Europeans Giving Blood Money to Iraq Insurgents (ABC)

[underpants]

Very short article. Basically the claims of one Republican from NY :shrug:



http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1749677

Campaign Launched in Europe Raising Money for Iraq Resistance


March 21, 2006 — Posters showing an American soldier with blood spurting out of his head are being used by Iraqi insurgents to raise money in Europe.

The campaign is called "10 Euros for Resistance." That's about $12, and people in Italy and the Netherlands seem to be chipping in, according to Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y.

Kelly says that the European countries where the campaign has been launched, as well as some in the Mideast, have done little to stop the fundraising.

The cash is moved to Iraq through Syria, helping the insurgents stay on the move, resupply and prepare new attacks on American soldiers, Kelly said.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tocqueville]

6. you are wrong it's illegal if for non-humanitarian purposes

as NATO members we have a pledge of mutual assistance. During the Vietnam war there were similar movements but the money gathered had to have a designed humanitarian purpose.

[Dhalgren]

7. A free citizen is not compelled to act as a independent agent

for the treaties and agreements made by his/her government. If there is no law on the books that forbid the citizen from donating to legitimate resistance movements (and I have not seen one shown in regards The Netherlands or Italy), then the fact that the governments of these countries may be bound by treaties in their official actions does not translate to prohibitions on their citizens' freedom to contribute to any cause that they may support.

[tocqueville]

23. we have different conceptions of democracy

my government can disagree with the US policies but still remain a friend of the nation. You cannot on one hand say that you are a friend and contribute at the same time to to undermine him. the EU gives a lot of financial support and even political support to the Palestinians but not military.

what you paint here is a libertarian conception of "freedom". According to you, you should be free to send money to support an enemy (and with your logic even in the USA). But that would be called treason by the rest of the community.

I can deeply disagree with the current US administration. But I wouldn't never do anything to harm a single US soldier or citizen.

[Dhalgren]

27. There is nothing "libertarian" about it. You are free to donate

money to any cause you wish to - it is your choice. As I said in my post, I am speaking of a third party country with no laws prohibiting a citizen from donating money to a particular entity. You may not wish to support any group that the Bush government has designated as an "enemy", but that is your choice based upon who you do and do not support. The idea that the government of the Netherlands should force its citizens to either support the Bush regime or support no one, is ridiculous. The Bush regime is, by a large portion of the world's population, considered a criminal regime. Why shouldn't free people support the opponents of such a regime?

[tocqueville]

33. the government has the right to take action against attacks on a friend

Whatever the opinion thinks of the US, the US is still considered as a friend as long the US doesn't start hostile actions against European countries. There is a broad cooperation between European police and secret services (not to talk about direct military support in Afghanistan, the Gulf region and even Iraq). The enemies of the Europeans are NOT the US, but the Islamic fundies. So you cannot help one one hand the US and on the other sabotage it. But there is a major difference if you want to send humanitarian help to the Iraqis, even those who disagree with the US occupation (the vast majority). Sadly most NGOs can't work there because of the risks caused by the resistance (even if the kidnappings are only for money).

Helping the Iraqi resistance is in a way attacking the European union. When the French helped the American Revolution they were practically at war with the British.

I can tell you that the guys in France that organized a recruitment system among muslims in the French suburbs to go and fight in Iraq are in jail today. French citizen or not, Al Quaeda supporter or not.

[Dhalgren]

42. Why are they in jail? Did they break a law? If so, fine. You seem

to want to say that a government should be able to dictate what a citizen can and cannot do outside of the requirements and conditions of law. I do not understand what you are saying. As I have said (repeatedly), if someone has broken a law they should and will be prosecuted. It is not just the Resistance that is preventing NGOs from helping in Iraq, it is the "Coalition" forces who are obstructing aide to victims as well. It isn't only the Resistance who is killing and maiming innocents in Iraq, it is the "Coalition" forces as well. And, of course, if the "Coalition" forces were not in Iraq that particular problem would not be at issue.

Just because your government may have friendly relations and treaties (that are worthless to the US, by the way) with the US doesn't mean that a citizen of your country cannot support the (Bush designated)"enemies" of the US - AS LONG AS THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST SUCH SUPPORT. Surely every citizen is free to think, believe, and act (within the law) as he or she chooses...no?

