http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=525

Well its an occupation. Obviously the law does not apply to the occupier.

Do as I say, not as I do.

And a quote from your link:

Quote:

[size=18]Iraq arrest warrant for UK troops[/size]

An Iraqi judge said on Saturday he had renewed arrest warrants for two British soldiers who were rescued from jail early this week by troops using armor to crash through the prison walls.

The British government said the warrants are not legally binding, as the soldiers are subject to UK law...

Well this may be Britains exit strategy. Be asked to leave. But if they were asked, would they? or would the person asking suddenly be involved in an accident?

Salam

American and British politicians have now recognised that Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

They did not foresee such levels of insurrection.

We did not expect Iraq fanatics, says Hoon

By Toby Helm, Telegraph - 24/09/2005

Geoff Hoon, the former Defence Secretary, has admitted that Tony Blair and his ministers underestimated the level of fanaticism in Iraq when they declared war on Saddam Hussein.
Mr Hoon, who headed the Ministry of Defence throughout the conflict, said the result was that Britain and the US were unprepared for the violence perpetrated ever since by extremists bent on preventing democracy taking hold.
His comments, on the eve of Labour's annual conference in Brighton, added to a growing sense across the political divide - even among supporters of the invasion - that the current allied strategy in Iraq needs, urgently, to be reassessed...

Omrow

Yes hoon you goon, fighting a foreign occupying army who come into your country with no provocation and start nicking your oil, privatising your companies, abusing your brothers in jails and defiling articles of your faith is such a fanatical thing to do.

Im guessing that if Taliban came over into uk, or usa and started bombing places and jailing ppl, us/uk wouldnt have any fanatics to fight the kindly taliban.

silly me, always these ayrabs who go and take things to damn serious!

Too true med, too true

But that reminds me of a russian joke:

Two US combatants going into Iraq.

They start to pray, the first says: Please God let me come out alive or die a hero.

The second one prays: Please let the oil dry up in Russia.

The first one says: why are bothered about that.

To which the secojnd one incredulously replies: Do want to be defending democracy in the freezing cold of Siberia?!

Quote:

[size=18]US-Shia clash erupts in Baghdad[/size]

Four militiamen loyal to Iraq's radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have been killed in clashes with US forces in Baghdad overnight, Iraqi officials say.

It is the first such fighting since a rebellion by supporters of the cleric ended more than a year ago.

The US military confirmed it had fought "anti-Iraqi forces" in eastern Baghdad.

Meanwhile at least nine people have been killed in a bomb attack on police in Baghdad, while two died in a market bomb in Hilla, officials said.

The clashes in Baghdad broke out when American troops went into the Sadr City district of eastern Baghdad to try to arrest members of Mr Sadr's militia, the Mehdi army, according to Iraqi police. ...

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4279988.stm]BBC News[/url]

It may be spreading...

Iraq is a mess-END OF.

It looks like a lot of undercover stuff including on the part of some dissident police. A lot of Iraqi politicians continue to plead for US/British assistance and I don't think those politicans are the ones slamming them for this.

well they caused the bloody mess

Arguably so. Just clarifying, it seems a bit naive to buy the simple case of British troops being out of line over this. An existing opinion on the war influences the assumptions that fly around including mine, but it is certainly not the British who [i]want[/i] Iraq to be a quagmire, and I don't, and they're up against people who do.

deleted

deleted

yashmaki, does 'Islamic Awakening' take a side in all this fighting?

"100" wrote:

yashmaki, does 'Islamic Awakening' take a side in all this fighting?

No matter. The story is from AP.

Why don't you ask, 'Does AP take a side in all this fighting?'

Good point. And The Independent.

But my question was about the direct link, Islamic Awakening. Does it take a side? Or is it plain anti-war?

AP? are they french?

:twisted:

Pretty much.

Quote:

[size=18]Sunni anger at Iraq vote change[/size]

Sunni Arabs have reacted angrily to a decision by Iraq's Shia-dominated parliament making it harder to reject the new constitution in 12 days' time.

The two-thirds majority needed in three provinces to defeat the constitution will now be counted from all registered - as opposed to actual - voters.

Many registered voters may not show up because of violence, it is argued.

Saleh al-Mutlaq, of the Sunni group Iraqi National Dialogue, called the change a "clear forgery"....

