Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ramzey on April 07, 2004, 12:28:54 PM
-
well, looks like we start destroying sanctuaries:(
-
Good!
If they use those building to hide in and shoot marines.
I say drop bombs on all of em.
:aok
-
"SANCTUARY! SANCTUARY!" - Homer Simpson
"Oh Lord, why did I ever teach him that word?" - Reverend Lovejoy
-SW
-
Originally posted by ramzey
well, looks like we start destroying sanctuaries:(
Looks like the enemy is using sanctuaries as firebases.
-
LOL you know when they do all that kneeling and bending over?
thats when they should shoot em right in the arse:eek:
-
OH MY COD!
-
lol @ homer.
Yup..those guys are in paradise arguing about why thier cleric lied to them..
-
When the insurgents respect the religious buildings enough not to fire from them, Im sure coalition troops wont have any reason to fire on them.
-
If it is used by combatants, then it is a legitimate target.
The fact is that almost any object in Iraq is used by combatants.
-
BOMB THE LIVING watermelon OUT OF THEM!
They've had their chance to get the Hell out of Dodge....
Now its do or die
-
Monte Cassino of 2004. If they holed up in it, bomb it, destroy it whatever it takes.
Karaya
-
Its an interesting parallel throughout history at work here. People are under the impression that churches and places of worship are immune from firebombing during war - but its a pretty effective strategy of terror used throughout Europe during the 17th and 18th century to burn people alive while inside of churches. THey are by no means immune to the ravages of war. Especially if they have snipers inside.....
-
I look at it this way, buildings are man made objects and what they are used for are defined by man.
Once a man with a gun starts shooting at others from that building, the defination of the building changes from whatever it was to whatever is appropriate for a shooter to be hiding in.
I.E., no Mosque was damaged in the raid. A building with people shooting our people was damaged or destroyed.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I look at it this way, buildings are man made objects and what they are used for are defined by man.
Once a man with a gun starts shooting at others from that building, the defination of the building changes from whatever it was to whatever is appropriate for a shooter to be hiding in.
I.E., no Mosque was damaged in the raid. A building with people shooting our people was damaged or destroyed.
Totally agreed.
Apparently, though, in the minds of some, god and an armed man can bunk together.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I look at it this way, buildings are man made objects and what they are used for are defined by man.
Once a man with a gun starts shooting at others from that building, the defination of the building changes from whatever it was to whatever is appropriate for a shooter to be hiding in.
I.E., no Mosque was damaged in the raid. A building with people shooting our people was damaged or destroyed.
That may all be true in the eyes of the Marines and US Army who took out the position. From a military standpoint or "rule of war" standpoint I completely agree that a mosque, church, synagogue, school, hospital, etc. loses any "immunity" the moment the enemy uses it as a firebase.
That said, the political fallout on the ground in Iraq will be negative, i.e., "Those Americans have no respect for our holy places". So regardless of whether or not a mosque is a legitimate military target, the PR battle on this one will be lost on the ground in Iraq.
Fortunately, fighting the PR battle is not one which should be the responsibility of the troops but rather the politicians...but if only life could be so simple...
-
MJ
Your right, I am sure the terrorists and Democrats will be the first to exploit this politicaly....
:D
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
That said, the political fallout on the ground in Iraq will be negative, i.e., "Those Americans have no respect for our holy places".
and that's exactly why they do it.
-
< rant mode on >
Seems some of you feel that inciting the muslim world is a good thing.
Yeah, burn 'em all with napalm....stupid knee jerk reactions like that will do nothing but show the world that, although we're invinceable, this administration doesn't have neither the temperment, intelligence nor the proper morality to weild that power, IMO.
Having non-muslims encroach on a religious 'compound' isn't how this war will be won. The result of this action is going to be used as a recuiting tool for yet another generation of anti-american terrorists. Every day there are moderate muslims who want to take up arms against us after seeing, hearing or experiencing the results of having non-muslims damaging, defiling and disrespecting their places of worship.
This cycle has to end if we truly want to curtail terrorisim worldwide. What has happened this past year has too few benifits compaired the coalescence in the muslim world against not only Americans but other western nations as well.
I have no answers for our situation in Iraq, however, I'm certian that this realy isn't the time to bring out the big stick without regard to the effect that collateral casualties will have in the muslim world. How many more generations of terrorists will our government create before it sees the danger and longlastiing negitave effects of weilding the biggest stick on the planet?
BTW, you guys that think that you'll be safe from the draft if Dubya wins in '04 better think again. This administration has plans to take people up to the age of 45 to fill some slots in the tech feild. The lessons learned during the VN era draft will come to play when there will be much fewer catagories for deferment available and those will be very narrowly defined.
< rant mode off >
Thanks Dubya < spits >
-
Ya know, that's a good point, we should let the Iraqi police blow up the mosque.
-
Backing away will not solve it. We backed away for too long and it got over 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11. Your presumption, if I may suggest, is that there can be a peace accord reached with them.
I submit there is no possible way for peace to occur. There is no possible scenario that would cause terrorists to back away from the United States. There never has been one, and there never will be one.
It does not matter who our political leaders are, it does not matter who makes what choice. There will never be an accord reached with people who are so willing to take human life in the name of religion.
-
Mrlars
"BTW, you guys that think that you'll be safe from the draft if Dubya wins in '04 better think again. This administration has plans to take people up to the age of 45 to fill some slots in the tech feild. The lessons learned during the VN era draft will come to play when there will be much fewer catagories for deferment available and those will be very narrowly defined. "
Link please?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Backing away will not solve it. We backed away for too long and it got over 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11.
