wnker85

I was thinking in Iraq the terrorists are attacking their own people now. And, that would alienate their drawing crowd.

Isn’t a guerilla force supposed to attack the stationed army to demoralize their country and turn the locals against the army? By, taking out their own people who are helping won’t more people support the army instead of the terrorists?

I ask because those I know who served over there say that the Iraqis are kind and happy that they have gotten rid of Saddam.

Mephisto2

Well, what most people don't realize, or forget when they get emotional about this issue, is that there are (generally speaking) two different groups involved.

There are the "normal" insurgents, who simply want to fight the US occupiers, their allies and those who they see as collaborators. It's no different from how the French Resistance used to kill Vichy French forces in WWII.

Then there is the more sinister forces at work. These are those who want to provoke a civil war. They are attacking Christians and Sunni religious leaders and places of worship. They are carrying out acts of blatant terrorism. They want to whole country to degenerate into a messy civil war as this, they believe, will hurt America in the long run and avoid a (as they see it) a puppet regime from being installed.

So the answer is yes and no. Yes, the terrorists are hurting their own people, but that's kinda what they want to do anyway. And no, the "insurgents" are not hurting their own people as they are primarily fighting the Allies and the Interim Regime.


Mr Mephisto

hammer4all

There's not going to be a civil war. The insurgency is united against the U.S. occupation. Christian Parenti has been to Iraq 3 times and recently downplayed the prospect of a civil war. There is not that much division between the groups right now as they all see themselves victims of an unwanted foreign occupation. Most Iraqis are just really sad and depressed about all the killing around them and would rather the U.S. leave.

Parenti gave a good overview of the whole situation on Flashpoints this past Monday. The U.S. has already lost the war. The insurgency is stronger than it's ever been and the election will change nothing. The names on the ballot haven't even been announced yet for "security" reasons. The election is total shame. There is no reconstruction going on because there is no security. Journalists are too afraid to even leave their hotels. It's hopeless. The question is: how many more must die before Bush finally figures it out?

http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html#2005-01-17

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...401/index.html

Mephisto2

How can you reconcile these two statements?

If the insurgents continue to attack the Interim, and later Provisional, Government, then what do you call it? Unrest?

Whilst I agree that Iraq may not descend into a religious civil war, that's obviously the result that the terrorists are trying to provoke. Why else bomb mosques and churches? Indeed, a Shi'te mosque was just bombed hours ago with the deaths of over 13 people. How does that equate to insurgency?

Finally, because someone called Christian Parenti "downplayed" the prospect of civil war, this means it's automatically the truth? Hmmm... I should ask him for next week's Lotto numbers.


Mr Mephisto

wnker85

How can you claim we have lost so early in the game. Can you not wait to see how the elections turn out and see what happens when Iraqis start to police themselves for real. It is way too early to call this war. Take a step back for the anti-Bush mind and look at the whole picture. Yes, there were not WMD's, but we took out a evil man. Yes, people are still dying, but we are trying to set them up to rule themselves. We are trying to do the right thing, and as long as you say we have lost before seeing the outcome then you hurt the effort that we are trying to put forth.

daswig

Mephisto, the people on Hammer's side of the argument are counting....COUNTING on destroying Bush's and the American People's will to win. They know that they can't defeat us militarily, so they encourage the insurgents to adopt the most horrible methods to try and convince the American people that it's just not worth it. It's Vietnam all over again. Giap stated (I'm paraphrasing here) that he knew that the war was militarily lost, but people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda were his one great hope, that they could "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" for America, and so all Giap had to do was keep the heat on and wait. It worked then, and now the "Hate America no matter what they do" crowd is trying to do it again.

daswig

BTW, folks, let me drop this on yall:

I'd suggest that this logic should be applied to the general population as well.

The_Dunedan

You're welcome to try it on me, if you like, Daswig. I oppose this war on moral, Constitutional, fiscal, and practical grounds, and I make no bones about it. I've got friends over there and one who just came back: I'll back them to the hilt, but the men who sent them over there in defiance of law are traitors, and I'll say that plain.