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4306094.stm]BBC News[/url]

Well atleast it is forcing people to vote...

Salam

Iran supreme leader ignores Zarqawi and blames all the violence in Iraq on America.

He also predicts defeat for coalition forces:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4460430.stm

Now, US leaders also call for US to retreat from Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4446884.stm

Omrow

Yesterday I watched Newsnight about the PSA's the US is pushing through.

Power sharing agreements over the oil; basically privatisation in a diferent name.

It is supposed to cost the Iraqi people between $40billion and $194 billion if they sign up...

And the US are pushing for the signature BEFORE the parliamentary elections.

Even after the elections, its still blood money.

Salam

Four years on, and the war on terror is not going well.

Showing your military might is not the answer against terrorists.

US has basically lost in Iraq.

Insurgents have not been put down.

Senators see this sad reality, and have last week called for the troops to come home.

Afghanistan is no better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4457876.stm

Omrow

U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers

The New York Times - December 1, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?hp&ex=11334...

Salam

I don't know how the US managed to get into this mess.

US forces were doing fine up to May of 2003.

They were welcomed and loved by everyone. People were thanking them.

At that time the Iraqi people were only looting their own country.

Then after that in July 2003, somehow they mysteriously turned on the American troops.

That seems very strange to me. Can't figure it out.

Omrow

I think it all went down hill with the declaration of war...

naah, they had a chance until the troops opened fire on a demonstration in Fallujah just after the war, who were demanding something to be done to stop looting.

within seconds they had lost hearts and minds of the city. Then they lost the city. The losses have continued to spread ever since.

I love Donald Duck. The American Defence Sec. He is so funny. He is better than Comical Ali.

Check this from Friday's Guardian:

( For those who may not know, Wittgenstein was a philosopher who wrote a very small book on the use of words and their... usefulness. I love that book. Read it ten times. )

-----------------------------

The question:

[b]What do we call people fighting the US in Iraq? [/b]

By: Oliver Burkeman

Trust Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush administration's in-house Wittgenstein, to complicate events yet again, thanks to his enthusiasm for philosophical ruminations on language. The world had just about reached a consensus on the word "insurgency" as a way to describe fighters attacking US forces in Iraq.

But now, the man responsible for known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns has thrown a spanner in the works.
"This is a group of people who don't merit the word 'insurgency', I think," Rumsfeld told reporters this week. ("He said the thought had come to him suddenly over the Thanksgiving weekend," AP noted drily.) "I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe," Rumsfeld went on. "These people don't have a legitimate gripe." His alternative formulation: "Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government."

Does he have a point? Perhaps, in the sense that no language is ever truly value-free; the secretary of defence is at least being open about his position. But if you want to try to approximate objectivity, you're going to need a word that won't provoke objections from anyone whose views you consider legitimate - which surely includes those who oppose the invasion and those who think a swift quelling of the anti-US fighting would be the least worst option for Iraq.

"Terrorists" is out, not least because it seems to imply attacks primarily on civilians, and to assume the legitimacy of a government whose legitimacy is, in fact, widely disputed. "Resistance", on the other hand, with its proud French wartime overtones, moves far too far in the direction of cheering on the killing. "Paramilitary" looks promising, except that it has developed unique Northern Irish nuances (where, in most coverage, groups were paramilitary, but attacks on civilians by those groups were terrorism). By most definitions, "insurgency" means an armed opposition to an established authority, and implies nothing about the legitimacy of the opposition's gripe. It's the choice of this paper, Reuters, the BBC, CNN, and even, sometimes, Fox News. Sorry, Donald.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1655790,00.html

You really have to wonder why British troops are still in Iraq.

By all media accounts they don't actually do anything and the Badr control just about everything.

It's not like there's even a lot of terrorism in the South and what there is is commited by the police which the British army seems to have a policy of not invetigating.

"salaf" wrote:

You really have to wonder why British troops are still in Iraq.

By all media accounts they don't actually do anything and the Badr control just about everything.

It's not like there's even a lot of terrorism in the South and what there is is commited by the police which the British army seems to have a policy of not invetigating.

Not really. The new government is very eager for troops to stay. Whether there is a lot of terrorism in the South or not, the troops are keeping the country secure from jihadis while a secure democracy is implemented