This is message to the american people from the freedom fighters in Iraq.

[userfriendly]

http://www.codewolf.com/story/article_1018483.html

[The_Doctor]

The website is a bit dodgy, so I will not watch the video.

Plus I am not American, so it is kind of like reading somebody else's post/mail, which is rather impolite.

[Sjakihata]

this sort of political topics are supposed to be posted in the backroom - just so you know... nice message though which I agree with entirely

[The_Doctor]

nice message though which I agree with entirely

What was it?

[userfriendly]

what is dodgy about codewolf?

[Reenk Roink]

First of all, it does belong in the Backroom, but you're a new member so no problem...

Who are these guys? Certainly doesn't sound like al-Qaeda, I saw no beheadings...

[Beirut]

:inquisitive: sniff-sniff... politics?

To the Backroom, and awayyyyyyy!

[Sjakihata]

What was it?

That the americans must use what is left of the constitution to fight the criminals, like Bush and Cheney.

[Ice]

Freedom Fighters? :dancinglock: :wall:

I see he is spreading the news http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/index.php?showtopic=15986

[Devastatin Dave]

Wow, he sounds like Cindy Sheehan. Kind of ironic. Well, not really.:2thumbsup:

[GoreBag]

It's a rather invigorating speech, encouraging peace and justifying its own violence. Through this, it seems fair to think that the fighting will not stop unless there is a change from the American side of things.

[Xiahou]

It's a rather invigorating speech, encouraging peace and justifying its own violence.
I think that's ironic. ~D

[Watchman]

Well, the Islamic culture does have an appreciation of clever rhetoric and public speaking.

No wonder Bush has so little credibility over there. ~;p

[GoreBag]

I think that's ironic. ~D

No more ironic than the enforcement of democracy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Freedom fighters? So its a message from US soldiers, then? Or perhaps some other members of the coalition? Or members of the Iraqi army?

For those are the only ones fighting for freedom over there. The terrorists don't want freedom; they want oppression, fear, and a friendly dictatorship. And they will use whatever brutal tactics they can to try and bring this about.

Crazed Rabbit

[GoreBag]

So you watched it, Rabbit?

[Xiahou]

So you watched it, Rabbit?
I watched about the first 3 minutes, then had to stop for fear of vomiting. ~;)

[Watchman]

Rabbit's missing the point and mucking up the issue, as is apparently the norm for pro-American right-wingers on the topic. Whatever the foreign militants in Iraq are fighting for, odds are the future of the Iraqi people isn't a terribly central theme. For the native militants, by far the majority, the future of Iraq and its people is quite literally a question of life and death. Whether this makes them "freedom fighters" or just "insurrectionists", "resistance movement", "rebels" or whatever, is rhetoric and semantics.

I understand there's increasing friction between the two groups due to the aforementioned difference in focus, incidentally.

Personally, I prefer "insurrectionists" as the blanket term for the militants. It does an acceptable job at encompassing all the major participants without the crude and blatantly tendentious undertones of "freedom fighters" and "terrorists", and would probably fill the criteria of a scientific definition too.

[Major Robert Dump]

you know, it really had me by the balls until it mentioned Henry Ford as one of the great amreicans.......hahahha, the soundtrack was good though, better than that muslime yodeling they usually put on

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Freedom fighters? So its a message from US soldiers, then? Or perhaps some other members of the coalition? Or members of the Iraqi army?

Interesting , now what was the proportion of Iraqis that think that attacks on coilition forces are justified and are supportive of such attacks ...80% .
Which parties that stood in the election and won seats have a policy of getting the coilition to leave the country 100% .
Damn , thats not too good , I wonder what the American commander thinks is the reason for the hostility and the attacks is , surely he must have something positive to say ...oh , actually maybe the pro war /occupation crowd had better not listen to what General Kermit said yesterday :no:

The main reason for the attacks is the coilition presence , the coilition has to stay because of the attacks ....catch 22
The coilition has to stay until the Iraqi forces are able to work effectively , the Iraqi forces two sections are run by two groups that oppose each other and pack their ranks with their own loyal terrorists who then attack the opposing groups which means that they cannot work effectively together ....Catch 22 again .