So you are saying if we got rid of saddam in "91", that there would be no OBL or 9/11? If we go by your statement, we should have invaded Iran instead. I'll never understand the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, even our administration has backed of that assertion.
-
hmm wonder what it would take to ship a bunch of "Kerry" buttons off to these insurgents? mwaahaahaa Tell them the buttons have magic powers
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Backing away will not solve it. We backed away for too long and it got over 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11. Your presumption, if I may suggest, is that there can be a peace accord reached with them.
I submit there is no possible way for peace to occur. There is no possible scenario that would cause terrorists to back away from the United States. There never has been one, and there never will be one.
It does not matter who our political leaders are, it does not matter who makes what choice. There will never be an accord reached with people who are so willing to take human life in the name of religion.
I see it just the other way around. You reap what you saw.
Not that US was backing off too much, in fact it was sticking its nose too much in Middle East, that's why it got hurt.
Sad for those who died, but true.
Think about it. Why aren't countries that do not interfer in Middle East attacked ? Why aren't terrorists targetting Island, Finland or
Jamaica, for example ?
-
Backing away will not solve it. We backed away for too long and it got over 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11
Amen...
Some seem to foget that small fact.
Many, including myself had friends/family members in those whoopee towers. Was it their fault some arrogant mid eastern lunatic flew a jet into the side of them? Don't test me on this topic, I have little respect for those who think it was the US who provoked this insane act.
I watched those towers fall, not on TV mind you, but from miles away. Nothing has ever affected me more than that day and those hours.
I dont care about their stupid huts, where they say they just practice their religion. Do the think we are that stupid? Everytime another one of those AK toating basterds dies it makes me feel a little bit better inside about this world and the fact that there is justice.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
Amen...
Some seem to foget that small fact.
Ah, the fact that even the administration has backed off the assertion of Iraq being linked to 9/11?
BTW, OBL is still running around, shouldn't we be hunting him down instead?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Why aren't terrorists targetting Island, Finland or
Jamaica, for example ?
Because Finland and Jamaica are ineffectual. Nobody cares enough to care enough.
If the US pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, and stopped aid to Israel the next day. Somebody would find a new reason to burn our flag before the weekend.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So you are saying if we got rid of saddam in "91", that there would be no OBL or 9/11? If we go by your statement, we should have invaded Iran instead. I'll never understand the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, even our administration has backed of that assertion.
I never specifically said a thing about Iraq. I said we sat around too long and got a lot of innocent people killed. Please do not put words in my mouth.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
Everytime another one of those AK toating basterds dies it makes me feel a little bit better inside about this world and the fact that there is justice.
With all respect to the dead, but this statement could very well be a terrorist slogan.
Stop poking them and they'll stop stinging back. Not instantly, as there are generations who grew up on hate. Maybe it is even too late.
Ever since oil became important the problems started. That's the problem with Middle East, not Kur'an.
Continue the omnipresent US interference in every country on this planet and some people will fight back. Some using terrorist means.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I never specifically said a thing about Iraq. I said we sat around too long and got a lot of innocent people killed. Please do not put words in my mouth.
When you said backing away, I took it as the situation in Iraq. Sorry if I misunderstood.
-
Hristo, re-read what I said. You want to put words in my mouth too. Do you think 9/11 was out fault Hristo? Looking at your response alludes to that, so I thought I would ask so I could understand your perspective better.
You guys want to have a discussion, then ask questions if you do not understand, but putting words in someones mouth that were never stated just wastes time.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
When you said backing away, I took it as the situation in Iraq. Sorry if I misunderstood.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
When you said backing away, I took it as the situation in Iraq. Sorry if I misunderstood.
No problem Sixpence. For the record, I think going after Iraq was not the right thing to do at this moment in time.
However, I believe that it was inevitable due to the support of terrorists Iraq has appeared to afford.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
I watched those towers fall, not on TV mind you, but from miles away. Nothing has ever affected me more than that day and those hours.
I lost 3 friends that day. Point is - they are playing the classic insurgency role - as long as we can agree on that point. And the only way to deal with that in prior engagements throughout history has been somewhat akin to a form of draconian revenge on the part of the conquerer. The gloves have not come off yet...and I fear the day they do is when we have lost complete control.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
However, I believe that it was inevitable due to the support of terrorists Iraq has appeared to afford.
Thing about that is, there are more countries seriously supporting terrorists - above and beyond what Saddam ever would - that we will not touch. Iran, Syria, hell - Palestine.
If we are serious about this "War on Terror"ism, then those countries should be preceeding Iraq. However, if its decided to take them out too, we'll be out of men aged 18-25 real quick.
Not really directed at you Skuzzy, just felt like responding to that line that many have stated.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
No problem Sixpence. For the record, I think going after Iraq was not the right thing to do at this moment in time.
However, I believe that it was inevitable due to the support of terrorists Iraq has appeared to afford.
What bothers me more than anything is the real cause of 9/11, OBL, has become an afterthought, and I can't understand why. Why is that scum is allowed to live his life is beyond me, if he dies of natural causes I will feel that justice will never be done. Not only did he cause over 3000 American deaths, it sparked a war that has cost 10,000 civilian Iraqi lives(although the muslim world will never see it that way).
