Do You Support the Iraqi Resistance Movement?

Meanwhile here's a sample of the activities of your valid resistance, boys...


Communist leader murdered by “resistance”

Iraqi Communist Party's Central Committee Mourns the Loss of Leading Member Comrade Wadhah Hassan Abdul Amir

The Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party has mourned with deepest sorrow its enormous loss with the death of Comrade Wadhah Hassan Abdul Amir (Saadoun), the member of its Politburo, and also a member of the Interim National Assembly, who was martyred on 13th November 2004, along with two of his comrades, while travelling from Baghdad to Kirkuk. Their car was attacked by a criminal gang of murderers and remnants of the ousted dictatorship.

A statement issued by the party said that martyrdom of comrade Saadoun constitutes "a grave loss which would be difficult to replace".

The comrade was "an example of pure and genuine patriotism, full of love for the people and homeland ... He was a fully dedicated communist, who committed his life for the cause of the oppressed and toilers, and for the ideals of justice and socialism, devoting all his abilities and potential for its triumph".
Comrade Saadoun joined the party in his early youth, embarking along a path of relentless struggle, full of courage and sacrifice, along with its members. After joining the Partisan Movement of the Party and armed struggle against the bloody dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, he emerged as a courageous leader through battles fought in the mountains and valleys of Kurdistan. This feat won him the admiration and affection of the people of Kurdistan.

During that period and afterwards, he was actively involved in the Party's clandestine work against the hated regime, thus deserving additional wrath and hatred by the Security and Intelligence apparatus of the dictatorship. He was targeted and pursued by agents of these instruments of repression and terror, with the aim of capturing and physically liquidating him.

After the collapse of Saddam's regime, the late comrade devoted all his potential for the process of rebuilding the Party, consolidating its organisations in the new conditions so as to enable it to continue its march forward. These qualities, as well as other personal merits, meant that he emerged, at a relatively young age, as a leading cadre who was then elected to the Party leadership.

The Central Committee statement also mourned the martyrdom of two courageous comrades, Nawzad Tawfiq Tawfiq and Hasib Mustafa Hassan, who were accompanying comrade Saadoun; conveying its deepest condolences to their families, comrades and friends.

Iraqi CP's Central Committee strongly denounced the cowardly criminals who are shedding the blood of patriots and innocent citizens, and reiterated the Party's determination to continue the fight alongside the Iraqi people in their just battle for freedom, democracy, justice and progress.
-------------------------------------------------
www.iraqcp.org

Which party said:

bin or bush said:

Your either with us or against us

Click to expand...

no room for moderates in this conflict of extremists & wierdly the cp are relegated to status of moderates, (presumably that's your excuse for c&p from the cp, olly )

(could we move this lovely thread to politix when you got a mo, plz, matt, ta!)

not even all of the religious opposition is involved in assassination and snuff,
for example the Sadrists, who may have assassinated enemies, but have not produced kidnap videos & who are also participating in the 'democratic' process.
the 'resistance' are a lot more more heterogenous than the occupiers, where command is centralised under 1 extremist religious regime!

my enemy's enemy is my enemy

I think the article indicates how heterogenous the idea of 'resistance' in Iraq is...the Communist Part has, in the past, tried to lump itself in with what it calls 'the Iraqi resistance' - they mean, however, the majority of Iraqis...

meanwhile, it shows the utter folly of left-wing indulgence of Islamists...whether its Naomi Klein and Sadr, or France and Hezbollah...

I have a hunch - I may be wrong - but a hunch that most Iraqis wouldn't vote for the Commumnist Party or the Shi'ite extremists (and/or Sadrists) or the ex-Ba'athists, shouly they dein the partake in an election: most will, I hope, take the middle road.

People, generally, aren't suicidal.

I can imagine Iraq producing, eventually, an over-heated, over-crowded, flawed-but-lively parliamentary system like Israel - lots of narrow and broad coalition governments suceeding each other, plenty of drama, back-stabbing, occasionaly inspiring, or cyncical, or sensible...

...there'd be enough fucking factions involved, for a start...

Excuse all the mistakes. I write rather too fast.

sufi said:

the 'resistance' are a lot more more heterogenous than the occupiers, where command is centralised under 1 extremist religious regime!

Click to expand...

Very well put, Sufi, I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's a ridiculous (and, sadly, widespread) notion to consider the 'resistance' as a coordinated movement with common ideology or leadership. Consequently, the removal of figures such as al-Zarkawi will do absolutely nothing to pacify the situation, quite the contrary --- this is one of the many reasons why the so-called 'War on Terror' is doomed to fail.
Simply put, calling everyone who takes up arms against the occupation a 'terrorist' does not accurately reflect the fact that each person has their own reasons for doing so, some of which I can sympathize with.

So where's this notion come from that I reduce the Iraqi resistance to one monolithic bloc? Au contraire, you fucks. I'd don't even accept the idea that there is a valid, legitimate resistance. I accept that a lot of Iraqis resent Us actions, post-liberation. I would to. I do, anyway. But I'd rather not talk about The Resistance: I'd rather talk about the ex-Ba'ath thugs, the Iran and syria-supported Shia militias, the jihadi hijackers who make up the active anti-democratic, anti-liberty, anti-life vanguard.