If you want me hung, do it yourself. Don't send some poor cop to do it; he's got a family to feed, and I gaurantee you that anyone who comes after me with the intent of silencing or disarming me will have a fight on their hands.

daswig

The person who originally made that quote sent the military to carry out his policies. In one well-known case (google "Vallandigham"), a Congressman from Ohio was tried by military tribunal, stripped of his citizenship, and then deported.

If you choose to resist the lawful authorities in the execution of their duties, that's your business. My experience has been that those who loudly proclaim "they'll never take me alive!" are the ones who end up being taken into custody without a struggle once they're faced with the reality of their situation.

Manx

This view, that the people opposed to the war are the reason the war has failed to achieve the victory that was promised is absurd, particularly when we consider the reports that were created and subsequently ignored by this administration that predicted a long bitter fight with an insurgency. Unless you presume that those reports were written with the expectation that the anti-war crowd in the U.S. would exist and therefore cause the war to change from flowers-at-our-feet to IEDs-on-the-roads.

This line of reasoning is amazing, really. That it is stated that the morale of the opposition is bolstered by the anti-war crowd in the U.S. and that this is the primary, if not sole, reason that the war has been so bitter. Ignoring, of course, the nature of modern armed conflict between a large powerful force and a small weak force. A nature that inevitably includes guerilla tactics which are near impossible to contain by the larger, more powerful force. This nature of warfare is brushed aside and the blame for the failure is placed squarely on the shoulders of those people who correctly claimed from the start that such tactics of war would be inevitable.

This would be laughable if not for the fact that far too many voters in this country actually believe it.

daswig

dang, duplicate post.

Manx

and mine as well

daswig

I guess you've never heard of a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

Actually, a lot of it is caused by the way the MSM, still a bastion of anti-Americanism, is reporting on it. In over a full year of war, we've lost less people than we lost on the beaches during D-Day, when we were faced by old men and young boys as an adversary (read Keegan on the makeup of the beach defense units). The TOTAL number of civilian and military deaths is far less than a single night of carpetbombing with conventional munitions produced.

During the actual invasion, I recall seeing pictures of Iraqi military people who were using women and children as human shields because they thought that American soldiers would allow themselves to be killed rather than kill the human shields to get at the guy shooting at them. I wonder who gave them THAT idea?

The_Dunedan

This from the man whos' sole contribution to a discussion on civil unrest was to brag about his machineguns, and how much use they'd get in such a scenario.

daswig

Ah, but you see, there's a pretty big difference between saying "I'll do what's necessary in accordance with the law, even if it means shooting people", and saying "I hope I get a chance to shoot cops." One is describing a legal act, and one isn't.

Hey, aren't you the guy who "called bullshit" on my owning MGs?

The_Dunedan

Yes, in fact, I was; you'll recall however that this was prior to you giving an explanation as to how you came to own such a now-valuable stash of weaponry.

I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth, as well. I never said anything remotely like "I hope I get a chance to shoot cops." If you'll check above, I specifically said that I -didn't- want to shoot cops. And for the record, any attempt to divest me ( or you ) of our Rights ( including the right to criticise whomever we like, whenever we like, however we like ) would be unConstitutional, and therefore Unlawful. Therefore, resistance to such an unlawful act would, in fact, be lawful. Contrary to your apparent wishes, we are not governed by UCMJ ( although we're sadly getting closer every day ).

Bookman

I never cast judgement but it really must be understood that the people who persist on believing the official line have to be crazy, so stuborn that they seem crazy or just blind like the sheep. How could you logically repeat from what you get from the idiot box after the revelation that there were indeed no WMD and that the search is over? After Boxer ripped Condi to shreds and Condo just took the moral high-road? After the taxpayers in DC spent 40 mil for yesterdays 'For Video Only" party in DC while the boys are not equipped with the armor to protect themselves.

WAKE UP!

The_Dunedan

OK, Daswig, I just looked up the case you referenced. This matter is disgusting; not surprising coming from A. Lincoln, but disgusting nonetheless.

You do realize, don't you, that you're supporting the FedGov sending armed troops or Federal Agents to arrest someone in the middle of the night, try them by a Military Court under UCMJ ( even though the person in question is a civillian ) and impose upon them deportation, stripping of Citizenship, or death? Do you really grasp the level of tyranny that you're lending your support to?

