RKBA and the militia....

Status
Not open for further replies.

spartacus2002

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,578
Location
St. Pete, FL
I'm curious to see how the "disarm all those damn Iraqis, they're all terrorists anyway" crowd responds to this. (not referring to anyone on this board). Many view the RKBA as a human right for self defense, to protect the right of self-determination against tyrannical governments, and to ward against foreign invaders. See below....

http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/ac/Qiraq-disarm.RwwG_DS7.html
US, Iraqi militias headed for showdown Sunday, 07-Sep-2003 11:20AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAJAF, Iraq, Sept 7 (AFP) - The US-led coalition appeared Sunday headed for a showdown with Iraqi militias after giving them an ultimatum to lay down their arms that was immediately rejected by a leading anti-US firebrand.

Captain Edward Lofland, spokesman for the US Marines in this holy Shiite city, said coalition forces had given unauthorised militias until Saturday to disarm or have their weapons confiscated and face possible arrest.

A leading Shiite group, whose head was among 83 people killed in a massive car bombing nine days ago, gave qualified backing to the disarmament drive. But an aide to the militant cleric Moqtada Sadr dismissed it categorically.

"We obey only God and our religious leaders. We don't care about what the Americans say," said Sheikh Juad al-Issawi, a member of Sadr's office.

The presence of heavily-armed militia in Najaf and elsewhere has become a key issue in efforts to stabilise Iraq, which has been plagued by violence and lawlessness since the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April.

Lofland said the deployment by the two largest Shiite factions on the streets of Najaf and nearby Kufah since the car bombing here was a clear violation of the ban on militia imposed by the coalition in June.

He said they had until Saturday to surrender their weapons. "After that, we will take their arms away and, if they resist, we will arrest them and put them in jail," Lofland told AFP.

The US Marines have maintained a discreet presence around Najaf, where Salvadoran and Honduran troops have been brought in for patrols.

The Americans have also sanctioned a new 400-strong local protection force for Najaf's main shrine, the tomb of Imam Ali, that was inaugurated after the blast that killed Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim.

Lofland said that after Saturday's deadline, unauthorised Iraqis would be stripped of their arms, including Sadr's nascent forces and the estimated 10, 000-strong Badr militia operated by Hakim's Iran-backed political movement.

He said the coalition would prefer the militia to disarm voluntarily and, in the second instance, would call upon Iraqi police. But in the last resort, he said: "We will not hesitate to disarm them by force if necessary."

Lofland said the coalition had initially turned a blind eye to the militia's growing presence during the first three days of mourning for Hakim and the 82 other victims of the blast.

But it has been decided to extend that period until next Saturday because "there was some confusion about who was being authorised to carry weapons" "We understand that they want to help the police, that's why we are not being aggressive towards them.

Lofland said the coalition had asked the US-appointed Iraqi interim Governing Council to appeal to the militia groups to disarm voluntarily. But council member Muaffak al-Rubai said they had not been contacted.

Sedreddin al-Kubbanji, the Najaf chief of Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), agreed with the deadline but called on the coalition to clear more people protecting Muslim shrines and clerics.

"I think there is no problem in principle," Kubbanji said. "The prinicple is that those who carry the weapons should do so within the regulations and with licences."

But Issawi was adamant that Sadr's forces would not surrender their weapons. "The Americans came two days ago. They tried to disarm us. But we said we could not do it," he said.

"We need to carry weapons to defend our religious leaders. One has been killed. There have been two attempts against Moqtada Sadr's life as well, and the Americans have done nothing to protect him," Issawi said.

One of the commanders of Sadr's militias, Faisal al-Zaidi, stressed that the whole neighbourhood around Sadr's home in a residential district of Najaf, 180 kilometres (110 miles) south of Baghdad, was behind the militia.

"All the people in the area support our cause," he said, brandishing a Kalashnikov. "If Americans come back, then the people will come out in support again."