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hristo, re-read what I said. You want to put words in my mouth too. Do you think 9/11 was out fault Hristo? Looking at your response alludes to that, so I thought I would ask so I could understand your perspective better.
You guys want to have a discussion, then ask questions if you do not understand, but putting words in someones mouth that were never stated just wastes time.
Sorry if I misunderstood. Don't want to put words in your mouth, think my own are enough.
9/11 was a terrorist act and a crime against humanity. I never disputed that. The ones responsible should be brought to justice. Afghanistan action was legitimate, IMO and I never was against it.
But whose fault was it, I'm not so eager to decide. This in no way makes the ones who did it less criminal and terrorist, but you got to ask yourself why every militant in Middle East has US as its target. Surely it was not so 50 years go.
Did Islam become more aggressive ? Did it become a sort of militant religion ? In my opinion - no. Sure there are fundamentalist militants, but so happens with every religion.
IMO, the problem is oil. Everyone wants to put their hands on it and it makes more and more problems over there. And some see a way to solve them thru terrorist means.
Iraq, IMO, was totally unnecessary. Sure, it had a dictator reluctant to obey UN resolutions. But since 1991 he has been confined to his own country and wasn't harming anyone except his own countrymen - just like every other dictator on this planet. So far there have been no 9/11 ties confirmed, no WMDs found and Saddam being oppressive to his own people seem to have been only reason for invasion, at least when you go listen to wht Rummy or Gen. Myers say.
-
I agree Wulfe. I think Iraq was going to on the list, as it were, but there are far worse countries/elements that should have been addressed first, if we are to be taken seriously about the declaration of war on terrorism.
Getting a little off topic here.
I spoke my piece about that building and I stand by it.
-
Thank you Hristo, that helps.
The world, power, corruption, and many other elements that make up the mire of entangled relationships are not constant. There is always flucuations.
A little known German dictator decided to start a war once. No reason for him to attack who he did, but it happened.
The United States is a large target. Being the number one power n the world for quite some time made it a fat target. Too fat maybe. We can spend years citing what may have been the right thing or the wrong thing to do.
In the end we are here. Hindsight is a great tool, to be used to keep from making the same mistakes over and over again and using the good things learned.
9/11 should have never happened. It could have been prevented, through numerous means, but in the end, it was just a most unimaginable occurence.
No matter what we do, we can never right that wrong. However, maybe we can slow it from happening again. Notice, I did not give absolute closure to this. Terrorism will exist as long as men are alive on this planet. It cannot be erradicated, but we should be able to quell it a bit.
When I say 'we', in this context, I am speaking of the world, not just the United States. No country should have to suffer a 9/11.
How it is being addressed is a good topic for another discussion, providing it can be kept civil, as this one has wandered a bit.
-
Capt. Pork..
You said:
"Because Finland and Jamaica are ineffectual. Nobody cares enough to care enough. "
Do you mean that you don't care or people in general? (outside those countries)
-
I think that the problem is not the validity or not of the target regarded from a military perspective.
Actually it was a valid target just because the place was bombed.
The problem is more political or the perception the local population will have of the event .
You can read the event as :
-showing the determination of the US troop
-yet another destroyed building full of target
or more likely as it will be in lot of mosquee during the friday sermon :
-yet another "barbaric" US attack on a sanctified muslim place.
So military speaking it was ok but politicaly ...hahem ... not so good IMO, it's certainly also why there was people inside, muslims love martyrs and are not affraid of creating new martyrs...
-
I believe that Iraq had no signifigant participation in Terrorist acts..they certainly have never been accused of any by the US. Using that as a justification for the invasion and implying that they should have been invaded just after other countries were invaded is really really an increadable statement.
There was no justification for the invasion..accept that.
Is sky news a responsible news source?
hope not (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1130577,00.html)
-
The troops have to shoot thier enemies..period. Bit of good press for the insurgents but who cares..you have to fight them where they are.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
9/11 was a terrorist act and a crime against humanity. I never disputed that. The ones responsible should be brought to justice.
Yep and a german judge just set free the only man convicted for the 9-11 crime.
Hamburg court frees 9/11 suspect
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 Posted: 9:01 AM EDT (1301 GMT)
El Motassadeq had been only September 11 suspect convicted.
Story Tools
RELATED
9/11 defendant asks for release
Retrial ordered for 9/11 suspect
Profile: Mounir el Motassadeq
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Acts of terror
September 11 attacks
Mounir el Motassadeq
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
HAMBURG, Germany (CNN) -- The only suspect convicted in the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States has been released from a German jail, pending a retrial.
A Hamburg court Wednesday ordered the release of Mounir El Motassadeq, 30, after he was granted a mistrial last month.
El Motassadeq was released on condition he remain in Hamburg and report to police twice a week.
A new trial is scheduled to begin June 16.
In a statement, the court said El Motassadeq "is no longer an urgent suspect in the charge of accomplice to murder, but only as a member of a terrorist organization."
The Moroccan had been serving a maximum 15-year prison term in Hamburg since a court convicted him in February 2003.
However, an appeals court ruled March 4 that El Motassadeq was denied a fair trial because the U.S. government refused access to a key witness in its custody.
El Motassadeq consistently denied the charges during his three-and-a-half-month trial.
He was found guilty of providing logistical support for the Hamburg al Qaeda cell that included lead September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, who piloted one of the two airliners that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York.