Of course, considering that the USA PARTIOT act and 9-11 Bill also allow all these things, I'm not surprised.

daswig

And why do I have to explain why or how I own stuff? And believe it or not, the guns were "valuable" when I bought them. The fact that they've appreciated with time is irrelevant. Yeah, I know that they are expensive now, but they're much cheaper now than they'll be in 2015. So why aren't you buying them? You can get a Mac for what I paid for my '34 when I bought it... and in 10 years, it'll be going for what my '34 is going for now. My excuse is that I don't have any more rooms in the safes (and to be honest, I couldn't list more than 80% of the contents of the safes now without consulting my stack of Form 3s and 4s), and getting another safe to store more guns in would be...well...."excessive". What's your excuse?

I suggest you read the law regarding slander and libel before you say we can "criticize whomever we like, whenever we like, however we like". I think that the First Amendment doesn't quite go as far as you think it does. I'm sure the Rosenbergs felt that they had a constitutional right to disseminate information the way they did, but they both still justifiably ended up in the gas chamber for it, regardless of the First Amendment. As I'm sure you know, the rules of this website prohibit posting of pictures of children, ANY children. While I can't speak for the admins, I'm relatively sure it's because child pornography is very, very illegal, regardless of the First Amendment, and because of the various "adult" areas, they're being safer rather than sorry, which is a very pragmatic approach, which I applaud. And as the famous OWH quote goes "You cannot falsely yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater." You also might want to read up on Eugene Debs, and how he came to spend time in prison for speaking to the "party faithful" during his Presidential campaign.

If you ever shoot a cop for carrying out what you see as an "unlawful" order or law, you MUST realize that if you make it into custody alive, you're going to spend the rest of your life in a cell right next to people like the "Freemen" from Montana. Well, right up to the point that they stick the needle in your arm...But don't take my word for it, just go to your local psychic and ask Tim McVey...or that guy who formed a corporation and then shot the cop, on the theory that he was acting for the corporation and not himself, so he wouldn't be punished, but the corporation would be...

As for not being punished under the UCMJ, well, Lincoln said what he said and did what he did far before the UCMJ existed. Vallandigham was NOT in the military. And it still happened.

daswig

I'm aware that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is NOT a suicide pact. I'm also aware that treason is most definitely a constitutionally defined crime (Article 3 Section 3) and that the Bill of Rights specifically mentions capital crimes in Amendment 5. If a person is tried and convicted of treason and sentenced to death, it's 100% constitutional. And that's EXACTLY what we're talking about here..."giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

The_Dunedan

Daswig,
1: "Aid and Comfort" in the then-current parlance meant -physical- things, such as food, munitions, horses, etc. The modern equivalent would be my selling ammunition to Germany, like A. B. Brown ( Prescott Bush's company ) did up until 1943 when it was shut down under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Check editions 1-4 of Blacks Law Dictionary.

2: Criticism and Libel/Slander are not the same thing, legally, semantically, or otherwise.

3: Any trial for Treason, like any other trial of a Civillian, must be carried out in a Civillian court, by a jury of peers, in the open in order to be Constitutional. You know this as well as I do; don't be disingenious.

4: My final comment on this thread: you seem to be one of those people who will support whatever the Gov't does, no matter how unConstitutional it might be: the trial and imprisonment of E. Debs is a good example of this. I'm curious as to how you got this way, being that you're an MG owner; or are you one of those gunowners who will turn in his guns and go play AirSoft if "the order" ever comes down? If so, you're nothing but a blowhard hobbyist with expensive toys. If not, then you are a Grade-A Hypocrite who supports Constitutional infringements "For thee, not me;" the kind of gunowner who will take any amount of reaming so long as a Republican is responsible. Either you support the whole Constitution, or nothing of it; you don't get to pick and choose which bits are conveniant.

Manx

You're having some serious issues with post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this. Simply because military strategists and anti-war people predicted that the war would not be anything close to the walk in the park the pro-war crowd suggested most certainly does not mean that the war was not the walk in the park the pro-war crowd suggested because military strategists and anti-war people predicted it would not.

