| Submit your comments on this article | ||||||||||
| Iraq | ||||||||||
| National Front Formed To Liberate Iraq | ||||||||||
| 2003-04-13 | ||||||||||
As U.S. and British forces further fanned across Iraq, a host of Iraqi patriots vowed organized resistance by setting up a National Front for the Liberation of Iraq.
I have a feeling this will turn out to be like Afghanistan, where hardly a week goes by without some new group announcing its formation and making blood curdling threats, only to never be heard from again.
I guess they must view the conflict in South Sudan differently from the rest of the world, unless they suddenly are feeling sympathy for the million Christians and Animists killed by an Islamist Arab regime, but somehow I doubt it. In a telephone interview with IslamOnline.net from Paris, Iraqi opposition member and columnist El-Amir el-Rakabi said reliable political sources told him the Front founders belong to some Islamic and nationalist trends in Iraq. I wonder who makes up the 'Islamic trends' part of the alliance, any Shias like Al-Badr Brigades or Hezbollah, or are they all Sunnis? For that matter, I wonder what portion will consist of local Fadayeen, Baathist, Republican Guard Nationalists and what portion will be Jihadis just along for the chance to kill some infidels..
I'm guessing the Baath party branches in other Middle Eastern countries will be one of the primary organisers for this 'Liberation Body', so apart from Syria preasure should be put on Jordan, Yemen and Lebanon to deal with the Baath branches in their countries. | ||||||||||
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #10 If an example needs to be made to get the point accross: Riyadh! That would dry up the money, and get rid of a really corrupt regime too. |
| Posted by: Drew 2003-04-13 21:38:22 |
| #9 thanks, guys: feel better now |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-13 20:01:28 |
| #8 Hey, anon1, maybe this little story will help calm you down. At the start of the Civil War, General Grant was on his first mission against the enemy in Missouri marching to the reported position of a Rebel force. As he got closer, be became more and more nervous until he wanted to turn around and retreat back to base, but then he crossed the last ridge and the enemy had fled. He never forgot the lesson - The enemy has just as much reason to be afraid of our forces as we have of his. So concentrate on what we will do to them not so much what they might do to us. |
| Posted by: Chris Smith 2003-04-13 17:40:13 |
| #7 You know, anon1, you're worried about too many things. Only a few, or rather one is needful. You should try the bible. Now I'll find out if I'm still posting at the Fray, won't I? |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-04-13 13:50:46 |
| #6 I mainly worry because the Islamists understand our weaknesses. They know to white-ant our societies: just look at Europe fer-gawds-sake. UK is next bad after Europe. I want to move to the USA: at least you are taking it seriously. In Australia, we have indonesia to the north (which always makes me shiver) and a growing Islamofascist population here: but what makes them dangerous is our PC culture which insists the word Muslim *never* be used in the same sentence as rebel/violence/terrorist. People in this country would have NFI of what links Ivory Coast rebels with Phillipino Abu Sayyaf, to Hamas - NFI!!! So they will continue entering the country, converting strangers, breeding, bringing in extended family, protesting and pushing for greater rights and more leniency to practice components of Sharia: if we disagree, we are 'racists'. My fear is that my future children (should I ever have any) will either be wearing Burquas or emigrating to the USA as refugees. |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-13 13:14:18 |
| #5 The name itself provides some very cogent clues about their make-up, their politics, and their support: NATIONAL FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF George Bush needs to understand, at the core of his being, that the way to defeat these bunch of thugs is to destroy their base, destroy their financial support, and deny them the means and opportunity to do anything. The Israelis finally went far enough to destroy the houses of gang members. We may need to destroy a city or two to get the message across. Hopefully, it won't come to that, but it HAS to be an option on the table, or we won't have a chance to root out these thugs and murderers. We also need to stop chiding Israel when they do the exact thing we're going to HAVE to do. And I, too, believe 90% of this group will be non-Iraqis, just as 90% of the NFLP is not Israeli arabs. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-13 13:06:53 |
| #4 I wanna believe that, Paul. But 9-11 didn't take a lot of cash, just a lot of will. And our open society is flush with targets of opportunity. It's not the pocketbook we must squash, but the shrill Islamic preachers who motivate the terrorists. Unless you're saying it's THEIR pocketbooks we're going after. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-04-13 12:14:47 |
| #3 These Islamist nutcases sound scarey, and they are---when they are fueled by mega bucks from sympathetic regimes, like Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan needs bucks from the US and Saudi to stay afloat, so it is part of the Axis of Evil, Welfare Division. If the Islamists don'g get money, then they are just foamers. We need to stick to the Plan (TM) and keep stout hearts. 9-11 and Afghanistan were the beginning, and Iraq was the end of the beginning. The Coalition of the Willing (TM) will stay the course. It will take 10 years or more, but we will prevail. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-13 11:59:03 |
| #2 Actually, they're the ones in deep trouble. Deep inside our bag of options is the carpet bombings of Muslim cities. Everyone thinks Iraq is a big deal, and from the hysterical coverage, one would think we had refought WWII. The truth is that we have used a tiny fraction of the power we used in WWII. If they mess with us, I can see an invasion of the countries in the Middle East sponsoring terrorism against us. Note that we are using 0.3% of GDP ($40B) to fight this war. We used 50% of national output to fight the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII. We put 14 million men under arms from a population of just over 100 million. Today we have a population of 280 million. Can these guys really play in the same leagues as we can? (They can't put anywhere near that many trained men into the field - most of these countries are not only poor, they lack the means to produce the modern weapons systems needed to defeat us. Note that although we have been pretty discriminating about civilian casualties, we do have the option of inflicting these casualties if the civilians are substantially going to be combatants). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-04-13 11:43:46 |
| #1 honestly the islamic component scares my tits off! While the west pretends Islam is the religion of peace, in fact the only palatable version of Islam is practiced by the 'moderates' or 'secular muslims' who just take the nice parts of Islam and leave behind the violent parts. They are, in fact, non-practicing as far as the direct explicit orders of the Koran go. That leaves the traditionalists and fundamentalists: and they are enjoined by Muhammad himself to physically fight those who do not accept Islam until they either accept it or are dead. Which means fighting with them is inevitable - and they are loyal not to a state or a country - they never fight for a country as such - they fight only for Islam. Their first loyalty is to Islam above all else. Even if we win all our battles in the Middle East and get good co-operation from the "renegade, infidel" governments of Syria, Saudi, Jordan et al: we will always be threatened by the spectre of Islam. It may be 50 or 100 years down the track but they will try to convert or kill us by any means possible. The problem is this: the Koran is contradictory, but the Muslims believe that the later prophetic revelations outrank the earlier ones. But unfortunately all the peaceful, happy teachings of Muhammed were in his early, peaceful years in Mecca where he tried to convert people by persuasion. This failed, he went to Medina and returned as a warlord with a conquering army. SO his later revelations were greatly influenced by his warlordism: ie sowing the seeds of the religion of violence we know so well today. And because they think the later ones cancel out the earlier ones, the fundos all subscribe to the brutal religion of force. We really are in deep trouble. |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-13 08:21:27 |