No. It’s more complicated than that.

Let me make that absolutely clear for the record.
Comment by toasterhead

Ufff, good thing you did that. Exley’s judgements would have pursued your conscience relentlessly.

Comment by Exley — February 21, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

From their perspective, many of them are “patriots.” If you’re stuck in the European notion of nations and countries, it’s easy to condemn any act of violence as Iraqis killing Iraqis. But Iraq is only a country because the British drew some lines on a map of the former Ottoman Empire and called it a country.

The thing to remember is that the terrorists who commit these acts don’t see themselves as terrorists, they see themselves as “patriotic” Shi’a defending themselves against Sunnis, or “patriotic” Sunnis defending themselves against Shi’a, or “patriotic” members of one Sunni tribe defending themselves against another Sunni tribe. Or they see themselves as “patriotic” members of a pan-Sunni movement defending themselves against their opponents. Or they see themselves as someone who really needed the money when a guy paid him to leave a knapsack by the side of the road.

The notion of self-defense can and has been used to excuse a lot of horrific atrocities. Now, I’m not saying that I support or agree with committing these atrocities. Let me make that absolutely clear for the record.

But we’re also doing ourselves a disservice to just lump together all disparate groups in Iraq and call them all “evil terrorists” or call them all “freedom fighters” without looking at the motivations of the individual groups doing the fighting.

Comment by Juan C. — February 21, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

So you are saying killing others is better than peace and cease fire?

And there is more… ;)

Yet here, you laud those who use suicide bombers and car-bombs against innocent Iraqi civilians, call them “patriots” and refuse to condemn their terrorist tactics.

You from your pipe dream…

Toasterhead,

Anything is possible, I suppose.

(It’s a little early for sleep here, Juan….But, thanks).

Comment by Exley — February 21, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

Or he’s gearing up his army in preparation for the ultimate battle against the Awakening Councils, who often cite eradicating the Shi’a as their next target after eliminating al-Qa’ida.

You still defending those who set off car bombs and use suicide-bombers in marketplaces and mosques killing Iraqi civilians by calling them “patriots?”

Comment by Juan C. — February 21, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

Okay, but the analogy to George Washington fighting the British is flawed. This would be more like the British paying off the Navajo to fight the Sioux instead of the British.

If the US were occupied by a foreign force, you wouldn’t call hollow patriot the ones who decided to make truces with the invading force instead of fighting it. I can’t see where is the flaw of that statement. I understand the sensitivity issues, but there is no logic flaw there if we were to be completely sincere.

LMAO!!!!!

Yeah, better side with the foreign forces occupying your country to be called a PATRIOT!!!

Comment by Charles James Napier

Good to see that charles nelson rielly is back. I thought it went away in snit never to return. Wasn’t it something about someone saying something bad about it’s wife? one would think that it valued it’s family more than that.