His lawyers asked the appeals court for acquittal or a retrial, alleging their client was wrongly convicted because the United States refused to allow court testimony by Ramzi Binalshibh, thought to be the Hamburg cell's key contact with al Qaeda.
Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks and is in U.S. custody.
-- CNN's Berlin Bureau Chief Stephanie Halasz contributed to this report.
-
If the insurgents are going to attack US coalition military installations, then they should be able to at least shoot back at the attackers.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Capt. Pork..
You said:
"Because Finland and Jamaica are ineffectual. Nobody cares enough to care enough. "
Do you mean that you don't care or people in general? (outside those countries)
The people that might have something to gain by practicing terror.
-
Found some footage from Iraq. (http://www.combatfilms.com/Previews%20Video/virgin%20Soldiers%20small.mov)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I believe that Iraq had no signifigant participation in Terrorist acts..
And you are wrong. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Acqsa martyrs brigades are all terrorist organizations, they were all trained, armed and funded by the Iraqi government.
they certainly have never been accused of any by the US.
Wrong again.
Using that as a justification for the invasion and implying that they should have been invaded just after other countries were invaded is really really an increadable statement.
There was no justification for the invasion..accept that.
That is your opinion stop pretending that you are stating a fact. There are several different types of justification, there is legal justification, moral justification, justification from a self-defence perspective etc etc. You have stated your opinion on the matter...fine. Stop pretending to speak for anyone or anything but your own self.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As the commander in the field I would have ordered the building bombed to spare my men. As the overall commander of the operation I would have ordered the commander in the field to take the building with infantry to avoid the political/PR ramifications of bombing a holy place. As the politician responsible for this hole debacle I would have shot myself.
Meanwhile, in real life, you spend your time on a BB thrashing the US while looking for excuses for terrorism.
-
lol GScholtz
-
LOL GS :D
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Monte Cassino of 2004. If they holed up in it, bomb it, destroy it whatever it takes.
Karaya
OH, oh!!
The worst example to bring.
MonteCassino was left deserted by German troops for an agreement of the prior of the monastry.
The place was manned by the German paratroops AFTER the bombing.
The allies did'nt know that, seem, so they are only partially hold responsable for the distruction of one of the older monastry in history, but seem that your history is different than mine.
I have noticed this many times on this board, and I think that, expecially when the facts are still "warm" it's normal, so I use to try (underlined) to look at all the possible (visible) versions, and use common sense, (and a bit of cynism) to have a probable truth.
Some people, au contrair, take history as a different form of religion.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Backing away will not solve it. We backed away for too long and it got over 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11.
9/11 has been an horrible act and must be persecuted avery single people that is connected with this atrocity.
But the USA have never "backed up", this is something that most US citizen seem to fail to understand.
Maybe you need to be a US foreigner to understand how intrusive, destabilizing, and aggressive can be the US interests for another country/culture.
I am not talking about moral issues (right or wrong, good or bad), just the aggressive posture of the "model".
And, if we want to look really close to the things, it's something that is common in all the so-called western world, in wich is included Europe too.
And is more ancient of the birdth of the USA, bit and traces of this attitude can be found even in the Roman Empire.
A cultural model that have evolved in the actual western world, a winning, powerful model, indeed, with the U.S. as the higher point, at the moment.
Your presumption, if I may suggest, is that there can be a peace accord reached with them.
I submit there is no possible way for peace to occur. There is no possible scenario that would cause terrorists to back away from the United States. There never has been one, and there never will be one.
Well, skuzzy, you are a pessimist (correct word?).
By definition a terrorist will never back up, but it's possible to reach a pacific confrontation with the moderates, and they are many more than terrorists.
Without a popular base, the terrorists lose force and is really easy to eliminate them.
It worked here in the '70s-80s, even if some of the "weapons" used were... ehm... nonconventional.
The problem is that it's not an easy road to walk, it's easyer to use the violence.
But violence call violence.
It does not matter who our political leaders are, it does not matter who makes what choice. There will never be an accord reached with people who are so willing to take human life in the name of religion.
It matter, it matter.
If your leaders are too much involved in the economics, and/or religion, it matter a lot.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And you are wrong. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Acqsa martyrs brigades are all terrorist organizations, they were all trained, armed and funded by the Iraqi government.
Those are your opinons, right?
That is your opinion stop pretending that you are stating a fact. There are several different types of justification, there is legal justification, moral justification, justification from a self-defence perspective etc etc. You have stated your opinion on the matter...fine. Stop pretending to speak for anyone or anything but your own self.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Meanwhile, in real life, you spend your time on a BB thrashing the US while looking for excuses for terrorism.
Here we go, another thread going down.
-
yup
-
If your leaders are too much involved in the economics, and/or religion, it matter a lot.
What do you mean?
-
Originally posted by Naso
Those are your opinons, right?
No, those are facts.
Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Aqcsa martyrs brigades are all on the terrorist-list. Check it out if you dont believe me.
It was official Iraqi policy pre Gulf War 2 to pay 10-20 000 USD to the family of any suicide bomber attacking Israel. Hamas and Al Acqsa martyrs brigades does just that.
Hezbollah operates in Syria and Lebanon, and mostly stage cross border attacks into northern Israel these days.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What do you mean?
I'll tell you if you promise to put down the flamethrower.
:)
-
This:
Originally posted by Hortlund
And you are wrong. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Acqsa martyrs brigades are all terrorist organizations, they were all trained, armed and funded by the Iraqi government.