In fact, to even suggest there is a primary causal effect there is either intentionally deceptive or comically stupid.

But since I have read your posts in the past and been in a couple of discussions with you, I recognize this to be entirely fruitless. So I'm out.

daswig

Sorry, I just have Black's 6th edition, which states "Aid and comfort. Help, support, assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element of the crime of treason (Constitution of the United States, Art. III, § 3), the giving of "aid and comfort" to the enemy may consist in a mere attempt. It is not essential to constitute the giving of aid and comfort that the enterprise commenced should be sucessful and actually render assistance. An act which intentionally strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies. Any intentional act furthering hostile designs of enemies of the United States. United States v. Haupt, D.C. Ill., 47 F.Supp.836, 839."

It depends. If your criticism crosses the line into libel or slander, then such criticism is not protected by the First Amendment, yes?

Really? So the actions of a civilian contractor on a federal military reservation is only culpable under the civil law, and not the UCMJ??? Cite, please. Also, please notice that Art. III § 3 states "open court"...not "open civilian court". I'd also suggest you read Art. III §1, and realize that Courts Martial are indeed promulgated by Congress as an inferior court under that section, and that they have just as much Constitutionally based authority as the Federal Circuit courts have. Indeed, trials under the UCMJ are generally conducted in front of a jury, so "that dog don't hunt", either.

Nope, I just have actually studied the Constitution and the law, and don't get my constitutional talking points from JPFO's "Gran'pa Jack" comic books et al. I have a reality-based understanding of the Constitution. You can insult me all you want, but the fact remains that I've 'walked the walk", not just "talked the talk." The term "wannabe" is not one that is generally applied to me.

Yakk

So, you really believe the war in Veitnam was a good thing for the USA to be doing?

Veitnam was a mistake piled upon a mistake piled upon a mistake, held together by hubris, and resulted in the deaths of millions.

Let me drop this on you:
I'd suggest that this logic be applied to you.

Over 50% of the first wave of invasion of D-Day on Omaha beach died. Those soldiers faced death, and you dismiss their sacrafice as small. D-Day was a sacrafice of blood made by heros. Please don't belittle it.

Boats of soldiers charging up steep seawalls into artillery and automatic weapon fire. Beaches covered in death. The largest amphibious invasion in the history of the fucking world, the turning point of the western front of the largest war in human history -- and just because fewer people have died in Iraq than one of the bloodiest battles of human history, you consider it ignoreable?

Fuck. People really think that way?

Have you truely grasped the concept that the law and morality are different things? I can point you to a philosphical explanation if you'd like.

Many laws are moral, but something being illegal doesn't make it immoral. A very simple extension above the 'law = morality' ethical system is acknowledging the constitution and other social contracts as being above the law. If you push far enough, you can even get to the point where "it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees" becomes more than a cute slogan.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

daswig

And you don't seem to understand that the anti-war people led by Ramsey Clark's "International A.N.S.W.E.R." (You remember Ramsey Clark, right? Saddam Hussein's attorney of record in the United States, right?) virtually gave the Iraqi resistance a blueprint on how to try to weaken American resolve in the war. When a group with extensive ties to the enemy starts saying "this is how the US will lose the war", and the enemy starts following their blueprint, it makes a rational person wonder if there might be some collusion going on there, yes?

daswig

Vietnam was not lost on the battlefields. It was lost by the treasonous efforts of American citizens. Even Giap admits this. The battles of Vietnam resulted in over a million dead people. Communism itself resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of dead people. Was fighting communism wrong? Well, I guess that depends on if a person is a communist or not.

Strange that Franklin didn't seem to have a problem with Art. III § 3...


I didn't belittle it. I'm merely pointing out that in terms of a "stand-up fight" such as D-Day, the US casualties in Iraq are accurrately described as "light".

powerclown

Yes, yes they are.
I read that one tried to stick an IED in a dead dog's ass, and it woke up bit him!

Yakk

How was Treason a requirement for opposing the war?

