Landmines and the anti-war movement

by Anti-War Ireland Wed Jan 26, 2005 23:21

The CAWC e-address is actually [email protected]

by peacenik Thu Jan 27, 2005 13:56

How can the IAWM condemn the use of landmines when they refuse to condemn the use of road-side bombs by insurgents in Iraq, who they label as "freedom fighters"?

by pc Thu Jan 27, 2005 14:33

try swp.ie

by Barry Thu Jan 27, 2005 21:02

Theres a huge difference between the roadside devices used by Iraqi freedom-fighters and the landmines which have been strewn accross half the globe.

The roadside bombs specifically target the enemy forces, landmines are wholly indiscriminate weapons, which remain in the ground, active and deadly for decades.

A roadside bomb is a weapon which is under constant observation from a fighter waiting to trigger it. A landmine is more often than not strewn across an area and forgotten about, placing civilians at great risk for decades. The shelf-life of a roadside device is a few days at the most.

The only similarity is both of them go "bang".

Why have you put the words Iraqi "freedom-fighters" in brackets. Dont tell me their country isnt REALLY occupied.

Something tells me you actually will try and say that.

by GH Thu Jan 27, 2005 21:44

Why has pc asked people to go to swp.ie to check out the views of the Cork Anti-War Campaign?? CAWC are affiliated to Anti-War Ireland and has no connection to ANY political party (and definitely not the SWP). We support diversity of opinion and tactics and everybody is welcome to participate.

this promises to be an interesting public meeting - so if you're in Cork, turn up!

by Phuq Hedd Thu Jan 27, 2005 21:48

not about Anti-War Ireland or Cork Anti-War Campaign. Given that the SWP are the main force behind the (very quiet and ineffective) IAWM it's logical that he'd direct questioners to their website. After all they're not going to see it here because their cult doesn't allow them to read indymedia!

by Noel Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:32

Iraqi freedom fighters?

Are they the same Iraqi freedom fighters who have been deliberately slaughtering innocent Iraqis with car bombs?

Are they the same Iraqi freedom fighters who have been cutting the heads off captured civilians?

Since when has a stated aim of destroying democratic elections been a freedom fight?

by Michael Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:27

For the record, anti-occupation resistance movements all over the world have used terrorism, assasination, "punishment beatings", and all the rest. The resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto, which is universally recognised as having been just in their uprising against the Nazis, murdered many jews who were considered to be collaborators with the SS.

I think for now we should just use the worlds "Iraqi fighters", as "freedom fighters" and "insurgents" are way too loaded to be of any help.

by Barry Fri Jan 28, 2005 15:47

And your fighting to end that occupation, your a freedom fighter.

Noel doesnt like poor people challenging the New World Order and asserting their sovereignty.

People like Noel believe you should only be allowed to fight against invaders from Mars, as he is a space cadet himself.

by Michael Fri Jan 28, 2005 20:08

With respect Barry, I think the Iraqi case is different from most. America's initial success in capturing Baghdad was partly due to the fact that much of the Iraqi military seemed to disappear. When the Americans "war gamed" (seriously, that's what they call it!) the invasion (Operation Internal Look, OIL for short, again - no joke) they estimated that so long as the Iraqi military *didn't* fall back it would be a cakewalk. They also estimated though that the Iraqis would most likely fall back, dragging the invaders into a far more costly war with no end in sight.

My point is this -- The Iraqi fighters include many of the former Iraqi military (Saddam's men, if you like). Calling them "freedom fighters" seems perverse in light of what the Iraqi military have done.

Then there's the Iraqi nationalists, and the anti-imperialist international volunteers... They have nothing to do with the Ba'thists, so I guess you could call them "freedom fighters" if you like. If we believe in their right to self-determination then I guess we can't judge them saying "hey wait a minute - an islamic state isn't 'freedom'!" or something like that. People are fighting for all sorts of reasons, and besides there are people kidnapping and murdering simply cause there's money to be made at it too.

"Insurgents" is the word chosen by the liberal media instead of "terrorists", as FOX News calls them. Though insurgents suggests that there's a legitimate government in place, that the war ended and now some folks are still a little sore about it. The war hasn't ended in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.


I think if you want to group those using armed force against the occupiers and their associates you should try using simply "Iraqi fighters". What hardly ever makes it onto our TVs in the west is that millions of Iraqis protest and resist the occupation in all sorts of creative ways. Demos, unless someone gets shot, hardly ever make the news.

by Barry Fri Jan 28, 2005 23:46

But how about this for a clearer picture, according to BBC reporter John Simpson recent figures from the Iraqi interim government Ministry have been obtained by the BBC ion the extent of civilian casualties.

They have found that since Bush declared the war over, insurgents/ fighters have killed just over 1000 civilians. The occupation forces have killed around 2500 civilians. That is civilians, specifically, and not fighters.

I believe that puts the occupation forces firmly within the loony fringe, and the fighters, most definitely, beyond it.