Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kahljorn
Really? Because my understanding of things is that, generally, when you occupy a country you get rebels(Given the situation, I don't really see how it could've gone over without someone disagreeing with it). That's why I found it to be a strange thing to say, because I find it to be entirely unsurprising and expected.
|
Resistance had always been expected, and GAsux hasn't implied otherwise.
I think it's a question of options rather than mere "rebellion". Granted, it has become an arbitrary word (arbitrary, am I right!? Good times). Terrorists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have been referred to as "insurgents" and "rebels" in iraq. That has never added up with me.
Anywho, there would of course be native Iraqis who would take up arms and resist us. That was anticipated by everyone across the board, with most disagreements being over who, why, and how many.
The point GA is making is that presumably average iraqi citizens have become so mobilized by the invasion, that they now see Al Qaeda as a viable option for fighting back. It's less nationalistic or patriotic, and more ideological.
I think Muqtada al-Sadr serves as a good example. Immediately following the invasion, he and his militia were rebelling against U.S. forces. But once he began negotiating with us and the Islamic leaders of the nation, they put down their weapons, he started a party, and has essentially become a politician...with guns.
This strikes me as being different than the Iraqi citizen who now sees a common cause against us with a terrorist cell.
Hybrid Mode