Is different than this:
Originally posted by Hortlund
No
Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Aqcsa martyrs brigades are all on the terrorist-list. Check it out if you dont believe me.
It was official Iraqi policy pre Gulf War 2 to pay 10-20 000 USD to the family of any suicide bomber attacking Israel. Hamas and Al Acqsa martyrs brigades does just that.
Hezbollah operates in Syria and Lebanon, and mostly stage cross border attacks into northern Israel these days.
Please choose a position.
-
I know english is not your first language Naso, but those two things are the same.
To avoid getting dragged into another one of the absurd "prove every word you say like this was a court of law"-demands that always pop-up when someone points out the Iraqi ties to terrorism, I choose to point at two things that even the most fanatic anti-war types cannot dispute.
Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Acqsa martyrs brigades are all terrorist organizations, they were all supported by Iraq in various ways. Easily verifiable facts.
Now why dont you go back to whining about another thread "going down" :aok
-
Originally posted by Naso
I'll tell you if you promise to put down the flamethrower.
:)
I could have chosen much different wording if that was my intent...
So go ahead, please explain what you have in mind..
-
Conflict of interests.
In every political system, the power is mantained by few means.
One of the older is the brute force, and even if is still working somewhere today (Former Iraq, many African countries) is more and more less applicable in our western world.
It still work here in little areas, public order, blatantly subversion movements, internal terrorists without large support, but we can agree that in our western countries a power cannot be mantained with the use of the brute force without provoking a large uprising.
Another mean to mantain power is the culture, and here we enter in a more complex world, with many substrata.
In our countries there are different cultures (intended as common shared set of social rules, knowledge, values, and even phisical objects) but those cultures are all subspecies of the "western family".
Since we have (luckily) left in the past the dictatorial experiments, our sub-cultures share the same form of government, the democracy, it is not perfect, but seem, at the moment, the best that we can hope for.
The main carateristic of democracy is that the power is mantained via the "popular support".
Let's discard for the moment the big problem and argument relative to the media control, we can start with the concept that he who want to mantain or reach the power, need to like to the majority of the population, gain support.
To not have a biblical post, i'll concentrate first on one of theese way to gain support, that happens to have been in the past one of the means that, by itself, granted power, the religion.
It's still working very well, being identified with the defender of the common religion of the populace, is a great way to mantain support by the mayority without recurring to the use of the "lesser of the means", aka violence.
You can find good examples of the "old-style way" in a lot of the muslim countries, where many people in power (royal families) claim to be descendant of Muhammad, or when some leader claim to be the Mahdi.
In our countries it's more subtile, but you can bet that a leader acting and claiming to be a christian of the local variety (or in the case of the USA, more than one), will gain more support that one that is professing to be muslim or (for the USA), worse, atheist.
Here we can see one of the few main differences between our contries.
Here, I can assure you than an atheis will be way more considered than a muslim, heck, we had even professing non-believers as prime ministers or presidents.
But I bet that, maybe not in this crusade atmosfere today, but in pre 9/11, if you had to choose between an atheist and a muslim believer, it will be a tough call, but the atheis will have few possibility to have your vote.
In a nutshell:
To be a winner, left or right, you need to show to be a religious, in other words, being religious is a positive value in the race for power.
But, in the international field, the religious part become negative, for many reasons, expecially with a counterpart that is already in a defensive stance (the muslim world).
So, even if the man in power reached his power by showing a religious stance, he have to mediate this stance, find a balance that grant support from the interior, but, in the same time, does'nt spread to the external the image of a too much religious type (remember that religion imply Dogmas).
The latter is not something in wich Dubya is good at.
There will be more to say, but the religion part is not so important as it seem.
The main thing is economics.
(... continue...)
-
Hortland.
How is Iraq support of the palistinians support of terror? George Bush has mediated with Palistinianians..so is he bartering with terrorist then? And telling Isreal to concede to thier demands?
No. The palistinians were not terrorists. In the US world view.If they were the US would simply have invaded Lebenon and the Gaza strip in thier war on terror..They didnt ..they never even used the term terrorists to apply to the Palistinians for years.
Name the incendent of terror that the US invaded Iraq for..
There is none. How then can it be an invasion that is now to be justified as part of the war on terrorists? It cannot. Calling the Iraqis terrorists is also not correct.
But keep proping up your sad world view how ever you like..just dont pretend your doing it with reason or honesty.
-
(continue)
The economical part will require a more long premise, I hope to not become too boring.
We cannot deny that our economical system is not stable.
Not stable in the sense that we NEED to push always forward the economy, we cannot let it stagnate in a balanced status.
We need to continue producing richness, spending money, and grow.
We are like a man that is running, we cannot stop moving the legs, or we will fall face down.
the market (in some sense the new divinity) is our main leg, it need to keep expanding, for two main reasons.
We need more consumers (consume), and we need more resources (including low cost workforce).
so, for it's own survival, our system have to expand, and, since is a fight for survival, it do it in an aggressive manner.
To make a long premise short, we can attribute this force to all the parts of the economical system, the entities that we can put in a group and call them "economical powers".
The expantion of consume can happen, or expanding simply the number of customers, or expanding the needings of the already acquired customers base.
The latter is made in the inside, and we are well trained to be victim of the new toys that we are convinced are necessary for our survival.
The former is a little more difficult, and is made using first the "image", then the pressure on the debt (there are no countries in the world that dont own something to us), and, looking at the last tendence, even using armed force.
