-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
- Thread starter Joe_Stocks
- Start date
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
Definition from dictionary.com:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This in·sur·gent
Audio Help (ĭn-sûr'jənt) Pronunciation Key adj.
- Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
- Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
kai
ragamuffin
Definition from dictionary.com:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This in·sur·gent
adj.
No it's called common sense. Anytime you occupy a country you are going to have revolts from people who live there. Doy.
- Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
- Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
still waiting for you to provide some facts for this claim?
and thanks but i know what insurgent means
Smoke
Done here.
Added proof that the resistance is indigenous is that of more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who the Pentagon says were captured in Fallujah - there's no independent confirmation; only 15 have been confirmed as "foreign fighters", according to General George Casey, the top US ground commander.
(Asia Times, 20 November 2004)
* * *
General Taluto said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis ...
(Gulfnews, 9 June 2005)
* * *
"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.
"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders.
(Washington Post, 17 November 2005)
* * *
Most insurgents who are battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq's Anbar province are local Iraqis loyal to al Qaeda, and not foreign fighters, the U.S. commander in the region said Monday.
(CNN.com, 29 January 2007)
* * *
By motivation, essentially, and with the exception of the Al Qaeda in Iraq element who have endeavoured to exploit the situation for their own ends, our opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security – and the majority are not bad people.
(General Sir Richard Dannat, 21 September 2007)
(Asia Times, 20 November 2004)
* * *
General Taluto said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis ...
(Gulfnews, 9 June 2005)
* * *
"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.
"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders.
(Washington Post, 17 November 2005)
* * *
Most insurgents who are battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq's Anbar province are local Iraqis loyal to al Qaeda, and not foreign fighters, the U.S. commander in the region said Monday.
(CNN.com, 29 January 2007)
* * *
By motivation, essentially, and with the exception of the Al Qaeda in Iraq element who have endeavoured to exploit the situation for their own ends, our opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security – and the majority are not bad people.
(General Sir Richard Dannat, 21 September 2007)
kai
ragamuffin
thank you midnight blue my only critisism of your evidence is that reading the whole of the articles is much more interesting and informative
Imagine a Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government next January having to face a widespread Sunni guerrilla movement with only a ragged bunch of guerrilla-infiltrated Iraqi security forces. Who're you gonna call? The marines?
(Asia Times, 20 November 2004)
"I think there is a small core of foreign fighters. I don't know how big that is but there is some kind of capability here, and it's being replenished.
"Then there is a group of former regime personnel they're the facilitators. They make all the communications, move the money, they enable things to happen. Their goal isn't the same as the foreign fighters but they're using them to do what they want to do.
"Then we have the foot soldiers. Some are doing it for the money. Some are doing it because they're offended by our presence and believe we are a threat to their way of life. There are various levels."
He added: "Who knows how big these networks are, or how widespread? I know it's substantial enough to be a threat to the government and it will be for some time."
(Gulfnews, 9 June 2005)
"We do believe that the major players are in Zarqawi's network, and that's why we're focusing our operations against him," Lynch said in a recent interview. "We believe that the most lethal piece of the insurgency here is the terrorist and foreign fighters. And it's because of the level of violence they're willing to go to to accomplish their objective, which is to derail the democratic process and discredit the Iraqi government."
(Washington Post, 17 November 2005)
During a video news conference from the provincial town of Falluja, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer said the insurgents intend to create a strict Islamic state, similar to Afghanistan's Taliban regime before the U.S.-led invasion toppled it in 2001.
They want "a caliphate state out here," he said. "They want to turn back the hands of time. It is antithetical to progress and, again, any positive future."
(CNN.com, 29 January 2007)
In amongst them, however, are a hard core of well trained, well motivated, ruthless individuals who have the capacity to organise and control a highly effective campaign, or perhaps better described as a matrix of campaigns, of violence and intimidation. They live amongst the people, are difficult to track and human intelligence, HUMINT, is difficult to obtain. They have the capacity to generate forces quickly, they will offer extreme violence against us in large urban areas through the use of complex ambushes and IEDs. They also offer violence against each other not for any Sunni / Shia divide, but within the Shia community.
(General Sir Richard Dannat, 21 September 2007)
Imagine a Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government next January having to face a widespread Sunni guerrilla movement with only a ragged bunch of guerrilla-infiltrated Iraqi security forces. Who're you gonna call? The marines?
(Asia Times, 20 November 2004)
"I think there is a small core of foreign fighters. I don't know how big that is but there is some kind of capability here, and it's being replenished.
"Then there is a group of former regime personnel they're the facilitators. They make all the communications, move the money, they enable things to happen. Their goal isn't the same as the foreign fighters but they're using them to do what they want to do.
"Then we have the foot soldiers. Some are doing it for the money. Some are doing it because they're offended by our presence and believe we are a threat to their way of life. There are various levels."
He added: "Who knows how big these networks are, or how widespread? I know it's substantial enough to be a threat to the government and it will be for some time."