At least some, if not most, of the war protesters where trying to point out that the US was wrong in engaging in war.

Calling that treason is a recipie for tyranny.

On the American side, you where fighting a grand war against the evil's of communism.

On the Veitnam side, you where fighting a colonial war of oppression against a people longing to be an independant people.

My position is, the Veitnam was was a mistake, an error. America got into the war without knowing what it was doing. America fucked up.

If you presuppose that Veitnam was a war of good against evil -- guess what, it is easy to show that Vietnam wasn't a mistake! But it wasn't a war against the ideology of communism.

The end of the Vietnam war was caused, partially, by the USA figuring this out. Pointing out where the USA is wrong isn't treason, it is the duty of every patriotic American citizen.

I'll assume you have evidence to back this assertion up?

There are many things the constitution allows.
The USA can declair war on every nation in the world, according to the constitution.
The USA can prevent any trade from occuring between the states.

If the US constituion permits someone who protests against the US being in war that the person believes to be bad for the US to be made into a traitor, then this is just something the US constitution permits.

That which is permitted is not that which is required.

Second, someone who isn't adhering to the enemy cannot be found guilty of Treason under the US constitution.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

daswig

<img src="http://bigalivy.com/STUFF/Fonda.jpg" /img>

"I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." --Jane Fonda, Michigan State University, 1970

Nope, no treason there...

In the 1930's, there was an organization very similar to what you are advocating. It was called the "German-American Bund."

The "peace" movement was from the "get-go" a communist tool. It was financed by the Soviet Union. It was riddled with not just Communist sympathisers, but actual Soviet agents (since the Soviet Union collapsed, this has been confirmed from, of all places, the KGB's own files). Unfortunately, a lot of people "bought into" what they were selling, but fortunately not enough to destroy the US, as was their intention. Not all people involved in the Peace movement were actual traitors. Some were just the 1960's version of Neville Chamberlaine, with communism substituted for fascism.

The Democrats ran on the "Treason is Patriotic!" platform in 2004. This is proof that appeasement of our enemies is still somewhat in style.


You're asking me to prove a negative. Can you come up with a quote where Franklin was condemning Article III § 3?

Do you know the legal definition of "adhering"? It doesn't involve interpersonal contact and a tube of Crazy-glue. You say: "That which is permitted is not required." The fact that somebody isn't prosecuted for a crime does not mean that they are innocent of that crime, does it?

Mephisto2

Daswig, can we please leave the "Jane Fonda is a traitor", "Lincoln should be hanged", "I own guns and will shoot you" posts to relevant threads?

We all know your position, but none of these have any bearing on this particular topic. You know me. I'll argue with you if I believe I'm right, and have done so over several of the topics, but I can't see them being appropriate to this thread.

Do YOU think the terrorists are hurting themselves? If so, how and why? And please answer without referring to Jane Fonda...


Mr Mephisto

Coppertop

Wait, this thread is about terrorists hurting themselves? Who'da thunk it?

daswig

No, I don't think the terrorists are hurting themselves. After all, they're simply following the "anti-war, anti-American" playbook point by point. Since the people advocating their plan here in the US are trying to use our system against us, the terrorists have nothing to lose. After all, their goal isn't to install an American-style democracy, it's to install a fundamentalist theocracy. If the terrorists win, the people in Iraq aren't going to be living in a free society, they'll be living in a society where dissent is met by stoning. Consequently, where's the downside for the terrorists?

BTW, ya know what the best part of dating Rachael Corrie is? On trips, she doesn't take up much space, and will fit into a garment bag so she qualifies as a "carry-on". Heh. Flat Chick jokes.

Yakk

Lets suppose the US goes into a war in which the US is harming itself more than it is helping itself.

Opposing that war is treasonous?

Being of the opinion that the US should not be engaged in any war in which it is currently fighting is Treasonous?

Any act by the government that is, in the governments position, advancing the US's cause in war, is Treasonous to oppose?

Attempting to politically defeat a government based on a platform of leaving a war is Treasonous?

I'm just wondering what soft of case you are argueing, given this:

By this, do you mean 49% of the USA should be put to death for Treason? Or are you restricting the death penalty to the leadership of the party which you disagree with?