[OKNancy]

8. "legitmate resistance" which one?

First, I have no idea if this is really true or not, but let's say it is and these posters exist.
Which "resistance" is it? Al-Queda? or is it the Sunnis or the Shia. Is it al-Sistani's bunch who wants the death penalty for gays, or is it the theocrats who want to make women property?

Whatever the case, it's a disgusting way to fund opposition to the US.

[Dhalgren]

13. I think that the citizens themselves can make that decision.

If donating to a particular group is against the law in the respective country, then the donor's will be prosecuted (whether the law is just or not), but because the US is the oppressor against whom the resistance is fighting, does not automatically make it illegal to support that resistance - not in third party countries. There is no legitimate way the US can be justified in its war on the Iraqi people; I can easily understand why anyone would want to donate to the Iraqi resistance. I don't think anyone would ever consider Al-Qaeda as any kind of "resistance", at all.

[David__77]

22. It's not for us to judge the "legitimacy."

All Iraqi forces fighting for sovereignty against occupation are national forces representing Iraqi people. The occupation forces and those it installs cannot be legitimate national forces.

[tocqueville]

25. I bet it's extreme left- or rightwingers

and probably a bunch of unhappy muslims. I repeat : this is ILLEGAL. And if they try to recruit, they go to jail.

[Cults4Bush]

30. No worse than your tax dollars funding depleted uranimum

and numerous war crimes and geneva convention violations.

Sorry but that is what booshco has wrought upon us all, we no longer have a foot to stand on as a people when it comes to what may be right right or wrong. I don't blame those people anymore than I blame our soldiers.

[holboz]

2. Does this mean we're planning to invade Europe?

I mean, Dumbya said "You're either with us or against us" and last I heard there aren't a lot of countries "with us" anymore.

[underpants]

3. as the prophecies foretold

:evilgrin:

Welcome to DU if'n I hadn't before

[savemefromdumbya]

43. They never were with us

it was the idiot governments. Take the UK 80% or more were against the war in Iraq. It was only Blair's cabinet who were war mongering and managed to get support from parliament because they were lied to. I think countries in general are becoming less tolerant of the USA, not only Europe

[Heidi]

4. I wonder what Congresswoman Kelly would say about Europeans

contributing to the US resistance against the Bush regime?

[mb6578]

5. some may see this as awful but..

isnt it just as bad when Irish Americans donate money to the IRA? i mean they have killed more Brits than Islamic extremists. If Bush wants to cut funding off from these people he has got to cut Gerry Adams money off first.

[underpants]

9. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Bridget Burke]

11. Sorry--Gerry Adams is no longer with the Provos.

I hope no Americans are funding any of the few fringe-fringe groups still causing damage in Northeastern Ulster. Whether they are Republican or Orange.

You really need to keep up with what's going on in Ireland.

[mb6578]

14. i know exactly whats going on in northern ireland

perhaps gerry adams was just a bad example.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Yes, Gerry Adams was a very bad example.

Things change, you know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. 'are being used' looks a bit of an exaggeration

In English, "10 (or ten) Euros for resistance" gets
no Google hits at all.

The campaign seems to have started in 2003, and in either
September 2004 or September 2005 (there are different dates at
the top and bottom of the article) I think this piece (
http://www.pane-rose.it/files/index.php?c3:o5266 ) is saying a
judge said it wasn't illegal. In June 2005, 44 American
congressmen ( http://www.pasti.org/vento.html ) complained
about it to the Italian ambassador.

Anyone know if it's still actually going on, or is this
congresswoman rather slower than her colleagues?

[underpants]

17. US News and World Report '05

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050623/23euroleft.htm

Other than that I see one story about this on Free Republic

It could be real (there is a web link on the USNEWS story-didn't click on it) but it is probably very small time. Probably yet another gross exaggeration meant as a distraction.

[bemildred]

12. A stirring example of political posturing and propaganda. nt

[Stockholm]

15. This story stinks

n/t

[LynnTheDem]

16. Not a surprise; most citizens around the world see the USA as

the equivalent of Germany invading Poland & France, etc.

We ARE the BAD GUYS in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Also, the world is every day on the news seeing dead, dying, screaming as they bleed to death Iraqi men, women & children. They're seeing every day what we're doing to a nation of people who were not doing one damn thing to anyone. They see the Abu Ghraib torture, the Balad torture; they know about the extraordinary renditions and the truth about Gitmo.