An interesting piece of propoganda video though , amatuerish , distorted and blindly optimistic , but hey thats propoganda for ya .:shrug:

[Husar]

I´d like to know wether attacks on the US would go on if they retreated from the middle east.
I could agree with a lot of what the guy said, but he also mentioned TelAviv as the bad guys again. I liked his "why can´t we just get along" attitude, but I´m not sure whether he could get along with Isreal as soon as he isn´t busy with the US in his own country anymore.
I simply think that the US government is bad just as well as the resistance fighter in Iraq, so what we see here is a fight of evil against evil, maybe they will crush eachother and the world is happy again.:oops:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting , now what was the proportion of Iraqis that think that attacks on coilition forces are justified and are supportive of such attacks ...80% .

Cite for this? Date/size/method of sampling would be valuable to know as well, but a cite would be enough for me to evaluate these aspects.



Which parties that stood in the election and won seats have a policy of getting the coilition to leave the country 100%.

The Republicans. :2thumbsup: yes, Tribe', I know what you are saying, but in point of fact ending the need for a constant coalition presence is one of our goals as well. Nor is the 100% suprising, therefore. Who would want their country occupied if there was another viable alternative?


The main reason for the attacks is the coilition presence , the coilition has to stay because of the attacks ....catch 22

This is true, but misses the point. We're not there because of the attacks per se, but to prevent the acquisition of power by forces behind many of the attacks. Yes, if we up-stakes and left in the next 72 hours that attacks would stop and all of the Iraqis who are fighting against us simply BECAUSE we are occupiers would go home. Unfortunately, those insurrectionists are not the sum total of the opposition. The rest of the opposition [AQ etc.]would simply kick over the apple cart and acquire power. THAT is what we seek to prevent.


The coilition has to stay until the Iraqi forces are able to work effectively , the Iraqi forces two sections are run by two groups that oppose each other and pack their ranks with their own loyal terrorists who then attack the opposing groups which means that they cannot work effectively together ....Catch 22 again.

Well, you are consistent. You have been saying that a civil war and blood bath between Sunni and Shiite is the only possible result since day one, I will give you that much. I have more faith in the Iraqis and the end result they generate than do you, but I cannot dismiss this possibility entirely.

[Kralizec]

I watched most of the video, and I'm puzzled. This is a message containing threats and glorification of violence from an Iraqi terrorist. Why hasn't this thread been locked and the link removed, like happened on the RTR forums? ~:confused:

[Devastatin Dave]

We should reinstate Saddam in order to make the "freedom fighters" and liberals here happy. It would also help the UN and Kofi with any money problems. Its obvious that many people here believe that the Iraqi people are not deserving or able to govern by democratic means and would be better off under the control of a dictator. Maybe Moveon.org can have raise money to resupply Uncle Saddam with industrial paper shredders for all the Iraqis that supported the Crusaders.

[GoreBag]

I watched about the first 3 minutes, then had to stop for fear of vomiting. ~;)

Suck it up, lassie. :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

These freedom fighters (as in fighters of freedom) are fighting for the same thing as these cartoon protesters. I'm surprised no one has made that connection yet. How come no one here is advocating these kinds of attacks against American's in Europe? Same Army there for the same reason right? Are they magically turned into oppressors and butchers when their feet touch sand?

I don't suppose you're all aware that these terrorists are killing more Iraqi civilians than soldiers (who are they fighting against?). Or that the Sunnis are turning against Al-Qaeda?

I think I've seen it before; there's some good intel about how they make IEDs but it seems old.

[Ser Clegane]

Or that the Sunnis are turning against Al-Qaeda?

Which shows that it is simply wrong to give one labe to all the groups that fight against the current government and occupation army in Iraq.

They are neither all "terrorists" nor are they all "freedom fighters". What we have rather seems to be a mixture of both with some armed criminals and "power grabbers" thrown into it as well.