(Gulfnews, 9 June 2005)
"We do believe that the major players are in Zarqawi's network, and that's why we're focusing our operations against him," Lynch said in a recent interview. "We believe that the most lethal piece of the insurgency here is the terrorist and foreign fighters. And it's because of the level of violence they're willing to go to to accomplish their objective, which is to derail the democratic process and discredit the Iraqi government."
(Washington Post, 17 November 2005)
During a video news conference from the provincial town of Falluja, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer said the insurgents intend to create a strict Islamic state, similar to Afghanistan's Taliban regime before the U.S.-led invasion toppled it in 2001.
They want "a caliphate state out here," he said. "They want to turn back the hands of time. It is antithetical to progress and, again, any positive future."
(CNN.com, 29 January 2007)
In amongst them, however, are a hard core of well trained, well motivated, ruthless individuals who have the capacity to organise and control a highly effective campaign, or perhaps better described as a matrix of campaigns, of violence and intimidation. They live amongst the people, are difficult to track and human intelligence, HUMINT, is difficult to obtain. They have the capacity to generate forces quickly, they will offer extreme violence against us in large urban areas through the use of complex ambushes and IEDs. They also offer violence against each other not for any Sunni / Shia divide, but within the Shia community.
(General Sir Richard Dannat, 21 September 2007)
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Intelligence. You know, that stuff we used to have before Bush destroyed it.
Everywhere they're found.
Either Pakistan cooperates with letting us attack them there, or suffers the consequences.
Exactly. So one of the primary steps we need to take is to cut off 100% of their funding. Again, international cooperation would be crucial, which unfortunately Bush trashed by lying to the entire community of nations, or rather exploiting General Powell to lie for him. Anyway, you need to use all international diplomatic and financial means available to cut off every cent of their financing. This is just one of the arrows in the quiver. You need to use every tool you have and focus on a single objective: Al Qaeda.
That's one important tool.
This is sort of true and sort of not. I think that Middle-Eastern Muslims have a tendency to back what works and looks strong. When Al Qaeda made such spectacular strikes against the U.S. on American soil, their popularity skyrocketed. To the extent that you can effectively wear them down and reduce their effectiveness, their popularity will decrease proportionately. It's war on all fronts: military, financial, propaganda, diplomatic, policing, border control, everything. Basically our country should have made it a top priority on September 12 to destroy Al Qaeda. Ask all other countries to join us, and take effective action against any that refuse to do so.
Baloney. Saudi Arabia has seen that when you catch their top echelon and lock them up or execute them, they do not get replaced, and their effect drops dramatically and immediately. That is why they are going wild in Iraq and not Saudi Arabia: the Kingdom locked up their leaders and sealed their borders.
What is your proposal for dealing with the direct threat posed to us by Al Qaeda? I say deal with them effectively and nuetralize them. What do you say?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, and they're a semi-organized, rag-tag and relatively small group of zealots alienated from the world community. C'mon, are you trying to persuade me that the U.S. of A is powerless to defeat Al Qaeda?
You don't seem to have noticed that I'm not the least bit right-wing; I'm the opposite. Go back and read my posts. I'm the Obama-supporting, gay-rights advocating, national health insurance promoting lesbian atheist.
Remember, it was Roosevelt, possibly our most liberal president, who responded effectively to Hitler, and it will take a liberal president named Obama to deal effectively with Al Qaeda. The so-called conservatives presently in office are too stupid and chicken to go after the real enemy.
It's not rocket science. When someone attacks you on your own soil, you have to strike back and go to war against them. I realize this is a new kind of threat, an international terrorist organization rather than a militarized nation, and this will pose new challenges, but I'm confident that we can meet them if we boot the Bozos out of office and get someone with a brain in there.
I should save your post accusing me of right-wing rhetoric and pull it out in many debates with the actual right-wingers here. We'd all get a good laugh out of it.
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
Here's a bunch of links. Of course there's tons of material there so I doubt you'll read them.
http://www.comw.org/warreport/fulltext/03alexander.pdf
FRONTLINE: the insurgency: readings & links | PBS (for more links with info about the "insurgents")
International Crisis Group - In their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgenc
CSIS Publication - Iraq's Evolving Insurgency: The Nature of Attacks and Patterns and Cycles in the Conflict
Who Are the Insurgents? Sunni Arab Rebels in Iraq by Amatzia Baram: Special Reports: U.S. Institute of Peace
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html
Ahmed S. Hashim: Iraq's Chaos
So there you go. See I could have easily linked to wikipedia but I didn't because I want to be taken seriously with the research.
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
And the Pentagon even said that AlQida in Iraq is only like 5%. The general of the last source made the right statement. Most is Iraqi's who are doing what we would be doing if our country was invaded.
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
Once again even with intelligence how are you going to know who is AlQida? A lot of the prisoners at Gunatanamo Bay now are there because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time or someone had a personal vendetta against them and their enemy was paid money to get rid of them. They do not wear a uniform, have no type of tattoo known on them, there is no key leadership etc. You have no way to know who is and who isn't AlQida. Plus they are all over the world! Are you going to invade every single country? Get real!
