[Renegade]

That's another reason why the Muslims will win.

And another reason why Iraqi's will continue to suffer if they do..

[Renegade]

Here's what the "freedom fighters" DIDNT think were unjust as opposed to American injustices:

-Two years earlier, two human rights organizations, the International Federation of Human Rights League and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq released a joint report, accusing the Saddam Hussein regime of committing "massive and systematic" human rights violations, particularly against women. The report spoke of public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, "For the honor of Iraq." The report documented 130 women who had been killed in this way, but stated that the actual number was probably much higher. The report also describes human rights violations directed against children. The report states that children, as young as 5 years old, are recruited into the "Ashbal Saddam," or "Saddam's Cubs," and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children are also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. The report also describes how parents of children are executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves are imprisoned.


-Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.

-In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

-In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

-In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 24 July 2005 - 12:08 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Renegade- Hey, Saddam was at least an Iraqi who in some odd way had the interests of at least some people in his country at heart. I can live with a pig like Bush in the whitehouse, though personally I feel that he deserves to hang for crimes against humanity, but if a foreign government invaded I'd be first in line to fight them. Unless it was Cuba and they had a good reason, which, when you think about it, they already do what with the times we've tried to invade them or kill their leaders. if anyone did that to the US it would mean instant anihilation of their country. But I'm just whining about how that's not fair, don't mind me.

they are soldiers who want their own govt to have control

What a silly idea, wanting a sovereign government run by Iraqis. Clearly they are terrorists.

The argument that most freedom fighters come from outside Iraq is propaganda. The argument that most terrorists coem from outside Iraq is truth.

Your problem is that you don't distinguish one from the other, that you deem anyone who opposes imperialism to be a terrorist.

The Party of Allah is NOT a terrorist organization! They are freedom fighters just like Hamas and I hope for their victory over the Zionist Entity!

And if you agree that government support is needed for widescale terrorism to occur than dosn't that intone that the KKK had to have at least tacit support from a government,? And if so which government would that be? The Taliban perhaps? Yes, I think that's it, it was the Taliban.

Here's a question noone asked:

What the FUCK business does the only nation ever to deploy nuclear weapons against civilian targets have to be telling people who can and can not have unvonventional weapons?

And here's another point: A friggen tube of nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's a tube of nerve gas. At the height of Saddam's arsenal he couldnt have killed as many people as the imperialist aggression has. And the US uses conventional weapons (MOAB for instance) that make what Saddam had look like nothing.

I don't think Saddam should have been allowed nuclear weapons.

However I also think that Bush should be disarmed and sent to some secret prison to share his cell with Saddam and be photographed naked as well.

[Slade]

Oh really? Those "freedom fighters" didn't seem to have a problem with Saddam was massacering kurds or shiites though? They didn't have a problem when he knocked off top ranking shiite clerics to make sure he'd keep his power (despite a shiite majority existing in that country). Those same "freedom fighters" didn't seem to have a problem when Iraq invaded Iran, nor did they have a problem when he invaded Kuwait (which was because Kuwait wasn't gonna let Saddam not pay back the debt he owned that country because of the Iran war). They didn't seem to have a problem that Saddam himself wasn't even a islamic leader but quite the contrary a "socialist".

You could say the same thing about people in the US. If you stay in touch with the world via the media, it would seem that Americans don't regret the war in Iraq (though the polls have been slipping). Most people don't have a problem that the US is a unilateral bully and has been steadly encroaching on peoples' liberties to defend its own power But every person in the country would grab a weapon and fight if another country decided to invade to "liberate" it from the corrupt sinkhole it is (or if a faction in this country decided to try the same thing as a civil war). The point is that the masses will put up with a whole lot of shit, but nobody wants you walking into your front yard and telling you what to do, whether it's grass, pavement, or sand.

I'm mad as hell about what's going on, and a whole lot of other people are too, but if you're in another country and the other country believes in information control, you're not going to hear about it.

[J m HofMarN]

Ummm dude the US has the death penalty for army deserters as well... And I'm not saying Hussein was great, but Iraq was at least ruled by an Iraqi while he was in office. The occupation has killed more people than Saddam and it's not even over yet, and I don't see why you blame Iraqis for seeing their chance at liberty. Saddam was too strong to be overthrown by Iraqis alone at the time, but now that he's gone Iraq has a chance at real freedom that the US is trying to steal away. It's only natural that they should fight.

And you're right, Iraq would be much better off under imperialist rule. Just like Chile and Nicaragua and pre-revolution Cuba were.

[Renegade]

Renegade- Hey, Saddam was at least an Iraqi who in some odd way had the interests of at least some people in his country at heart.

Really? Sorta like Hitler had "his country" at heart huh?

[Renegade]

Ummm dude the US has the death penalty for army deserters as well... And I'm not saying Hussein was great, but Iraq was at least ruled by an Iraqi while he was in office. The occupation has killed more people than Saddam and it's not even over yet, and I don't see why you blame Iraqis for seeing their chance at liberty. Saddam was too strong to be overthrown by Iraqis alone at the time, but now that he's gone Iraq has a chance at real freedom that the US is trying to steal away. It's only natural that they should fight.