Their reporters and news media actually REPORT news, such as the destroying of Ramadi, Fallujah, Mosul.

There are a shitload of news documentaries in the world, about Iraq as it was before bush's war of aggression against Iraq -yes the happy laughing playing Iraqi children- and the actual invasion -not the rah rah rah embedded reporters bullshit- and the horrific truth of what Iraq is today from bush's war of aggression against Iraq. And very few of these documentaries have been seen in the US. Every night on the news the real Iraq is shown around the world. But not in America. Can't show dead and dying kids on the news in America, not when it's Americans killing them in an illegal immoral unjust war of aggression against a weak 3rd world nation that wasn't in any way a threat to anyone, let alone the world's only superpower.

NO ONE likes a bully. NO ONE likes an invader.

We are INVADERS. The Iraqi "insurgents" are seen as rebels -freedom fighters- defending their homes and their families from the INVADERS.

And invaders are not the good guys.

[tocqueville]

24. This is not representative of EU feelings

the vast majority react the same way that US citizens who are against the war. But nobody except some extreme left elements (or right) want to see GIs killed.

Nobody in the EU is interested of a civil war in Iraq. The day a US president ask us to intercede to find a peaceful political solution to the crisis, we'll answer "present".

and the "freedom fighters" are nothing else than former Saddam elements with a backup from some Al Quaeda nuts.
why should we support them ?

[LynnTheDem]

26. MOST the freedom fighters are "ordinary Iraqis"

Even the US military admits that.

Ordinary Iraqis. Defending their nation from the illegal invaders.

[tocqueville]

32. foot soldiers ordinary, but not the top

The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. Because they are civilians against an organized State army many considered them a guerrilla fight. It is often divided by analysts into several main ideological strands, some of which are believed to overlap:

Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein's former nomenclatura, e.g. army or intelligence officers;
Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi self-determination;
anti-Shi'a Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (the three preceding categories are often undistinguishable in practice);
Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;
Foreign Islamist volunteers including the often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");
Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party) and other leftists;
Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, very active members in the April 2004 campaign, have later begun to take over a more passive role, providing logistical and moral support, but this may change again;
Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money; and
Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency).


Ba'athists

The Ba'athists include former Ba'ath Party officials, the Fedayeen Saddam, and some former agents of the Iraqi intelligence elements and security services, such as the Mukhabarat and the Special Security Organization. Their goal, at least before the capture of Saddam Hussein, was the restoration of the former Ba'athist regime to power. The pre-war organization of the Ba'ath Party and its militias as a cellular structure aided the continued pro-Saddam insurgency after the fall of Baghdad, and Iraqi intelligence operatives may have developed a plan for guerrilla war following the toppling of Saddam Hussein from power. Following Saddam's capture, the rhetoric of the Ba'athist insurgents gradually shifted to become either nationalist or Islamist, with the goal of restoring the Ba'ath Party to power as it once was seemingly out of reach. Many former Ba'athists have adopted an Islamist façade in order to attract more credibility within the country, and perhaps support from outside Iraq. Others, especially following the January 2005 elections, became more interested in politics.

Many Ba'athist organizations, such as the Fedayeen Saddam, have a violent past. Saddam used this particular group as a way to silence his political opponents into submission through fear. One such terror campaign involved members of the Fedayeen Saddam systematically beheading female family members of opponents of his regime.


Nationalists

Nationalists from the Sunni Arab regions are drawn from former members of the Iraqi military as well as other Sunnis. Their reasons for opposing the coalition vary between a rejection of the foreign presence as a matter of principle to the failure of the multinational forces to fully restore public services and to quickly restore complete sovereignty. Some Iraqis who have had relatives killed by coalition soldiers may also be involved in the insurgency. Most likely, the majority of the low-level members of the indigenous Sunni insurgency (such as foot soldiers) fall under this broad category. A smaller number of Shi'a nationalist fighters also exist, which are usually recruited from left-wing backgrounds. Sunni nationalists are mainly left-wing or, more commonly, ex-regime adherents.

Some of these insurgents pursue the restoration of the power previously held by the Sunni minority in Iraq, who controlled all previous Iraqi regimes since the departure of the British. One former minister in the interim government, Ayham al-Samarai, "launched a new political movement, saying he aimed to give a voice to figures from the legitimate Iraqi resistance. 'The birth of this political bloc is to silence the skeptics who say there is no legitimate Iraqi resistance and that they cannot reveal their political face,' he told a news conference." <1> There are some groups of Sunni Islamists who have taken a more explicitly anti-Shi'a role and frequently engage in revenge killings; these are mainly vigilante groups of local significance (as most of their Shi'a counterparts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Resistance

[LynnTheDem]

35. Iraqis.

U.S. Now Finds That Insurgents Are Mostly Iraqis

The battle for the city of Fallujah is giving U.S. military commanders an increasingly clear picture of this country's insurgency, and it is the portrait of a home-grown uprising overwhelmingly dominated by Iraqis...
http://middleeastinfo.org/article4833.html

Insurgents Are Mostly Iraqis, US Military Says

"What's the main threat? It's internal."

U.S. military officials said the core of the insurgency in Iraq was — and always had been — Hussein's fiercest loyalists, who melted into Iraq's urban landscape when the war began in March 2003. During the succeeding months, they say, the insurgents' ranks have been bolstered by Iraqis who grew disillusioned with the U.S. failure to deliver basic services, jobs and reconstruction projects.

It is this expanding group, they say, that has given the insurgency its deadly power and which represents the biggest challenge to an Iraqi government trying to establish legitimacy countrywide.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm

In Anger, Ordinary Iraqis Are Joining the Insurgency
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0628-03.htm

Poll: Iraqis out of Patience

A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in March concluded, “The insurgents...seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13 percent of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

An Insider's Look at the Iraqi resistance

Reporters on the ground say they are ordinary Iraqis who are taking up arms against the US, frustrated with no jobs, no infrastructure and no stability...
http://www.jihadunspun.net/articles/18122003-Iraqi-Resistence/ir/ailatir01.html

More Iraqis Supporting Resistance, CIA Report Says
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1112-01.htm

Inside the Resistance
...growing number of Iraqis joining the resistance...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1061703,00.html

Nationalism drives many insurgents as they fight U.S.

But a wide range of interviews with Iraqis and U.S. officials here paints a starkly different portrait -- a growing, intensely nationalist resistance determined to remove U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies.

...the typical resistance fighter is a young man with a military background who opposes the occupation...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/26/MNG659G46T1.DTL

The majority of resistance fighters are ordinary Iraqis... (Dahr Jamail)
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6071

[tocqueville]

37. of course they are Iraquis, never said the contrary, they are not eskimos

I just said that the organisations leading them are not very recommendable. Either are they baathists or islamists, even Sunni Islamists. Read the whole Wikipedia article.

show me a single IMPORTANT DEMOCRATIC SECULAR organisation leading them. Al Fatah is far more recommendable than all those guys together. Then it doesn't matter that the struggle from ordinary Iraqis is legitimate. It's WHO control them which is important.

This is the TYPICAL mistake of leftist organisations. It was not because the struggle of the Vietnamese people was legitimate that the NVA or the Vietcong were the "good guys". Ask the millions of ordinary Vietnamese that flew the country to escape "reeducation camps"...

From a DEMOCRATIC standpoint regarding the Iraqi resistance the only correct approach is to work for a peaceful political settlement negotiated against the departure of the US troops. And of course you'll have to negotiate with the resistance in the end, specially if it wins. You have no other choice. But taking sides is plainfully wrong. The worse that could happen to Democratic party is to have a "Bagdhad Cindy". Then you can kiss the option of a Democratic President goodbye.

Besides the story is bigger than the original poster's description. Kelly is not alone and according to the Italian site Bush has asked Berlusconi to stop the campaign. See the links in my post below.

[saigon68]

29. Sorry I got to agree with Lynn here

If some rustic from a foreign country came into my house and killed my mother


And a few corrupt citizens were imitating Petain

I'd be very angry

[Doctor_J]

18. Smirky's a uniter, not a divider

sounds like a portion of Europe is uniting against his war of aggression

[Dragonbreathp9d]

19. Is this even true?

[IndianaGreen]

20. Sue Kelly is a Republican, and they all lie!

She is trying to score points for her reelection campaign.

I don't believe anything a rightwinger says, and even if the story were true, I wouldn't care a bit! We shouldn't be in Iraq anyway!

[NYC]

34. Sue Kelly, NY State 19th Congressional District.

More than 654,000 people live in the 19th District, which comprises a significant portion of New York's Hudson Valley region. Congresswoman Kelly represents all of Putnam County, most of Orange County, southern Dutchess County, northern Westchester County, and northern Rockland County.


That map didn't work out very well. Go here to see the upstate segment she represents:
http://suekelly.house.gov/CountyMap.asp

[confludemocrat]

28. can you spell BOGUS? take note: "...according to Rep. Sue Kelly R-NY"

"Posters showing an American soldier with blood spurting out of his head are being used by Iraqi insurgents to raise money in Europe." OK, so where are these posters? they are posted where?
Is this reporting? repeating the claims of a politico

[saigon68]

31. WHERE ARE THE POSTERS ?

[tocqueville]

36. here is the proof of the group who denies the poster exist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3277029.stm

http://www.antiimperialista.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1280&Itemid=87

http://www.modkraft.dk/phorum/read.php?f=7&t=11438&a=1

obviously it's not only Kelly but 44 Congress members that protested

[fedsron2us]

38. OMG the insurgents have collected $14,165 in Italy alone

Can anyone remind me how much money the US government has spent on the occupation of Iraq ?

[tocqueville]

39. It's not the amount, it's the symbolic value

The Italian spokesman of the antiimperialistas, Moreno Pasquinelli, says the money collected so far is in an Italian bank account.

Mr Pasquinelli said it would be taken to Iraq in January. He was candid when asked about raising money for the Iraqi Patriotic Opposition which says it actively supports military resistance.

"Its not our affair how they use this money. If they want to use it to print papers for example, or to buy weapons in order to fight for the Iraqi independence," he said.

"We support the armed struggle in Iraq. our money is to help them, it doesn't matter to us if they use it buy weapons, Kalashnikovs, or medicines for people."

When asked to confirm if the money raised could be used to buy weapons he admitted: "Yes they could, and why not?"

___________________________________________________________________________________________

and if I was the American mother of a GI killed by a weapon purchased with Italian money, I'd be pretty pissed at Italy. It's not because you are against the war that you have to help killing US soldiers. This is outrageous and not only in America...

BTW the SAME guys were probably doing the SAME thing when Clinton was president, because at that time, Milosevic was their hero (still is).

[fedsron2us]

40. If I was an Iraqi whose kid had been killed with a weapon

paid for by US or British taxpayers I doubt whether I would be chuffed to little mint balls either.

You do not seriously believe the paltry sums collected by a left wing splinter group like the 'antiimperialistas' really is going to have any impact on this conflict. Indeed, as any publicity they achieve is likely to have a negative impact on the Iraqi cause, you might wonder who is pulling their strings. It would not be the first time a radical group was used by a western intelligence service to run 'spoiler' operations.

[tocqueville]

41. of course it won't have any impact

but as you say either they are following an extreme ideology or they are manipulated (probably both). That's why it's important to denounce them to cut the grass under the feet of Kelly and co (she was obviously not alone) and the Italian authorithies seem to be pretty embarassed.

Even if those guys are a minority (a little research shows that plenty of similar groups can be found all over Europe, specially in the northern part), you can be sure that they will show up at different events and the media (specially Fox news type) will hype it.

And that's no good for the real anti-war democratic movement. Like when Ramsey Clark shows up at Milosevic's burial.

If you read the whole thread you'll see that there are DUers DEFENDING their right to gather money for weapons.

MY ASS, it's illegal in all European countries to support "militarily" an enemy of the US or another nation you have normal relations with, no matter how awful you think their policies are. Protest is OK, even humanitarian support OK. But not support to weapons, even symbolic.

Antiimperialistas are Bush's best friends.

[Dhalgren]

44. Any aid given to an "enemy" is the same - what it is "for" is

immaterial. If you give them money for food, they can then spend their other monies on weapons. Same for any money given for any reason. "Aid" is "aid", period. It is silly to make differentiations as to aid money "earmarks". If you send food and medicine so as to make a resistance fighter strong and healthy to fight, how is that somehow "better" than is you give the resistance money for guns? It all goes to the same place. You either support the US in its war against the Iraqi people or you support the resistance or you are callously indifferent. All choices would appear to be some variation on these three options...