I don't know if Ben Franklin was in favour or against A3S3 of the US constitution. And I'm not about to make shit up just to bolster my position.

It looks like you just made up the 'fact' that 'Ben Franklin had no problem with A3S3 of the USC'. Feel free to correct me if you actually have some evidence.

If I asserted he hated that section, you'd have ground to stand on. You don't.

I'm guessing "yes", they are hurting themselves, depending on what their goal is.

The US military foces are pretty hard targets. They are now attacking softer targets, like people supporting the US-backed government.

This probably looks far more negative to people trying to decide which side they should support.

At the same time, it will make people far more reluctant to work with the US in Iraq. Which fits most of the rebel's goals.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

daswig

It depends on how you oppose it. Voting against the war isn't treasonous. Adhering to the enemy IS.

Once again, we're looking at ACTIONS, not opinions. In my book, attending an International A.N.S.W.E.R rally, giving them money, or aiding them in ANY way is treasonous, since they are literally a thinly veiled front group for the enemy.

To the leadership? Not all of it, just those "leaders" who actively appease and support America's enemies. Read Harkin's "Dear Commandante" letters for an example.

So you're saying that Franklin OPPOSED ratification of the US Constitution? Then explain this:

Yakk

Would you stop making up shit to support your position? You just quoted me saying I do not know if Ben Franklin was in favour or against A3S3 of the US constitution. As that is the only section of the US constitution we have discussed, why would you imply I believe he opposed the US constitution?

*sigh* Are you trying to be ridiculous?

You claimed to know he had no objections to it. I asked you how you knew this. Apparently the answer is telepathy:

If he had objections, he wouldn't say them publically, based on his own words.

I don't know Ben Franklin's mind. I only quoted something he said.

There are at least 3 opinions on every fact.

I could believe the fact is true.
I could believe the fact is false.
I could believe I don't know either way.

When you claim something is true or false, and I ask for evidence, it isn't always because I claim the opposite.

So, as long as you don't try to tell people you oppose the war (which is what an ANSWER rally is), you won't get hung for treason. Perhaps I misunderstand you: what is it about ANSWER rallies that makes those attending them deserve a firing squad? Possibly you know something about them that justifies this.

Would treason include voting against war spending bills? A congressman telling his constituants that he opposes the war? Refusing to buy war bonds on moral grounds? Preaching "thou shall not kill" is a commandment from the lord, and the lord's law is above man's law?

I'm just trying to figure out how many millions of American citizens you think should be slaughtered or imprisoned for political crimes.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

daswig

International A.N.S.W.E.R. is a front organization for at least one enemy of the United States. People who attend their rallies are supporting, or in Constitutional parlance, "adhering" to the enemy in a manner designed to both strengthen the enemy and weaken the United States.

You can oppose the war without committing treason. But if you support the enemies of the United States, people whom we are actively in a shooting war with, you're committing treason. In short: saying "I oppose the war on religious grounds" does not equal treason, while supporting Hamas, Saddam Hussein, Al Queda or their various front organizations does.

The_Dunedan

Daswig,
I'd like to see the source for your oft-repeated claim that ANSWER is an al-Quaeda front group. They annoy the hell out of me, but I've never heard anything even close to what you're suggesting.

daswig

I don't know what ties Al Queda has with A.N.S.W.E.R. I DO know that the head of ANSWER (you remember Ramsey Clark, don't you?) is in fact Saddam Hussein's attorney of record in the US, and that they received funding from Saddam in order to organize against the US fighting Saddam.

The_Dunedan

So R. Clark is essentially Saddam's Public Defender. That no more makes him a terrorist that it makes Johnny Cochran a murderer.

I also ask again: Source? What is the source of your statement that ANSWER recieved money from Saddam?

daswig

Once again, you're wrong. He was a registered agent for Saddam (all lobbyists must be registered, but I'm sure you know that) while Saddam was still in power. He's Saddam's point-man in the US. I'm sure it's just coincidence that he also runs the organization which speaks out really loudly about not going into Iraq and getting the US out of Iraq while being the center for the US anti-war lunatics.