Issawi said all of Sadr's followers were prepared to lay down their lives for the cleric, who is the son of a revered religious leader killed under ousted president Saddam Hussein.

"If the Americans try to do anything to harm our religious leaders that will be the end of the Americans," he said.
 
Last edited:
I say that the Iraqi citizens have every right to keep their guns - in fact, the US policy for "Iraqi disarmament" took this into account.

The hope of the "gun amnesty" program was that Iraqis would turn in the heavy artillery; i.e. large machine guns, RPGs, grenades, C4 - stuff like that. However, the principle objective was to get the citizens to stop wandering the streets with AKs. It made it difficult for the US troops to identify friend or foe.

As I understand the order, Iraqis are "allowed" to keep pistols and one rifle (up to 7.62cal - i.e. an AK-47) in their home or place of business. They are not "allowed" to wander the streets with them.

The US is trying to reconstitute the Iraqi army to help restore order. They don't want independent militia groups roaming the streets and possibly getting into battles with each other. As long as the militia limits itself to guard duty around the mosques and community facilities, our commanders don't seem to have a problem, however, lately it seems that they have taken to conducting roving patrols and checkpoints.

My interpretation of the "disarm the militia" order is simply to say "leave the big guns at home".

But, I could be wrong. :)
 
spartacus2002

A. They are not doing anything to the American troops that we would not do to any force we thought was not in the best interest of America if they were on our streets.

B. If a similar order went out from that same force, there would be even fiercer resistance by armed Americans.

C. Americans would rather bury their arms than have them taken.

D. This type of action is what got us in trouble in Somalia.

We here at this board realize that there are those who will do as we will do. Just because those they are doing it to are Americans doesn’t make their efforts bad. They are at this time in the same mode we would be in if there were an invading force in America telling us that they were not interested in staying; they were only going to stay for as long as it takes (whatever that means); that they were only there for our best interests; they are only there to set up a much better government than any we had previously had; they were going to rebuild everything they tore down; they were going to give us a better economy; they were going to give us a better infrastructure.

So don’t think we don’t think!

And keep your "terrorist ragheads" comments to yourself. Disparaging epithets and racially inspired monikers seem to flow from the lips of some more readily than others. Not here.
 
jimpeel,

Actually, I'm on the same sheet of music as you. And my "Terrorist R******" comment was not intended as an epithet used against the Iraqis; it was a disparaging remark about a characterization of the Iraqis that I have heard used on this and other boards.
 
They ARE allowing certain militias to organize in some areas now

Yep, but I think they are trying to remove the religious element from the groups and make 'em secular policemen.

Its very dangerous having armed groups loyal to one cleric, which is what they have now.
 
I don`t know if I believe this story. Some of it yes, but parts of it leave me wondering.

If these so called militias are wandering around shooting at other sects, or Americans for that matter, then they`re criminals and should be disarmed and imprisoned. If they`re protecting their property, then what`s the problem? From what I`ve heard so far, most attacks on American troops are done with RPGs, mines and homemade bombs. These are already outlawed. It`s like saying airplanes were flown into the WTC, we must ban firearms.

To say we want them to have a secular society is a joke. They live in the 12th century religionwise and to think they`re going to change overnight is naive. This country was founded because of religious intolerance and it still took decades before real freedom of religion was accepted.
 
If a government isn't concerned about what it's citizenry will do with it's weaponry, it won't try to regulate it.

The more concerned a government is about what it's subjects will do with their privately held weaponry, the more tightly regulated it will be.

In theory, there is no difference in Islam between religion and politics. In practice, religious leaders and bureaucratic structures are frequently tapped to lead and govern political communities. (Of course, it takes only a couple generations before the primary purpose of a bureaucracy becomes self-perpetuation.)

Our government is unwilling to trust the Iraqi's to restrain themselves, while we try to build a reasonable state for them. Our leaders are equally concerned about the reaction of Americans to the efforts to dismantle a reasonable government with a caretaker state. For both, the solution is the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top