Indy Media Watch

SF Bay Area Indymedia is currently debating whether or not the anti-War movement should support the "Iraqi Resistance".

Just so we are clear who they are talking about, here's a picture of some Iraqi Resistance.

At a workshop held yesterday at the World Social Forum, to discuss ending the US occupation in Iraq, a proposal was discussed to support the Iraqi resistance forces. Albert Petrarca, who is in the Pittsburgh Anti-war Committee and who attended the workshop said “the proposal to support the Iraqi resistance came during the question and answer period and their position was that it wasn’t enough to just be against the war but that you had to take a stand in support of the resistance.”
...
A panelist and spokesperson for the End the War Coalition in England disagreed. While she agreed that the struggle to end the war in Iraq is central for all progressives and that a defeat for U.S. forces in Iraq would be of historic proportions, she argued that including support for the Iraqi resistance into the demands of the anti-war movement would have a disastrous effect. If you make that a point of unity in the anti war movement, she argued, you will not be able to build a mass movement capable of stopping the war.

In other words, supporting the terrorists resistance may be bad PR because some people kind of disapprove of the "resistance" tactics.

Incidentally, how does supporting one-side of a war (i.e. the 'resistance') constitute being an anti-War movement? Wouldn't a more appropriate term be anti-US movement?

The issue will be up for discussion on Sunday.

Opposition to war or the US is one thing, but to even discuss supporting people who saw off heads and threaten would-be voters with death is disgraceful. Indymedia provides such a forum.