And you're right, Iraq would be much better off under imperialist rule. Just like Chile and Nicaragua and pre-revolution Cuba were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMAO...

Nobody reads my post and ah the glory of liberals. I'm so glad i've disassociated myself from liberal/conservative idealogy bullshit. Liberals STILL don't get why their arguments are bullshit just like conservatives.. in the end of the day they both have no idea what a "definition" of something is and both believe the ends justify the means. First, the US doesn't have a DEATH penalty for deserters but ANYWAY...

My point which you missed out on was that the people are NOT freedom fighters, they are merely fighters fighting for their own idealogy/tyranny to take power. Just because you oppose one dictatorship doesn't make you a freedom fighte when you want to put in YOUR own dictatorship. And the reason Iraqi's couldn't overthrow Saddam was because he WAS a brutal dictator who wouldn't allow it (oh but he had the country at heart in your opinion), and the reason they HAVE a choice now is because of US. And we're GIVING Them a chance at real democracy... they had elections with a higher turnout rate than the US even with terrorist threats all around.

[Renegade]

What a silly idea, wanting a sovereign government run by Iraqis. Clearly they are terrorists.

Just because a country is run by A iraqi or a group of select Iraqi's doesn't make that cause "freedom fighting" ass. I'm getting sick of this bullshit escapist argument for terrorists and fundementalists. Yes Iraq WOULD be in better condition if America wins there as opposed to if the terrorists settle their own govt.

And I think you still don't know the definiton of terrorism so I'll give it to you:

Act of violence generally against innocents to send a political messege or entice fear to change a opponents policy

This post has been edited by Renegade: 24 July 2005 - 12:27 AM

[Slade]

Really? Sorta like Hitler had "his country" at heart huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wonderful. Just throw out some buzz words no one likes in an attempt to belittle someone else's arguments via association. Sounds familiar...

I could probably go into detail with your statement, but I'll make it brief.

1. Hitler had world conquest on his mind, Hussein was perfectly content ruling Iraq.

2. The fact that Hitler was a Nazi (which is what you a surely attempting to force a reader to connect [since what else would you associate with him, that bad mustache?]) has no relevence on the argument that people will react more violently to invasion than political takeover. In fact, you just helped it. Notice how there was no revolution when Hitler took over? Stick to the facts and leave the mud slinging to the politicians.

Edit: Had to throw in the quote because my post got moved down due to more posting while I was typing it.

This post has been edited by Slade: 24 July 2005 - 12:33 AM

[Renegade]

Btw, depends what your definiton of "puppet" is. If Iraq gets a puppet like the Shah (which they won't because they'll atleast have some form of decent democracy), it's still better than Saddam or any other fundementalist govt.

[Slade]

Cursed double posts...

This post has been edited by Slade: 24 July 2005 - 12:29 AM

[Renegade]

1. Hitler had world conquest on his mind, Hussein was perfectly content ruling Iraw.

Not much of a reader on history or Saddam are you? He invaded Iran/Kuwait.. he had in mind to create a "grand" Middle Eastern empire under his own rule. Just because he failed and Hitler was more successful (for atleast a short time) doesn't make them different by principle.

Once you guys admit that the "freedom fighters" are in actuality a brutal radical faction that wants their own will empossed on their people I may give in that America is only in Iraq for economic purposes and selfish gains. Otherwise your argument is just really pissing me off now with sympathy for people who are killers.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 24 July 2005 - 12:32 AM

[Renegade]

What the FUCK business does the only nation ever to deploy nuclear weapons against civilian targets have to be telling people who can and can not have unvonventional weapons?

And here's another point: A friggen tube of nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's a tube of nerve gas. At the height of Saddam's arsenal he couldnt have killed as many people as the imperialist aggression has. And the US uses conventional weapons (MOAB for instance) that make what Saddam had look like nothing.

Ever heard of UN Resolutions? He was by international law not allowed to have em, assuming he did we were completely justified to go in (and the rest of the world woulda had to been in on it too). For someone who barashes America for violating international law, you seem to care fuck all when others do it.

[Renegade]

Wonderful. Just throw out some buzz words no one likes in an attempt to belittle someone else's arguments via association. Sounds familiar...

Not really, but when someone says something as insanely ridiculous like "oh saddam did what he did for the benefit of his common man Iraqi" I'll have to slam you with some blunt honestly...

[Slade]

And once you admit that the US is a corrupt crumbling empire ruled by the wealthy elite and with their best interests in mind and we're not some idealistic noble nation out to spread "freedom and democracy", I'll give in to, uh... something... How about that pure socialism doesn't work because humanity is disgustingly self-serving? Speaking of that, let's be honest. Neither of us are going to give in to things we don't already believe, so why beat around the nush any longer?

And how silly of me to have forgotten the first Gulf War. Oh well. That entire statement was irrelevant because you failed to actually debate anything. And we gave him weapons to invade Iran, in case you've forgotten.

Lets see if this post remains relevant or needs quoting now...