Suffer the consequences? Like actual citizen's who are innocent? Isn't that what Bush said about Iraq? Look how that is going! You can't be serious. How can I now take you seriously after a comment like that?!
Once again you have no idea who is and isn't a member of AlQida. As I already pointed out they think of this as a spiritual battle. You are thinking this as a military battle and are going to lose each time. The more you attack them physically the stronger they grow etc. As Razan Aslan has pointed out you have to stop fighting. Show people why they shouldn't join AlQida and other radical violent groups and there are other ways of achieving their goals. And speaking of attacking country's if that's the route you're going to go where are you going to get the man power to do that? You do know our military is pretty much dead right? They're either dead, stuck in Iraq or Afghanistan or another country we're in like Germany or what have you.
Oh and are you going to join up in this fight you want other people to do? Or do you just talk a big game? Still proving my point that nobody is whining about Saudi Arabia sending in troops in Iraq like Iran is supposivley doing. Also proving yet again why they are horrible on human rights but yet they're still our friends. Sad.
I say we have the answers on our books already. You are treating this like a physical war. Again I say this is about spirituality. You have to understand that. You can fight them until you're dead but it's not going to matter because this battle in their minds is about the next life. Look at what Britian has been doing for years with terrorism. How's that working out for them? A lot better than our situation!
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
You are talking like a rightwinger where this is concerned. I don't give a rats butt who you are voting for and what you support. I'm talking about this very subject. Nothing more and nothing less. With this you are like a rightwinger. I can't tell any difference and your political affiliation doesn't mean anything to this pinko. You are thinking about AlQida all wrong. They are not a military. They are a group of people who are spread all over the world. They have no laws. They have no uniform. They have no code of conduct. Nothing like industralized civilizations have. Who is their leadership? Who is doing what? You can't answer those question's can you? And there's no comparison to WWII at all. Hitler was a leader of a country. He had to follow laws. His army had a uniform. They weren't spread all over the world.
kai
ragamuffin
yes they do but i have a tendancy to beleive attacks against Iraqi security forces and civilians are criminal,
attacks against coalition forces are generally seen by Iraqis as legitimate mainly because they are not muslims.
Foreign influence is very important in Iraq with AlQueda style politics causing much of the instability, lately the US has had a lot of success with the forming of militias that have taken away the influence of groups like Alqueda, and actually driven them out of enclaves.
one impassioned AlQueda style activist can cause a lot of damage just with his idealism,and undo years of work with ordinary people trying to cling on to the for them "strange idea of an elected form of governent"
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
1) AlQida is all over the world.
2) They do not have a uniform or tattoos you can identify them as like gangs do.
3) They are not fighting a physical battle but a spiritual one dealing with their ideals and beliefs of the after life.
4) If you kill one it won't matter. They will just keep recruiting.
5) The best way to stop groups like AlQida is to encourage people to not give them money and to show them a better way without violence.
6) Use our laws against people who are members of AlQida and do crimes here. Each country can do that as well to their laws. Look at Britain.
7) This goes a long with five and six. Use stigma to fight them. It has worked in the past. Stigma is putting a negative label on an ideal or an action. Look at OJ Simpson.
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
Except Iraq is actually quite a progressive Muslim country when comparing their neighbors. Before the invasion and occupation there were different religious groups there who worshiped freely. They don't like AlQida there either. The Pentagon has even said AlQida in Iraq is only about 5%. From what I know of Iraq the minute we leave they will ban together and kick out the extremist who are AlQida. They don't want them there either. Actually not in Iraq with AlQida. As I pointed out Iraq is quite progressive and are considered a moderate Muslim country. The only reason why AlQida is in Iraq is because the boarders are very open and easily able to get in. Even if someone is joining AlQida it's not because of ideology but because of an army to help kick out the invadors.
kai
ragamuffin
kai
ragamuffin
there are several reasons and several kinds of insurgents in Iraq. taking Al Quedas role is merely to promote their ideological goals . one of which is to kill Shia who they consider apostates, and to prevent them holding power in government.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Sadly, I think there is a good chance that the minute we leave total civil war will break out until one group has established a firm hold on the power structure. OTOH, our staying there aggravates the hostilities tremendously, so Bush the idiot has created an untenable position for us. On the balance, I think the best we can make out of a bad job is to leave, but I don't think we should fool ourselves that life for the average Iraqi will be peace and roses. The best choice would have been not to invade in the first place, but that choice is gone forever.
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
If Bin Ladin was captured and detained in Gitmo, I'd like to see him put through a fair trial with all the necessary protection. We've done it with past international criminals. What's the problem again? 
For all we know evidence could come out in court that the person you saw shooting someone else in face was protecting his daughter from a rapist.
Innocent until proven guilty is a slogan worth keeping. Other court systems around the world have flocked towards it in recent years for civil reasons.
For all we know evidence could come out in court that the person you saw shooting someone else in face was protecting his daughter from a rapist. Innocent until proven guilty is a slogan worth keeping. Other court systems around the world have flocked towards it in recent years for civil reasons.