BBC: Resistance in Iraq 'legitimate'

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4691865.stm

Resistance in Iraq 'legitimate'

Moqtada Sadr, the radical Iraqi Shia cleric whose militia led uprisings against US troops in Najaf has told the BBC armed "resistance is legitimate".

Speaking to Newsnight, Mr Sadr said that even US President George W Bush would agree that fighting an occupation force was a correct course of action.

However, he did call upon Iraqis to exercise restrain with US troops.

And said he would not interfere with the democratic process, saying "Whoever wants to take part, let him do so".

<</SNIP>>

[IndianaGreen]

1. Resistance against a foreign occupier is always legitimate

Therefore, it is legitimate for the Iraqis to resist US and UK troops.

Had France invaded and occupied the US, we would be cheering every American suicide bomber and calling them patriots.

If you don't believe me, go to Blockbusters and rent the film Red Dawn and you will see how patriotic Americans fought a bloody war against a foreign occupier.

[Igel]

3. No, I don't think every American suicide bomber would

be called a patriot.

I know I certainly wouldn't.

Those *Iraqis* that target US forces I can view as resistance, if they're fighting for independence; if they're fighting locally elected or appointed governments/police that do things like try to arrest burglars and the like, that's not resistance, that's a drive to anarchy. When they decide to blow up a couple of soldiers and a couple dozen kids, or explode a coffee house, I call them murderers: they have choices, and they make them. If they're fighting to establish their own particular kind of oppression, religious or otherwise, I'm loath to call them resistance. Motives matter.

[bvar22]

4. Would you call the French Resistance

Would you call the French Resistance to the Nazi occupation "illegitimate"?

They also targeted collaborators.

[Igel]

13. If I heard that the French Resistance killed 20+ kids in an attempt

to kill a couple of foot soldiers, or blew up a gasoline tanker, killing almost a hundred people with no obvious military purpose in mind (except possibly to kill more of those "nasty Provencal speakers"), yes. I would not just call them illegimate, I would call them murders; and, since my definition of terrorism is the targeting of civilians for political purposes, I'd also call them terrorists. But on that definition we can, presumably, disagree.

I would not be trying to make excuses for them. There is no such thing as "intentional collateral damage." If they issued a press release saying they had evidence that the soldier was a high ranking general, or that important traitors had been near the tanker truck, maybe I'd back off a bit. But no such information's forthcoming, and I'm not going to make it up.

[magellan]

5. I wouldn't either, Igil

And not surprisingly, Iraqis aren't happy about these suicide bombers either. There are rebels (who don't target regular Iraqis, just those they consider to be US collaborators), and then there are various other groups who are trying to take advantage of the unstable situation for their own political reasons. They're the order of terrorist we're familiar with who kill indiscriminately.

Imagine yourself in the position of an Iraqi citizen who's only trying to get by each day. That's the majority of the populace. Their lives and the lives of their families dangle between the opposing aims of US occupation forces, terrorists and rebels. Who would trade places with these poor people? Not me. They've been screwed over royally by Bush**.

[heidler1]

6. Have you seen a poll of Iraqi Sunnis where they were asked if they

hate or like the suicide bombers. I'm sure that the Shia would overwhelmingly vote that they hate them. MY understanding is that there are more Sunni followers in the Mid-East and that too causes more support for suicide bombers. You have to keep track of the fact that sympathy for the Palistinians suicide bombers was high in the mid-east outside of Israel.

[magellan]

8. What are you trying to say?

That just because someone's a Sunni they'd default to supporting the suicide bombers? Do you understand that many of the Sunnis in Iraq are secular?? That was the obstacle that kept Saddam and bin Laden from joining forces -- OBL considered Saddam a bad muslim for his secular ways. Also, Sunnis are dying in these attacks.

Do you think Iraqi Sunnis and Shias weren't friends and didn't inter-marry before we invaded? You'd be very wrong.

This cannot be framed in strictly religious terms. Like most human interactions it's far more complex. What's at issue are differing sociopolitics and a clash between the extremes, with people in the middle being forced to choose sides whether they want to or not, not how or who one worships. Treating it like a simple battle between good and evil as the WH does is exactly the sort of catastrophic ignorance that's brought Iraq to the brink of civil war.

[heidler1]

15. Hey I'm not saying that I know what the Sunnis think, but I'm sure that

the info we get from * is bull. However if the two sides are on the brink of civil war as you said then I'm inclined to believe that there are many unknown insurgent type Sunnis who think the suicide bombing is justified.

From the get go the info from the * bunch was that there was only a handful of these insurgents and daily we kill or capture quite a few, but the insurgency is never affected by their losses. This killing, capturing and torture of Sunni insurgents plus blowing up many Innocent bystanders by us supposed good guys has and will continue to add to the # of Muslims who believe that the suicide bombers are justified. If in truth this number is increasing we are losing in the hearts and minds game. If we we are losing in the hearts and minds game the whole Democracy idea is a farce.

Moqtada Sadr, the radical Iraqi Shia cleric whose militia led uprisings against US troops in Najaf has told the BBC armed "resistance is legitimate".

I found no limitation on how to pursue this resistance in the article.

[K-W]

11. Targetting civillians is supposedly a war crime.

But that is a joke as long as the US continues to proclaim the right to bomb civillians.

Suicide bombings on military targets are not and are entirely legitimate.

But the war itself, to oust the occupier and any Iraqi forces fighting with the occupier is legitimate according to international law.

[Igel]

14. Many of the attacks recently have been against people that

can only tangentially be seen as collaborators.

By that token, we're all collaborating with * because we spend money to help support an economy which generates tax dollars that goes into a public treasury that * proposes a budget for.

They're moving the term 'collaborator' way, way, way down the food chain. Provide gasoline to a gas station ... you're a collaborator. Dare to be a traffic cop ... you're a collaborator.

If they stuck to military targets, fine. They're not; not fine.

[Eugene]

2. The key word is "restraint".

He is calling on Iraqis, both insurgent and
pro-government, to show restraint with fellow
Iraqis. He does not want the civil war
that is looming.

He still wants U.S. troops to get out.
Armed struggle against the American occupiers
is okay, but there are other ways to resist.

[r0x0r Mc0wnage]

7. "Whoever wants to take part, let him do so"

That sounds like interference to me. He is saying in a subtle way that he will not take part, and therefore will not be bound by any laws that the "elected" government might pass. Just let their enforcers try and make him.

[mom cat]

10. Welcome to DU rOxOr McOwnage,,,Either that, or he is saying that he

believes for good reason that there will be a strong Shite majority, so he won't block the elections.
What I do not get is his going softly on the US troops. I would think that if you are fighting an occupation that your first targets wound be the occupation troops!
Once again, welcome/ :hi:

[Endangered Specie]

9. Legitimate is a relative term...

The ones who blow up Iraqi civilians are definetly not.

and I for one wont put too much stock in what a "radical militant cleric" has to say on the subject.

[K-W]

12. It isnt that it is relative.

According to international law it is legitimate to resist an occupying force.

Also according to international law the intentional targetting of civilians is a crime.

The fact that both sides are using illegal tactics doesnt bear on the legitimacy under international law of armed struggle against an occupying force.