PDA

View Full Version : "Bring It On"




mactastic
Jan 13, 2005, 11:25 AM
Link (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=652858)

Departing from fiery Islamic slogans, Iraqi guerrillas have launched a propaganda campaign with an English-language video urging U.S. troops to lay down their weapons and seek refuge in mosques and homes.

The video, narrated in fluent English by what sounded like an Iraqi educated in the United States or Britain, also mocked the U.S. president's challenge to rebels in the early days of the insurgency to 'bring it on'.

"George W. Bush; you have asked us to 'bring it on'. And so help me, (we will) like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?," asked the narrator before the video showed explosions around a U.S. military Humvee vehicle.

Threats intended to demoralise and frighten in the tense build up to elections at the end of the month were tempered with invitations to desert and escape retribution.

A masked guerrilla from an unknown group called the Islamic Jihad Army, eschewing past impassioned Arabic-language threats of holy war, told U.S. soldiers: "This is not your war, nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq."

"To the American soldiers we say you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you," he said.

There was no way of verifying the authenticity of the video obtained by Reuters.

Previous insurgent videos have been dominated by grisly beheadings of foreign hostages who kneel beside radical Islamic banners before their deaths.

The Islamic Jihad Army video featured familiar scenes of guerrillas blowing up U.S. convoys but also highlighted some of the key issues of the Iraq war, from weapons of mass destruction to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

"We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. These are only a few of these lies that these criminals present to cover their true plans," said the narrator, apparently referring to the Bush administration's assertion of a link between Saddam Hussein and those attacks.

A masked speaker with a machine gun beside him delivered his message to triumphant music with the ring of U.S. military propaganda films during World War Two.

He said the enemy was on the run as the video showed guerrillas firing on U.S. convoys, standing beside the corpse of an American soldier, or loading a large shell for an attack.

The U.S. military has said it would stay in Iraq until the country is by its definition secure.

The rebels focused on political issues that divided the United States and its European allies over the war in Iraq while reminding troops of casualties with images of burning trucks.

"We also thank France, Germany and other states for their positions, which we need to say are considered wise and valid until now," said the narrator, who also urged economic warfare against Washington.

"Stop using the U.S. dollar. Use the Euro or a basket of currencies," he said on the video dated December 10, 2004.

At least 1,067 U.S. troops have died in combat since the start of the war that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Ah yes. The insurgents are getting desperate now.

The longer an insurgency lasts, the more organized and effective it becomes.



jadam
Jan 13, 2005, 12:33 PM
Screw them.

mactastic
Jan 13, 2005, 12:47 PM
Screw them.

What's the best way of screwing them? More troops?

Thanatoast
Jan 13, 2005, 01:02 PM
What's the best way of screwing them? More troops?
By taking away their cause. How about we stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East in pursuit of oil, thus proving we care more about the people of the region than the resource underneath them?

Oh, and launching offensives on civilian populations in order to "free" them does nothing to convince them we're looking out for their best interests. All they care about are their bombed-out houses and dead relatives. Wouldn't you?

SPG
Jan 18, 2005, 02:18 AM
By taking away their cause. How about we stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East in pursuit of oil, thus proving we care more about the people of the region than the resource underneath them?
So you've stopped driving? Heating the house with solar power now?

It ain't easy now.

3Memos
Jan 18, 2005, 02:22 AM
Any chance we are the terrorists bombing their country and they are just trying to fight back? There are always two sides of every conflict. As Robert McNamara quoted "reason will not save us"

SPG
Jan 18, 2005, 02:51 AM
Any chance we are the terrorists bombing their country and they are just trying to fight back?

Sometimes I do wonder that.
I don't think that the German people woke up one day in the 1930's and just decided "Hey, you know what? I think we should all become really, really evil." These things happen so that normal people who would never go along with something like that get pulled along by little steps until there is no other path left.
A foreign army invades your country killing a lot of your people, resisting them with arms doesn't seem that far of a logical stretch, obviously not that I condone that sort of thing in this case particularly but at least it isn't an irrational response to their circumstances. How do you explain what we're doing there? We're not there to defend ourselves, not there for the WMD's, not there for Al Qaida, so what then is worth all the blood and money?

blackfox
Jan 18, 2005, 03:36 AM
By taking away their cause. How about we stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East in pursuit of oil, thus proving we care more about the people of the region than the resource underneath them?

Oh, and launching offensives on civilian populations in order to "free" them does nothing to convince them we're looking out for their best interests. All they care about are their bombed-out houses and dead relatives. Wouldn't you?
This brings up a problem in foreign policy. From a moral standpoint, you wouldn't want to support a repressive regime and you would want to aid the people who are suffering under it. Nevertheless, the reality is that aid to the politically powerless segment of a society cannot compete in terms of influence to military and other kinds of assistance to the politically powerful, however repugnant.

Since the region has resources that are in fierce demand, that influence is important and fiercely competetive.

It is curious that Bush's foreign policy (re: neocon) has some glaring weaknesses usually ascribed to liberal policy circles, though the common thread may just be idealism. They are:

- The naive assumption that the West has an advantage in the Third World because it offers both a more viable model for economic development and a preferable form of government in Democracy, is nonsense, because the Eastern-bloc (or what was) provides a more viable model for political control, which is what the ruling Elites want. The potential interests of the masses are largely irrelevant because the only people's opinions who matter in terms of influence are the ruling elites.

- Relatedly, The notion that the people would rise up in support of Democracy, either before or after an military intervention, is also ridiculous. Many ME countries are thugocracies, thugs run it and only what they think and feel counts. Since they are invariably more impressed with the Soviet model of Power than the Western one, they are likely to be unconvinced. The people's opinion doesn't matter. After a regime has fallen, conversely, the people are more interested in stability and power-grabbing in the vaccuum than of Democracy, although many may be willing to give it a chance, at least until they realize it will most likely be corrupt, ineffectual and chaotic in practice.

- Not recognizing the unique make-up of Islamic society and it's potential for altering traditional power-structures (ie elite, merchant,peasant). Subsequently, ignoring or discounting potential spheres-of-influence.

As for launching offensives on civilian populations, who says that we were doing that for their interests? We are most likely doing it for our own in relation to influencing those in a position of power nearby (neighboring countries) or those likely to attain a position of power in Iraq. It is a profoundly amoral process.

The strange thing about a country such as ours engaged in such an endeavor is the hypocrisy is demands. In order to even attempt to placate the sensibilities of the voters at home, things must be couched in humanitarian or idealistic terminology, but the real objectives are decidedly strategic, calculated and amoral at best.

Thanatoast
Jan 18, 2005, 01:06 PM
So you've stopped driving? Heating the house with solar power now? No, nor do I plan to. But just because I choose to drive my car does not mean that my government is obliged to support oppressive regimes with our political clout and military know-how. Any number of alternatives exist, including supporting alternative energy (both in power plants and in cars), or building viable mass-transit, or even just using diplomatic pressure on the offending governments. The problem is, we let them treat us like they have us by the balls. Our government acts as if there is no alternative when there is. It wouldn't be easy, but neither is standing in front of the world with a war based on bald-faced lies with a former ally.As for launching offensives on civilian populations, who says that we were doing that for their interests? Not me. And if you and I can see through it, what makes Dubya think the people he's ordering to be bombed can't?