The ones who would rather die than allow Iraqis to vote for a stable, free Iraq.

Something someone said ages ago on another thread: something like, what do you think people in the Middle East would do if they got the chance to vote? They'd vote to abolish democracy. That's what he said. I thought that was - well, I'm sure it wasn't his intention - but it was a racist slur, pretty much.

The War on Terror is not doomed to fail, because people don't believe in the ultimate aims of Islamism. Islamist Regimes don't, and wouldn't, work. Here are the nearest examples we've had of Islamist regimes: saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Taliban Afghanistan...

Does anybody remember the convulsions in Algeria? That's the ultimate testimont to Islamist ideology as State politics, its failure or impossibility.

And what if the War on Terror (WWIV) is lost by the West? Are you all too complacent to even consider the implications of this?

What are the reasons for taking up (or supporting) terrorism rather than embracing democratic reform?

Plus I like the way you all insist on emphasising the complexity of the Iraqi resistance while doing the very opposite in regards to Western motives and the various and disparate entities involved (so fucking complex that Iraq has become a right mess. I recommend reading the Rubin article above to get some faint hint of this...Allawi was a CIA man...that's a very important detail...a useful exercise: work out why.)

oliver craner said:

The ones who would rather die than allow Iraqis to vote for a stable, free Iraq.

Click to expand...

C'mon, do you actually think that a "stable, free Iraq" is what they're going to get to vote for, rather than a dependant US client state? Because I'm sure it must have occured to some of these resistance groups that the election is much more a means of creating some international legitimacy for the US supported Iraqi gov't. Seen in this light, resisting the elections can be seen as trying to ensure that the US can't put up a false front of supposedly independant Iraqi leadership in front of their own control. The current US-chosen (and ex-CIA man) Allawi is a much more blatant symbol of American influence, and to legitimize him through elections would be a blow to the resistance.

Not to say that this is the motivation of the resistance fighters, or that I don't think elections in Iraq are a good thing. I do sincerely hope for elections in iraq, but I would wish them to be as uninfluenced as possible by America, which is something that the current elections are most likely not going to be.

a nice little article about American influence on the Afghani elections (and Iraq as well) can be found here


(thread re-railed...)

oliver craner said:

you fucks.

Click to expand...

Easy there, Mr. Craner. Insults, a hallmark of the desperate, never get you respect.

allow Iraqis to vote for a stable, free Iraq.

Click to expand...

This neatly glosses over the fact that Saddam was in power for decades (with tacit Western approval, ---support, even --- not to say weapon supplies) and no one in the world gave a hoot about Ba'athist slaughter and oppression. Isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to work up such hysteria now? After all, we can't claim to be ignorant of what was going on in Iraq before, can we?

They'd vote to abolish democracy.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that, but assuming they did, and it was a free and fair election, we'd have to accept it, simple as that. Not very democratic of us to be foisting democracy onto anyone who doesn't want it.

The War on Terror is not doomed to fail, because people don't believe in the ultimate aims of Islamism. Islamist Regimes don't, and wouldn't, work. Here are the nearest examples we've had of Islamist regimes: saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Taliban Afghanistan....

Click to expand...

The choice between Islamists and CIA-backed puppets is not so easy to make (typhus or cholera, anyone?)so many might go with the former just because they resent intrusive foreign influence in the form of armed occupation.
In the end, what do you want to achieve with a War on Terror? All you are creating is a permanent state of crisis which has no solution, or do you really believe this will stop when enough people have been killed? If so, you have not a clue of the resilence and spirit of the Arab people, which will remain unbroken long after the US and its lackeys lose their will to fight.
Re.: your examples of 'Islamist' regimes. I wouldn't call Saudi Arabia or Pakistan Islamist, but think just a minute what state these regimes would be in without the Western military and political support they received / are receiving.

Does anybody remember the convulsions in Algeria? That's the ultimate testimont to Islamist ideology as State politics, its failure or impossibility.

Click to expand...

Isn't much of the instability in Algeria due to the fact that the Islamist FIS party, which had legitimately won democratic elections in the early 90s, was not allowed to actually take over the government? Or do we only accept the results of democratic elections when the results are convenient for us?

And what if the War on Terror (WWIV) is lost by the West? Are you all too complacent to even consider the implications of this?

Click to expand...

C'mon, as if the War on Terror (WOT?) is the last Crusade of civilized Christian humankind against the barbaric hordes of Islam. It is a misguided attempt at removing people once made strong by Western complacency and political calculation, former allies who now have developed (surprise!) their own agendas and have turned upon those who tolerated and made them strong in the first place.

I have to be fast and I regret that - but let me dash off a few points...

first, you fucks wasn't an insult - I am far from desperate - more a punctuation, and something to do with my sense of humour. 'Au contraire, you fucks' - it just made me laugh. Surely you weren't insulted...

Western attitudes to ME powers decades ago aren't relevant to the facts on the ground now - you can critise in retrospect, you can criticise now - but you can't reduce then to now. That's doesn't make an argument. I don't gloss the sins of past regimes, any of them...