Anyway, the world is not so naive as we like to think, and the powers of many muslim countries, that have a delicate balance, mainly based on a stable economical system, a firmly religion permeated culture, see our aggressive penetration in their world as a menace to the status quo.
In theese cases, everything that comes from us is evil, we are evil, we are the enemy, a powerfull enemy.
With theese premises, let's look inside our system.
Gain support.
In our system, to be visible, to buy the hearts and minds, you need MONEY.
Unless you have your own (and in this case you are already part of the economic powers), you need support by the economic powers.
This means that you have, later, to pay your debt for the support given (Haliburton ring a bell?).
In both cases, you need to keep the expantion running, to mantain the (perceived or not) aggression toward the different cultures.
On the other side of the coin, even if, by absurd, you'll not mantain your word, and you'll try to think on a longer term, thus avoiding (or try) to expand so aggressively, you'll have worse consequences.
Trying to stop the run of the economy have a nice effect, it worsen the lifestyle of your voters.... uh oh.... BAAAAD.
It's a No-win situation, you need to mantain the running.
So, for the outside, at this point, you need to develope a way to do it "softly".
You have to play hidden, dirty tricks, while mantaining an innocent face.
The western countries, and the USA between them, as a leader, have done this in the last century.
There were many suspects, second guesses, but nothing that cut have been blatantly proved.
But GWB Jr. does'nt care, it's inebriated (??) by this superpower delirium.
9/11 has happened with the worse president possible.
A Roosvelt, a Kennedy, a Reagan, heck, even "BJ" Clinton or GWB senior cut have treated the thing better.
After 9/11, during the Afganistan work, there has been a moment in wich the USA could have obtained the impossible by the rest of the world (do you remember?).
With this Iraq mess the future is darker than ever, and we will ALL pay for this.
<----- look what he wrote...
"Oh my, I will be burned alive" :eek:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Hortland.
How is Iraq support of the palistinians support of terror? ..
Iraq Boosts Suicide Bomber Payment
By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH
Associated Press Writer
NABLUS, West Bank (AP) Saddam Hussein has increased money for the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. But Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a priceless thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory not greed.
Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.
The devout Muslims among the bombers, a majority, believe they will go to heaven as martyrs and spend eternity in the company of 72 virgins. In grainy farewell home videos, they often read passages from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, and praise God. Secular attackers know that after the deed, their families will win the adulation of friends, neighbors and strangers.
The other motive seems to be a strong yearning for revenge. Relatives of many of the bombers recall how many of the young men's formative years were spent in Israeli jails. The mother of one bomber said her son once watched Israeli soldiers beating his father.
Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier for some potential bombers to make up their minds. ``Some people stop me on the street, saying if you increase the payment to $50,000 I'll do it immediately,'' Safi said. He also suggested such remarks were made mostly in jest.
Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian battles. ``I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes,'' said Safi.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Saddam's payments inspire a ``culture of political murder.''
``Here is an individual who is the head of a country, Iraq, who has proudly, publicly made a decision to go out and actively promote and finance human sacrifice for families that will have their youngsters kill innocent men, women and children,'' Rumsfeld said Wednesday.
But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar both U.S. allies pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.
The mother of Jamal Nasser, a 23-year-old architecture student who died trying to ram an explosives-laden car into a bus carrying Jewish settlers, said she received a check for $10,000 from Iraq and another for $5,000 from Saudi Arabia. She said she plans to put the money toward buying an apartment. She wants to move her family from the small place they've been renting for more than 20 years. The money she received is about half the cost of a small apartment in Nablus.
Fifty-five Palestinians have blown themselves up in attacks on Israeli civilians in the past 18 months of fighting.
Under the new Iraqi payscale, decided on March 12 during an Arab conference in Baghdad, the families of gunmen and others who die fighting the Israelis will still receive $10,000, while the relatives of suicide bombers will get $25,000.
Safi and two others from the Arab Liberation Front visit families in the northern West Bank and make the payments. ``We go to every family and give them a check,'' he said. ``We tell them that this is a gift from President Saddam and Iraq.''
Updated: April 3, 2002 3:23 PM
-
Naso, I am probably more cynical than pessimistic. In the context of what is going on, I think pessimism and reality are not too far apart.
The horrors mankind has inflicted on itself and others in the name of religion are too well documented. I see no reason why terrorists actiing in the name of religion will act any differently than history has dictated.
This is what my opinion is based on as to why there is nothing that can be done to stop this lunacy.
My reference to the United States backing away in conjunction with the 9/11 atrocity, is centered around our country sitting on its collective minds with knowledge of what could/would happen and doing nothing about it.
An inherent fear of being politically wrong, or being concerned about being chastised in the media will or has caused our leaders to pause. If decisive leadership prevailed, 9/11 may not have occurred. Big "if", and I am using hindsight to judge the activities of our leaders, which is probably not correct.
Had we done anything to prevent 9/11, we probably would have been viewed as terrorists ourselves, pretty much like we are being viewed now. Being proactive has its detractors.
-
I understand, now.
:(
Yes, it's a sad moment of history.
Our leaders are still ignoring what is happening outside of the last preference poll.
This short sight is scaring.
-
Iraq Uprising = Quagmire
(no matter how many Mosques you blow up it just makes the situation worse) What ever the tactical advantage was of killing a few gunmen in a Mosque it is far out weighed by the Strategic disadvantages.
What ever happend to the Cheney ideal?