[ajaxfetish]

They are neither all "terrorists" nor are they all "freedom fighters". What we have rather seems to be a mixture of both with some armed criminals and "power grabbers" thrown into it as well.
Sounds a lot like . . . well . . . virtually all revolutions in history.

Ajax

[Redleg]

Rabbit's missing the point and mucking up the issue, as is apparently the norm for pro-American right-wingers on the topic. Whatever the foreign militants in Iraq are fighting for, odds are the future of the Iraqi people isn't a terribly central theme. For the native militants, by far the majority, the future of Iraq and its people is quite literally a question of life and death. Whether this makes them "freedom fighters" or just "insurrectionists", "resistance movement", "rebels" or whatever, is rhetoric and semantics.



You realize of course that the film was a propaganda piece. The voice in the film has a distint accent. One that does not sound like an individual that learned english as a second language, But as a primary language.

It has some decent points as far as a propaganda piece goes, but it paints only the picture that they wish to paint.

[Vladimir]

You're making too much sense here. No middle of the road types for the back room. To the frontroom with you!

Sometimes I just assume that people know this already but we need an easily digestible message (for both sides). It just amazes me that some fluffy westerners think that the people who are trying to reinstate a brutal dictator are "freedom fighters". You could easily label them all terrorists though since they are using terror tactics to further their goals.

[Ser Clegane]

It just amazes me that some fluffy westerners think that the people who are trying to reinstate a brutal dictator are "freedom fighters". You could easily label them all terrorists though since they are using terror tactics to further their goals.

So all armed resistance groups in Iraq try to reinstate Saddam Hussein and all are using terrorist tactics (i.e. they target civilians)?

[Vladimir]

So all armed resistance groups in Iraq try to reinstate Saddam Hussein and all are using terrorist tactics (i.e. they target civilians)?

Show me the ones that aren't targeting civilians.

[Ser Clegane]

You mentioned them yourself - the Sunni resistance groups that are increasingly appalled by Al-Zarqawi's targeting on Iraqi civilians.

Please show me evidence that all these resistance groups also target civilians in Iraq to fight the occupation.

[Watchman]

Or that they want Saddam back. By what I've read of it, the old Baathist hardliners have by now either died off or found a new cause - all the more so as most of the rebels aren't one bit interested in that crap.

No doubt great many of the insurrectionists would dearly like to stick it to the Coalition instead of civilians. It's just that they can't. The soldiers are way too well defended, wary and "hard" targets. So, like just about all urban guerilla groups in history, they settle for trying to manipulate public opinion through terrorizing the civilians.

Which is actually an age-old principle of warfare anyway. When the opponent was too well dug in behind fortifications to be directly attacked (or otherwise unassailable), most armies settled for ravaging his countryside and showing the populace their lords and masters couldn't actually meet their promises of protection.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, I watched it. I haven't got enough fingers to count the times they called Bush a 'criminal'. Most of it sounded like it came from MoveOn.Org.

Crazed Rabbit

[Major Robert Dump]

It really would have been more effective had they used the narrator for all the american movie previews. "In a land far away...."

[Xiahou]

Yeah, I watched it. I haven't got enough fingers to count the times they called Bush a 'criminal'. Most of it sounded like it came from MoveOn.Org.

Crazed RabbitHey, that's our emperor you're talking about! :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Which one ? I thought you had quite a few, and all of them naked...

[Drisos]

If they are such 'good guys', why change the voice.

bleh... nice music. but a lot of lies as well.

they have turned 'the land of the free into...'

yeah right... forget it.

[Watchman]

Maybe that was "artistic license" ? ~;p Propagandists tend to employ it a lot.

[Abokasee]

I wonder whats differance between a terrorist and a Freedom Fighter Is?:dizzy2:

[Watchman]

Well, they tend to themselves like the word "freedom fighter". Whoever they're fighting against tends to prefer "terrorist".

Kinda like how whoever's on the receiving end of guerilla warfare tends to have a rather dim view of his tormentors.

[Abokasee]

So they fight for Freedom against the Tormenters

[Watchman]

The Eye of the Beholder mainly. (D&D geek: "Which one?")