Why do you assume Iraqis don't want democracy, per se?

The CIA-puppet is not likely to succeed in the forthcoming election. I wonder where your argument will be then. Allawi is no Karzai - everybody knows that. The only people who like Allawi are the State Dept, the CIA and MI6. They also approve of his re-Ba'athification programme.

The House of Saud has cut a pact with the Wahhabi clerics, and I'm not going to expalin how that works here, but a good deal of the royals adhere to Wahhabi stricture, despite religious outrage and disgust at Royal excess...Saudi Arabia civilians are ruled along the lines of Wahhabi law - it's an Islamist Kingdom...a place torn apart by contradiction

Plus everybody knows how compromised Musharraf is by Sunni extremists in the Pakistan military and ISI as well as the influential Islamist parties and the tribal heartlands and all the money it recieves to fund strict religious education in its schools in preference to maths, sciences, languages...c'mon, please...do I have to read and listen for you...

Apparently, polling the Iraqi vote shows that: "Not only those in the Shia south, but also many Baghdadis talk about voting 169, the position of the Iraqi National Alliance on the ballot. Many others say they plan to vote for President Ghazi al-Yawar's list. Most Kurds will support Masud Barzani and Jalal Talabani's Kurdish list." (Rubin) Allwai looks to be left out in the cold.

Your more hysterical accusations and assertions, I shall leave aside. I just wanted to clear up the elementary stuff.

oliver craner said:

Western attitudes to ME powers decades ago aren't relevant to the facts on the ground now - you can critise in retrospect, you can criticise now - but you can't reduce then to now. That's doesn't make an argument. I don't gloss the sins of past regimes, any of them...

Click to expand...

They're not relevant? And all the military hardware given to Saddam over the years, is that also irrelevant to the 'facts on the ground' now? Maaan.

Why do you assume Iraqis don't want democracy, per se?

Click to expand...

Mr. Craner, I explicitly wrote I didn't believe they would vote to abolish democracy.

The CIA-puppet is not likely to succeed in the forthcoming election. I wonder where your argument will be then.

Click to expand...

I hope not, but how can I possibly have an 'argument' if I say the choice between Islamists and CIA puppets is like choosing either typhus or cholera?

Saudi Arabia...it's an Islamist Kingdom...a place torn apart by contradiction

Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia is a corrupt pseudo-religious regime which wouldn't last a day without US troop presence to protect foreign interests and the house of Saud from the Islamist backlash. Bin Laden's plans for Saudi Arabia, now that's Islamist.

Plus everybody knows how compromised Musharraf is by Sunni extremists in the Pakistan military and ISI as well as the influential Islamist parties and the tribal heartlands and all the money it recieves to fund strict religious education in its schools in preference to maths, sciences, languages...

Click to expand...

And still Pakistan receives so much American aid money. How does Pervez do it, I wonder?

c'mon, please...do I have to read and listen for you...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's just risible.

Your more hysterical accusations and assertions, I shall leave aside.

Click to expand...

No offense, Mr. Craner, but some serious chilling out and unwinding wouldn't be a bad move. Why the need to get so personal?

oliver craner said:

Western attitudes to ME powers decades ago aren't relevant to the facts on the ground now - you can critise in retrospect, you can criticise now - but you can't reduce then to now. That's doesn't make an argument. I don't gloss the sins of past regimes, any of them...

Click to expand...

agree with Redcresent above, this is bullshit. Do you think the Iraqi's opinions of the US just popped fully formed out of a vaccuum when the US invaded?

I've been on you for this ignoring-history thing before Oliver, so I figure maybe I should defer to a more authoritative source...Far Side comics!

Okay, also:

oliver craner said:

Apparently, polling the Iraqi vote shows that: "Not only those in the Shia south, but also many Baghdadis talk about voting 169, the position of the Iraqi National Alliance on the ballot. Many others say they plan to vote for President Ghazi al-Yawar's list. Most Kurds will support Masud Barzani and Jalal Talabani's Kurdish list." (Rubin) Allwai looks to be left out in the cold.

Click to expand...

So Allawi may not win, this is great. However, with America's biggest embassy in the world sitting right down the street, and many of Iraq's laws (especially those concerning the occupying army) already written by the Americans, again it's hard to see how this new gov't could be considered "free" or independant in any real sense. How the hell can a gov't be free to do what it wants when it's occupied by a couple hundred thousand troops under foreign control? Whoever gets elected is still going to have to toe the line to the Americans in most of the important policy decisions. America did NOT invade Iraq to let the Iraqis set up whatever gov't they wanted.

Also there's the issue of the lack of Sunni involvement in the election...which doesn't really support or refute my argument, but certainly doesn't look good for this upcoming gov't to have the full support of the iraqi people.

redcrescent said:

They're not relevant? And all the military hardware given to Saddam over the years, is that also irrelevant to the 'facts on the ground' now? Maaan.

Click to expand...

I don't want to get dragged into this thread, but this is one of those great myths, that Saddam was primarily armed by the United States.

It just ain't so.

Continue as you were.