"the streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans."
"The fight will be weeks rather then months"
"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
"you always plan for the worst," but he also said, "I don't think it would be that tough a fight; that is, I don't think there's any question that we would prevail."
...-Gixer
-
I was just watching the last footage from the Bradley (I think) destroyed in Iraq, with wounded soldiers coming out of it and I just had to ask a question that may sound naive, but...
Where are all those RPGs coming from??
I mean, if those are from the last regime's army, they should have been seized by now, right?
And if they are importing them, then there's not enough border controls (by far). For cod's sake, it's an occupied country after all!
I don't know if it's the lack of intelligence or the lack of forces to control the borders, but I think more attention should be put in known arm dealers. I'm pretty sure that there are not many capable of delivering that much firepower.
As I said, it does sound naive, but nevertheless I'd like to be enlightened (no pun intended) by some of the posters versed in these subjects.
Daniel
-
"Where are all those RPGs coming from??"
The Iraqui's buried enormous caches of weapons all over thier country. The news media showed many of them found during and just after the invasion. The reports were (as I recal) that they believed those found were a decent but by no means large percentage of caches like that (smal arms, rpg's mines etc) went.
-
In regards to attacking mosques.
"In Baghdad, Brig.-Gen. Mark Kimmitt told CNN that a mosque, as a holy place, normally is protected from attack under the Geneva Convention. However, it can be attacked when there is a military necessity brought on by the fact that the enemy is storing weapons, using weapons, inciting violence and executing violence from its grounds, he said."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040407.wirkk0407/BNStory/Front/
-
Originally posted by Westy
"Where are all those RPGs coming from??"
The Iraqui's buried enormous caches of weapons all over thier country. The news media showed many of them found during and just after the invasion. The reports were (as I recal) that they believed those found were a decent but by no means large percentage of caches like that (smal arms, rpg's mines etc) went.
Thanks Westy, that explains it.
-
There is also practically no border control around Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
There is also practically no border control around Iraq.
Heck there aint no boarder control around the southern U.S eitherLOL.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Westy
"Where are all those RPGs coming from??"
The Iraqi's buried enormous caches of weapons all over thier country. The news media showed many of them found during and just after the invasion. The reports were (as I recal) that they believed those found were a decent but by no means large percentage of caches like that (smal arms, rpg's mines etc) went.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Thanks Westy, that explains it.
There are no undiscovered weapons caches because we haven't found them. Therefore they never existed...
wait a minute....
Yeah, that's right.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I was just watching the last footage from the Bradley (I think) destroyed in Iraq, with wounded soldiers coming out of it and I just had to ask a question that may sound naive, but...
Where are all those RPGs coming from??
I mean, if those are from the last regime's army, they should have been seized by now, right?
And if they are importing them, then there's not enough border controls (by far). For cod's sake, it's an occupied country after all!
I don't know if it's the lack of intelligence or the lack of forces to control the borders, but I think more attention should be put in known arm dealers. I'm pretty sure that there are not many capable of delivering that much firepower.
As I said, it does sound naive, but nevertheless I'd like to be enlightened (no pun intended) by some of the posters versed in these subjects.
Daniel
There were huge arms dumps all around Iraq - they were all looted to some extent during the confusion of the fall of Baghdad - the insurgent have a lot and I mean a lot of light weapons - up to and including 82mm and 120mm mortars, LAW's, LMG's and probably some MANPADS - they will eventually run out but I think it will be some time - coin operations do not use massive amount of resource on the part of the insurgents - they have the support of the local pops in terms of food and medical supplies they will swim amongst them as a fish does in the sea - to paraphrase Chairman Mao.
In historical terms during the last century the ONLY time a insurgent force was defeated was in Malaya - every other time they won - might have taken them years but they have always won.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
...coin operations do not use massive amount of resource on the part of the insurgents...
Because COIN operations are usually undertaken by those fighting on the counter insurgent side.
-
"There are no undiscovered weapons caches because we haven't found them. Therefore they never existed... wait a minute.... yeah, that's right."
I recognize your imbedded point ;) and can only say that the critical error in that logic is that caches or even evidence of WMD cahces have not been seen at all. Even interogations of detainers and POW's have turned up nada, zilch, zipp. That's in stark contrast to the many regular weapons caches that have been found and from interogations they know there are many mnore out there they have yet to get to.
Regarless. Small arms weapon caches I don't believe the UN or US were tracking before the war. At least I don't recall the US administration railing before Congress about mountains of RPG's & AK-47's nor Powell whipping out irrefutable "proof" on them in front of the UN body.
-
When does that new DC mod come out Iraqi Uprising
-
For those of you thinking that the bombing of the Mosque will increase antipathy to the coalition. Well bless your naivety. Take a look. The game is already on. They don't need an excuse. The shooting has already started.
As for this little adventure uniting the Sunni's and Shiites. Don't count on it. Just as soon as the Americans are off the streets. They will get stuck into each other. Any cooperation is low level.
There is as I have read it, three seperate fights going on. One is against a tribe known for it's smuggling in the western desert. That just coincides with the move by the Marines against the Fallujah troublemakers and is more or less coincidental with the Sadr's uprising in the south.
Sadr's uprising is a mistake. He has commited his men and it seems they made the the classic mistake of taking over significant buildings thus making them easy to 'find, fix and destroy'. There is no general uprising which I suspect he hoped for. It was a naked grab for power. He will be eliminated now as a potential power broker.
