Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference

Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.
The communique ? finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday ? condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

Wow. This is the most important news story in a year and it is not the lead story everywhere?
First off the Iraqis may be making the kind of sybolic gesture necessary to show independence from the US that I posited in my other post. But if this is for real they are saying if you attack US troops in Iraq you are NOT A TERRORIST!


P.S.
Congresswoman calls them "Cowards" on the House floor was just a bit of irony since the Iraqis are saying they want to do something different from Bush and in fact in line with the Democrats.

 

[judasmachine]

They'll soon find out that independance is not what the US state department wants for them. Something more akin to interdependance is what they want.

 

[Genx87]

I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

 

[bearxor]

I'm not really bothering to read most of techs post, but his last statement is incorrect. The congresswoman, Jean Schmidt (R-OH) was passing a meesage on intended solely for Murtha. It was not directed at the Iraqi government.

Here's a video if you like:
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/schmidtfloor.wmv

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: bearxor
I'm not really bothering to read most of techs post, but his last statement is incorrect. The congresswoman, Jean Schmidt (R-OH) was passing a meesage on intended solely for Murtha. It was not directed at the Iraqi government.

Here's a video if you like:
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/schmidtfloor.wmv

He was joking.

 

[EagleKeeper]

And the bolded part indicates that the insurgents are to be considered terrorists.

They have toned down considerably their attacks on US forces and stepped up the attacks against innocent civilians.

Unless you considered someone shopping or going to pray innocent.

Are the security forces to beconsidered institutions.

The wording of the statement (as indicated by the first bolded section) shows that it has built in disclaimers to be able to completely condem those who cause any Iraqi deaths.

The second bolded statedment is lip service to the Sunnis.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: techs
P.S.
Congresswoman calls them "Cowards" on the House floor was just a bit of irony since the Iraqis are saying they want to do something different from Bush and in fact in line with the Democrats.

This was joking?

Sounds to me like he is saying that the congresswoman was calling the Iraqis cowards because they want to do something different from Bush and in fact in line with the Democrats.

Maaybe techs can come back and let me know that my sarcasm meter is broken...

 

[feralkid]

"But if this is for real they are saying if you attack US troops in Iraq you are NOT A TERRORIST!"



Uh, that's always been the case...Terrorism is generally aimed at civilians.

If you are attacking armed soldiers you are not practicing terrorism...you are fighting soldiers.

"terror" is a method, by the way; among many methods of achieving political goals.


From dictionary.com: n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear




Is my sarcasm meter off?
😕

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

what would you expect our politicians to call them terrorists, the Mary Poppins gang? as far as I'm concerned, Iraqi people have a legitimate right to attack foreign invaders, you would probably do the same if your homeland was invaded. and while I hate to see any American soldiers killed, we were the aggressor who invaded another nation. And I don't buy into that sugar-coated liberators BS, because liberators don't round em up like dogs and torture, although quite a few of them act like dogs, still no excuse


oh, and let me add, unless we have some plan to add Iraq as the 51st state in the union, then we have absolutely NO CLAIM whatsoever to anything in that country, and I'd go so far as to say we OWE them retribution

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: feralkid
"But if this is for real they are saying if you attack US troops in Iraq you are NOT A TERRORIST!"



Uh, that's always been the case...Terrorism is generally aimed at civilians.

If you are attacking armed soldiers you are not practicing terrorism...you are fighting soldiers.

"terror" is a method, by the way; among many methods of achieving political goals.


From dictionary.com: n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear




Is my sarcasm meter off?
😕

Our governent / media has been to quick to call everyone terrorists. You have terrorists, and you have insurgents. Sounds to be like the Iraqis are saying terrorists attack civilians, insurgents attack the military.

If the Iraqi government wants us to leave I guess we leave. Didn't we say early on that we would honor the Iraqi government?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

Well that really cleared it up lmao.

One name and a bunch of titles.

 

[tennisflip]

Originally posted by: bearxor
I'm not really bothering to read most of techs post, but his last statement is incorrect. The congresswoman, Jean Schmidt (R-OH) was passing a meesage on intended solely for Murtha. It was not directed at the Iraqi government.

Here's a video if you like:
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/schmidtfloor.wmv

Dayum. Read about it but this was the first time to see it.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: bearxor
I'm not really bothering to read most of techs post, but his last statement is incorrect. The congresswoman, Jean Schmidt (R-OH) was passing a meesage on intended solely for Murtha. It was not directed at the Iraqi government.

Here's a video if you like:
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/schmidtfloor.wmv

Yeah, that "meesage" was from an obviously frustrated, self-important blowhard to a Marine Combat Veteran. Who was incorrect again? She isn't fit to shine Murtha's boots.
So, I'm glad to see the Republicans want to give the Iraqis "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" and will finally now produce what the Democrats have been demanding: A timetable for withdrawal.
No Republican could possibly defend not following the Iraqis wishes. Let's go Bush, produce the timetable *snaps fingers*

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the bolded part indicates that the insurgents are to be considered terrorists.

