from, and further how it related to the set who may not be fighting to drive occupying forces out.

(Incidentally, you're not a Londoner, are you?)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
09:25 / 11.08.05
By 'revenge' I meant that I'm sure that some Iraqis who have had friends and family killed by the Coalition have joined an Insurgent factions (even foreign controlled ones like Al-Qaeda) because they offer training and weapons with which an individual Iraqi can persue a vendetta against America

Sorry if this is dragging us back to the same points, but I find your conflation of 'occupying soldiers' with 'America' quite revealing. I somehow suspect that the sort of revenge you are describing lacks a focused and didactic political motivation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:45 / 11.08.05
Ah, well, that's the other thing. I suspect the insurgency/resistance/Camarilla is not thinking of its objectives primarily in the terms they might be laid out in an op ed piece.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:33 / 11.08.05
"Tony Blair and George Bush have "far more blood on their hands" than the terrorists who carried out the London tube bombings, George Galloway said today."

This is simple fact...


Not to nitpick, but no, it's not. It's Galloway's perspective on the facts, articulated in typically bellicose language designed to start a fight... it's not actually a fact, though, and your wholehearted agreement with this perspective does not make it any more so. Just because, on this occasion, it's my perspective too, and just because I have been known to articulate it in the same manner, does not magically transmute it into fact either.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
11:38 / 11.08.05
Haus: I stated above that I was not in a position to ennumerate the objectives of the various groups makign up the insurgency, but you have

Do you know who else has? Ayman al-Zawahiri. Maybe you'd like to log into one of these fabled Al-Qaeda message boards and tell him that he isn't actually fighting to force Coalition troops out of Iraq but for some shadowy aim that, for some reason, you are unable to put your fingers to your keyboard to spell out.

...claims to be above the moral posturing of the sides involved

I've never bombed anyone, never shot anyone, never stacked prisoners into naked pyramids and all of the above is completely repuganant to me, so, yeah, I am above both sides involved and I would guess that you are too.

setting up your own approved set of objectives

Or, um, actually listening to what the insurgents (and Galloway) are saying, then assessing the morality of it from my own point of view.

I would like to know where you're taking this set of objectives from

The 'revenge' and 'senseless killing' objectives (if you can call them that) are pure speculation, but 'removing Coalition forces' comes from places like here, here,here and here. In the Observer article, Bin Laden's 'Letter to America', written before the Iraq invasion but still a valid statement of Al Qaeda's objectives, you'll see that Bin Laden clearly states that he wishes to establish states based on Shariah (Islamic law, specifically Islamic law based on literal interpretations of the Koran, which does not accept any interpretation created after the life of Muhammad), and this would include Iraq. This would mean curtailing freedoms that Iraqis have, and even those they had under Saddam (the wearing of a Burqa would not be optional and theives would have their hands cut off, for example) so yes, this would be a marked step backwards from where Iraq is now.
Now over to you to explain that I am wrong without offering an opinion of your own:
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply