• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Iraqi insurgents offer peace

#1
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2251354.ece

For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.

The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet - but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.

Al-Jeelani's group, which also calls itself the "20th Revolution Brigades'', is the military wing of the original insurgent organisation that began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003. The statement is, therefore, of potentially great importance, although it clearly represents only the views of Sunni Muslim fighters.
What would our American friends lose if they agree to temporary truce (on any terms)? Nothing. But at least some lives of American servicemen would be saved.

The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as "proof of goodwill".

* Recognition "of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people".

* An internationally guaranteed timetable for all agreements.

* The negotiations to take place in public.

* The resistance "must be represented by a committee comprising the representatives of all the jihadist brigades".

* The US to be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most senior commander.

It is not difficult to see why the Americans would object to those terms. They will not want to talk to men they have been describing as "terrorists" for the past four years. And if they were ever to concede that the "resistance" represented "the will of the Iraqi people" then their support for the elected Iraqi government would have been worthless.
I also think that there would not be any negotiations. It is too late. Our American friends have lost the war. No one American president would negotiate about capitulation.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#3
KGB_resident said:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2251354.ece

For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.

The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet - but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.

Al-Jeelani's group, which also calls itself the "20th Revolution Brigades'', is the military wing of the original insurgent organisation that began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003. The statement is, therefore, of potentially great importance, although it clearly represents only the views of Sunni Muslim fighters.
What would our American friends lose if they agree to temporary truce (on any terms)? Nothing. But at least some lives of American servicemen would be saved.

The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as "proof of goodwill".

* Recognition "of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people".

* An internationally guaranteed timetable for all agreements.

* The negotiations to take place in public.

* The resistance "must be represented by a committee comprising the representatives of all the jihadist brigades".

* The US to be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most senior commander.

It is not difficult to see why the Americans would object to those terms. They will not want to talk to men they have been describing as "terrorists" for the past four years. And if they were ever to concede that the "resistance" represented "the will of the Iraqi people" then their support for the elected Iraqi government would have been worthless.
I also think that there would not be any negotiations. It is too late. Our American friends have lost the war. No one American president would negotiate about capitulation.
Alternatively, they could run away......like the Russians did from Afghanistan.
 
#4
Biscuits_AB said:
Alternatively, they could run away......like the Russians did from Afghanistan.
Inevitably it will happen in Iraq later or sooner. The only difference - additional American losses without agreed truce.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#5
Of course they will leave you muppet. Christ talk about lack of statement impact.

However, I doubt they'll lose as many in Iraq and Afghanistan combined than you 'admitted' to having lost in Afghanistan alone and let's face it, you had your Commie arrses well and truly kicked by the Afghans.

Or did you think that we'd forgot that one?
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
Biscuits_AB said:
Alternatively, they could run away......like the Russians did from Afghanistan.
Inevitably it will happen in Iraq later or sooner. The only difference - additional American losses without agreed truce.
It is only the Sunni Insurgent who have offered a truce. We will still have to deal with the Shia Insurgents, backed by Iran and led by the Mad Mullah Muqtada Al Sadr. It won't really make a difference. It certainly won't affect the British in the south. The Sunnis don't cause all that many problems in Basra, it the Jaish Al Mahdi (Shias) who are killing Brits.

The Sunni insurgents are just trying to get themselves back in the spotlight again after Al-Zaqawi was killed. It is the same with all situations whenever they go public. They make outrageous demands which they know will never be met, but still state them.

I seem to remember in the 80s when we had PIRA on the rocks and we could have wiped them out, but then the Government of the day gave them respite, and let them regroup and reform and we had 15 more years of bloodshed on the streets of the UK.

Although the Americans are losing men, the insurgency are losing more and they are starting to feel the pressure, keep it up and we can beat them, and then turn our attention to the Shia insurgents.

Either that or pull out now and let the country tear itself apart and then come in afterwards and help the victors, if they want it.

Ish
 
#7
they are ether being really naive, or they are trying to pull some sort of home front undermining job on our governments. i think they are just stupid.
 
#8
ishinryu said:
KGB_resident said:
Biscuits_AB said:
Alternatively, they could run away......like the Russians did from Afghanistan.
Inevitably it will happen in Iraq later or sooner. The only difference - additional American losses without agreed truce.
It is only the Sunni Insurgent who have offered a truce. We will still have to deal with the Shia Insurgents, backed by Iran and led by the Mad Mullah Muqtada Al Sadr. It won't really make a difference. It certainly won't affect the British in the south. The Sunnis don't cause all that many problems in Basra, it the Jaish Al Mahdi (Shias) who are killing Brits.

The Sunni insurgents are just trying to get themselves back in the spotlight again after Al-Zaqawi was killed. It is the same with all situations whenever they go public. They make outrageous demands which they know will never be met, but still state them.

I seem to remember in the 80s when we had PIRA on the rocks and we could have wiped them out, but then the Government of the day gave them respite, and let them regroup and reform and we had 15 more years of bloodshed on the streets of the UK.

Although the Americans are losing men, the insurgency are losing more and they are starting to feel the pressure, keep it up and we can beat them, and then turn our attention to the Shia insurgents.

Either that or pull out now and let the country tear itself apart and then come in afterwards and help the victors, if they want it.

Ish
I think the Yanks have made a start. I posted some weeks ago about the militias infesting the Health ministry and hospitals. Well ABC World Review retransmitted on News24 last night came out with the News that the Yanks are moving against both the militiamen and the junior ministers who are committing the atrocities.
 
#10
Not at all surprised to see the sunnis offering terms. Are they having a fcuking laugh? When the US leave they're going to get rampantly rogered, and with the possible exception of the taleban no one ever deserved it more. Who in the name of holy fcuk do they think they're kidding? Die, punks.

Saudi, Jordan and Turkey will soon border a massive Iranian proxy while the coalition sails home under a massive cloud of smug - knowing the next time they won't need to come back as the nukes will sort the picture out good style. If we're lucky even OPEC will fall apart and we can get back to exploiting the bsatards. Oh, this is going to be bags of fun for the spectators, but the aftermath will be less than impressive I reckon.
 
#14
Bert_Preast said:
Saudi, Jordan and Turkey will soon border a massive Iranian proxy while the coalition sails home under a massive cloud of smug - knowing the next time they won't need to come back as the nukes will sort the picture out good style. If we're lucky even OPEC will fall apart and we can get back to exploiting the bsatards. Oh, this is going to be bags of fun for the spectators, but the aftermath will be less than impressive I reckon.
You cynical b*****d, Sir. A very astute analysis. The original plan, though, was to control Afghanistan first, then Iraq, before finally thrashing Iran, trousers down, six-of-the-best. Unfortunately it's gone a wee bit wonky in the meantime. It looks like Dubya will fail to avenge the Iranian Hostages like his many predecessors.

Top tip - let's test out the nukes and turn Mecca to glass. Hurrah!
 
#15
ishinryu said:
Although the Americans are losing men, the insurgency are losing more and they are starting to feel the pressure, keep it up and we can beat them...
- Oh dear, something strange with my husband. Yesterday he filled a bath and began fishing with a pole.
- You should show him to a doctor, darling.
- I thought about it but... but I like so much fresh fish.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2251354.ece

For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.

The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet - but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.

Al-Jeelani's group, which also calls itself the "20th Revolution Brigades'', is the military wing of the original insurgent organisation that began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003. The statement is, therefore, of potentially great importance, although it clearly represents only the views of Sunni Muslim fighters.
What would our American friends lose if they agree to temporary truce (on any terms)? Nothing. But at least some lives of American servicemen would be saved.

The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as "proof of goodwill".
* Recognition "of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people".

* An internationally guaranteed timetable for all agreements.

* The negotiations to take place in public.

* The resistance "must be represented by a committee comprising the representatives of all the jihadist brigades".

* The US to be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most senior commander.

It is not difficult to see why the Americans would object to those terms. They will not want to talk to men they have been describing as "terrorists" for the past four years. And if they were ever to concede that the "resistance" represented "the will of the Iraqi people" then their support for the elected Iraqi government would have been worthless.
I also think that there would not be any negotiations. It is too late. Our American friends have lost the war. No one American president would negotiate about capitulation.

Is this 5000 recruits to form the 21st and 22nd Revoluntionary Brigades with I wonder?
 
#17
Biscuits_AB said:
Of course they will leave you muppet. Christ talk about lack of statement impact.

However, I doubt they'll lose as many in Iraq and Afghanistan combined than you 'admitted' to having lost in Afghanistan alone and let's face it, you had your Commie arrses well and truly kicked by the Afghans.

Or did you think that we'd forgot that one?
Soviet invasion in Afghanistan was a serious mistake of the Kremplin elders. They lived in their imaginary world and thousands of Soviet soldiers paid by their lives, their health for this senseless adventure. For example a brother of my wife spent 2 years in Kabul and Kandagar. Now he is a pensioner (120 pounds per month) with undermined health.

I see direct parallels between that war waged by Soviet Union and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the end would be the same no doubt. Soviet war lasted 10 years. The history teach us that any war (even 100-years) later or sooner would end. There is no another possibility to reach peace. Only a withdrawal is a realistic option.

As for the offer by Sunni insurgents, then why not to regard it?
 
#18
stroker said:
Is this 5000 recruits to form the 21st and 22nd Revoluntionary Brigades with I wonder?
20 means 1920's - years of Iraqi resistance to the British colonial rule. Personally I think that Sunni insurgents haven't problems with recruits (unlike our American friends).
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
stroker said:
Is this 5000 recruits to form the 21st and 22nd Revoluntionary Brigades with I wonder?
20 means 1920's - years of Iraqi resistance to the British colonial rule. Personally I think that Sunni insurgents haven't problems with recruits (unlike our American friends).
That was my rubbish attempt at humour, a sort of English equivalent of your bath tub joke.
 
#20
stroker said:
KGB_resident said:
stroker said:
Is this 5000 recruits to form the 21st and 22nd Revoluntionary Brigades with I wonder?
20 means 1920's - years of Iraqi resistance to the British colonial rule. Personally I think that Sunni insurgents haven't problems with recruits (unlike our American friends).
That was my rubbish attempt at humour, a sort of English equivalent of your bath tub joke.
You pleased me. I very much appreciate jokes then it is unclear that really it is a joke. Many (if not a good half) my posts here really are jokes.
 

Latest Threads