They have toned down considerably their attacks on US forces and stepped up the attacks against innocent civilians.

Unless you considered someone shopping or going to pray innocent.

Are the security forces to beconsidered institutions.

The wording of the statement (as indicated by the first bolded section) shows that it has built in disclaimers to be able to completely condem those who cause any Iraqi deaths.

The second bolded statedment is lip service to the Sunnis.

You are conveniently avoiding the principal topic here: A timetable for withdrawal of American forces. Stop avoiding it. Semantics over what defines a trrisht can't keep people occupied forever you know.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

Well that really cleared it up lmao.

One name and a bunch of titles.

Oh I see, games over what constitutes and Iraqi leader now? The President of Iraq doesn't count as a leader in your book?
Riiiiight.

 

[ajf3]

Maybe they'll let us stage against Iran from somewhere in Iraq... then we wouldn't have to move everything back here before starting up with them?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

Well that really cleared it up lmao.

One name and a bunch of titles.

so the iraqi president and a group of MPs are not considered "leaders"? Or just when they say something you don't like?


Anyway, its funny seeing how you idealogical simpletons react to facts which conflict with your idiotic ideas...

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

Well that really cleared it up lmao.

One name and a bunch of titles.

so the iraqi president and a group of MPs are not considered "leaders"? Or just when they say something you don't like?


Anyway, its funny seeing how you idealogical simpletons react to facts which conflict with your idiotic ideas...

I know, incredible right? Now we have to put up with Republican games and semantics over what constitutes an Iraqi leader. The President apparently doesn't count.... :disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

what would you expect our politicians to call them terrorists, the Mary Poppins gang? as far as I'm concerned, Iraqi people have a legitimate right to attack foreign invaders, you would probably do the same if your homeland was invaded. and while I hate to see any American soldiers killed, we were the aggressor who invaded another nation. And I don't buy into that sugar-coated liberators BS, because liberators don't round em up like dogs and torture, although quite a few of them act like dogs, still no excuse


oh, and let me add, unless we have some plan to add Iraq as the 51st state in the union, then we have absolutely NO CLAIM whatsoever to anything in that country, and I'd go so far as to say we OWE them retribution

Oh we are giving them lots of retribution but I think you mean reimbursement, no? Oh man.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am curious who these "Iraqi leaders" are considering thier stance on terrorists in their country.

If Iraq wants us out by the end of next year then lets pack up and go.

These guys were at the conference:

attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

And to the person who agrees if you are attacking the military you are not terrorists than why are the people attacking US troops being called terrorists by every politician, news media, etc, etc?

what would you expect our politicians to call them terrorists, the Mary Poppins gang? as far as I'm concerned, Iraqi people have a legitimate right to attack foreign invaders, you would probably do the same if your homeland was invaded. and while I hate to see any American soldiers killed, we were the aggressor who invaded another nation. And I don't buy into that sugar-coated liberators BS, because liberators don't round em up like dogs and torture, although quite a few of them act like dogs, still no excuse


oh, and let me add, unless we have some plan to add Iraq as the 51st state in the union, then we have absolutely NO CLAIM whatsoever to anything in that country, and I'd go so far as to say we OWE them retribution

Oh we are giving them lots of retribution but I think you mean reimbursement, no? Oh man.

I meant restitution, not retribution.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks for reciprocating.

 

[Genx87]

Oh I see, games over what constitutes and Iraqi leader now? The President of Iraq doesn't count as a leader in your book?
Riiiiight.

The article didnt quote the president but said "leaders". I ask for who these leaders are and all that is said is Shiite and sunni lawmakers.

Well that cleared it up lmao.

Anyway, its funny seeing how you idealogical simpletons react to facts which conflict with your idiotic ideas...

I find it funny somebody calling me a simpleton when they obviosuly lack the reading comprehension needed to understand my first response in this thread.

 

[Future Shock]

There is a huge difference between "terrorist" and "guerilla figher". A terrorist generally targets civilians and military targets of opportunity, with the chief aim to create fear. But a guerilla fighter generally only targets military foes, and will strive for militarily significant results more than fear. They both use unconventional warfare, they both fear an open battle, and they are both the tools of a (usually) smaller less able foe.

What this statement seems to say is that terrorists will not be permitted, but anti-US guerilla fighers will be allowed. In short, it's now open season on our troops...

Future Shock

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh I see, games over what constitutes and Iraqi leader now? The President of Iraq doesn't count as a leader in your book?
Riiiiight.

The article didnt quote the president but said "leaders". I ask for who these leaders are and all that is said is Shiite and sunni lawmakers.

Well that cleared it up lmao.

Anyway, its funny seeing how you idealogical simpletons react to facts which conflict with your idiotic ideas...

I find it funny somebody calling me a simpleton when they obviosuly lack the reading comprehension needed to understand my first response in this thread.

the article quoted the communique, which is a statement agree upon by the people who were at the conference. The iraqi president and members of parliament were amongst those who wrote and approved this communique.

I don't know how much simplier I have to make this. Perhaps you just lack the equipment to understand. that would explain your kind's fondness for sound bites.