Italian group backs Iraq fighters

Mario Feldberg

Emperor
Joined
Jul 23, 2002
Messages
1,034
Location
Reich Inc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3277029.stm

Italian group backs Iraq fighters

Tamsin Smith
BBC reporter in Rome

A group of Italian militants involved in staging anti-war protests is raising funds to support the armed Iraqi resistance, the BBC has learned.

The discovery comes as Italy mourns 19 men killed in a suicide attack in Iraq last week.

The "Antiimperialista" organisation's internet campaign asks people to send "10 Euros to the Iraqi resistance".

They say they have collected 12,000 euros ($14,165) in the past eight weeks and admit the money used could be used to buy weapons.


The Antiimperialistas are a group of European anti-war and anti-globalisation supporters.

They are currently organising an anti-war demonstration in Italy next month, and it remains to be seen whether news of the fund-raising activities will deter more moderate anti-war activists from attending.

The organisation's Italian branch says the money will be given to an Iraqi resistance group known as the Iraqi Patriotic Opposition.

Independent Iraqi sources in London say the leaders of this group have a long history of association with the Baath party and are now back in Iraq supporting the armed resistance.



" To think there are people in Italy collecting money in order to kill our heroes is really a shame "
Lucio Malan
Forza Italia Party



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?"

Shame

The Italian Interior Ministry refused to comment, saying the matter was with the security services.

Lucio Malan, a senator from the governing Forza Italia Party, was shocked to hear about the campaign.

"The first word that comes to my mind is shame and horror," he told BBC Radio Four's Today programme.

"They are raising money against people (Italian troops) who are defending the peace, the security of the people of that country. They have not killed or wounded anyone in that country they are helping to take away unexploded bombs."

He said the group's activities "collecting money to give it outspokenly to terrorist groups" was certainly illegal in Italy.

Your opinion?

IMO these people are scum. Hopefully they will leave this world VERY soon.
 
:evil grin:

Wait to see if American will use the same amount of "traitors" on Italy than on France.
 
Hmm.... how can you call yourself an anti-war organization if you are buying guns for one side of the conflict?
 
A fine example of hyprocrisy at its finest.

Opposing the war means opposing the war, not joining the other side. That actually becomes supporting the war.
 
Hmmm. I think I'll have freedom dressing on my salad tonight! Damn, that means that we have 2 freedom dressings now though. Life is so complicated ;)

In seriousness, I agree with sysyphus.
 
This is pretty sick, considering that 19 Italians were just killed.
 
Originally posted by Jorge
:eek: antiwar people buying weapons to fight in a war?? Makes no sense.

Makes sense. Most of the anti-Iraq-war people were not pacifists. They were just against THIS war, not against war in general.
This group for example strongly supports "anti-imperalist" wars
(by giving money to a group associated with Saddam Hussain. The man who dreamed about conquering the entire middle-east. Now this is the real irony here)
 
Originally posted by Mario Feldberg

Makes sense. Most of the anti-Iraq-war people were not pacifists. They were just against THIS war, not against war in general.

General or specific, participating in a war one opposes in still hypocrisy.
 
I think, quite simply, that this crossed the line from dissent to active support of an enemy in field. And that the correct response is for them to suddenly discover at some 3am in the future what war is really like.

I'm a civil libertarian to the core, but there is a line that can be crossed, and they've crossed it. These guys are no different from Al Queda's financiers.

R.III
 
Originally posted by Mario Feldberg


Makes sense. Most of the anti-Iraq-war people were not pacifists. They were just against THIS war, not against war in general.

Nonsense, at least in France. Nearly everyone of the people I knew opposed the war (I was in favor, at the time) because they were against war, and only ready to accept it in self-defense. That the US was the main pro-war country certainly did not help, but their opposition to war in general was certainly real.
Only a very small minority of the people protesting against the war in Iraq were crackpots such as these in favor of Saddam Hussein.
 
Originally posted by Richard III
I think, quite simply, that this crossed the line from dissent to active support of an enemy in field. And that the correct response is for them to suddenly discover at some 3am in the future what war is really like.

I'm a civil libertarian to the core, but there is a line that can be crossed, and they've crossed it. These guys are no different from Al Queda's financiers.

R.III

I agree. These people should be detained.
 
@sysyphus

Maybe I was unclear. With "THIS war" I meant "US liberating Iraq" or do use their point of view "Evil yankee imperalists trying to overtake another country and install a puppet regime there".
Giving money to a group that tries to kick the "evil yankee imperalists" out is consistant with their anti-war actions.

@Kinniken
Oh yeah "self-defense". Ask almost every fighter on the globe, on both sides of every conflict they will all tell you they are fighting because of "self-defense".
 
Originally posted by Speedo
Hmmm. I think I'll have freedom dressing on my salad tonight! Damn, that means that we have 2 freedom dressings now though. Life is so complicated ;)
Call Italian dressing 'liberty sauce', works for me:)
 
Originally posted by Mario Feldberg
@sysyphus

Maybe I was unclear. With "THIS war" I meant "US liberating Iraq" or do use their point of view "Evil yankee imperalists trying to overtake another country and install a puppet regime there".
Giving money to a group that tries to kick the "evil yankee imperalists" out is consistant with their anti-war actions.

Well then, they should stop calling themselves anti-war and start calling themselves anti-american, then.
 
Originally posted by Richard III

Well then, they should stop calling themselves anti-war and start calling themselves anti-american, then.

The word "anti-war" was and is used for all people who were against this war for whatever reason. This includes everyone from Saddam-loving nazis to hardcore pacifists. It's kinda confusing, I agree. But you must have some sympathy for the journalists. How else should they descripe these "anti-war" protests? "Here we see a bunch of reds calling for the communist world revolution. Here we see some arab youths waving the Palestinian flag and screaming: Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!. Here we see some weed-smokin hippies with - make love - flags. Here we see some jackbooted folks with Saddam/Bin Laden-combo shirts (1) burning Israeli and American flags. And here we see some rather ordinary looking people with anti-Bush posters. And well all these groups together are demonstrating for/against something... eh"

(1) German neonazis have really worn such shirts at "anti-war" protests. The slogan on the shirt was "Meine Freunde sind Ausländer" (My friends are foreigners). A joke kinda, because normaly nazis are infamous for hating foreigners. Whatever just another reason why I supported the war (and still do).
 
I'm not faulting the media. I'm saying that the anti-imperialist types should do the honest thing and distinguish themselves from the pack.
 
Originally posted by Mario Feldberg
@Kinniken
Oh yeah "self-defense". Ask almost every fighter on the globe, on both sides of every conflict they will all tell you they are fighting because of "self-defense".

OK, then "self-defense" in the sense that the other country invaded first. Not "preventive war", like Bush himself described it.
While I was in favor of the war at the time, I never felt it was a "self-defense" war.
 
Top Bottom