Equally the Sunnis will ground down. I think they made the mistake of taking on the Americans. Given that they are a minority and seen as Saddam's people. They might have been better to throw in their lot with the Americans. Neither group have enough ammunition or men for a sustained war. The coalition will win and may, by eliminating the most troublesome of extremists in a pitched open battle leave the way open for the more moderate Iraqis.
On the other hand it could be like the Tet offensive of the Vietnam war. It was a total failure for the Vietcong but was a significant turning point for the American public and made the American pullout inevitable.
This is a significant moment in history, a turning point and will be marked by historians in the future.
-
It was official Iraqi policy pre Gulf War 2 to pay 10-20 000 USD to the family of any suicide bomber attacking Israel. Hamas and Al Acqsa martyrs brigades does just that.
Saddam actually paid money to the relatives of any Palestinians killed in "action" with Israel (suicide bombers, gunmen, stone throwers, innocent bystanders)
He also paid compensation to people who's houses were destroyed by the IDF.
-
Yes. I know that Iraq was paying suicide bombers familys
Is that why the US invaded then? But wait..The US was negotiating with the Palistinians..and forcing the Isrealis to do the same...I thought that we didnt negotiate with terrrorists?
So where the palistinians terrorists or not?
Certainly the US doesnt treat them as such..so how can supporting them be supporting terrorists?
Grasp that straw firmly..
the invasion had nothing to do with terrorism.The Iraqis dieing and killing there are not terrorists.
There will certainly be many terrorists created by the invasion..but Iraqi support for terrorists was almost nill befor the invasion..and they hadnt even been asked to stop what support they were providing..why. Because the US didnt and doenst consider the palistinians terrorists..
-
Originally posted by Westy
"There are no undiscovered weapons caches because we haven't found them. Therefore they never existed... wait a minute.... yeah, that's right."
I recognize your imbedded point ;) and can only say that the critical error in that logic is that caches or even evidence of WMD cahces have not been seen at all.
No critical error in logic exists, I was pointing out that no evidence proves nothing. I have been consistant on this regardless of issue. I was pointing out a flaw in the logic of those advocate the 'hang him because he lied' point of view, that no evidence proves their point as well.
While oddsmakers probably lean heavily in one direction, the only logical point of view presently on this particular issue is one of agnosticism. It cost nothing, and one who waits and sees is standing on firm ground.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Saddam actually paid money to the relatives of any Palestinians killed in "action" with Israel (suicide bombers, gunmen, stone throwers, innocent bystanders)
He also paid compensation to people who's houses were destroyed by the IDF.
I think those payments hardly compare to the level of Terroism now growing,prospering and expanding in and outside of Iraq as we have today since the invasion. Situation is much worse now then it ever was with Sadam making a few payments.
True Sadam himself had said that he had made payments, what the adminstraion was trying to claim prior to the invasion was that he had ties to Al Qaeda which even Bush has since admited was false intelligence as yet no evidence to prove this has ever been found.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As the commander in the field I would have ordered the building bombed to spare my men. As the overall commander of the operation I would have ordered the commander in the field to take the building with infantry to avoid the political/PR ramifications of bombing a holy place. As the politician responsible for this hole debacle I would have shot myself.
Frankly I find this statement a bit absurd. There is no way the result, as far as the building is concerned, would be any different. There will still be damage to the building and the enemy will denounce it in whatever way they can for propaganda purposes. Sacrificing infantry to save a building like that is stupid to say the least. As has already been posted here, once the enemy uses the building as a combat asset and fires from it, it becomes a legitimate military target.
American doctrine has been to use firepower to accomplish the military goal rather than losing troops whenever possible.
Rather than criticize the troops and commanders who have to deal with this situation, why do you not criticize the ones who desecrated a place of worship by firing FROM it in the first place? It is how it is used that make any building a target or not. Once they started firing from it it ceased being a "holy place" unless you believe that God meant it to be used that way and that it served His interests for life to be taken by those inside it. I don't see that being supported by either islam or christianity.
-
Rather than criticize the troops and commanders who have to deal with this situation, why do you not criticize the ones who desecrated a place of worship by firing FROM it in the first place? It is how it is used that make any building a target or not. Once they started firing from it it ceased being a "holy place" unless you believe that God meant it to be used that way and that it served His interests for life to be taken by those inside it. I don't see that being supported by either islam or christianity. [/B]
HERE HERE!
Well said.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Hmmm ... I don't get how saying that I would do the exact same thing as the ground commander counts as criticism. My point: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And bullett308, "hear, hear" would make more sense ... so would bullet308.
I beg to differ...
And It's 'here here', to signify allegiance the the previously-proposed statement.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Hmmm ... I don't get how saying that I would do the exact same thing as the ground commander counts as criticism. My point: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And bullett308, "hear, hear" would make more sense ... so would bullet308.
That's true but dont you think that what ever the tactical advantages might of been to use bombs against a mosque to kill a few gunmen. Is far outweighed by the stratigic disadvantages?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It's an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"
Yeah, you're right.
I guess I jumped the gun that time, trying to instinctually disagree with whatever it was you had to say.
-
I meant it in the context of two old english chaps speaking and one of them say here here old boy !
But whatever LOL.
You got the point.
-
If the payment from Hussein to the Palestinians constituted terrorism and warranted the invasion, why didn't the US just invade Palestine instead?
-
You wanted an example on how Iraq supported terrorism, I gave it to you, so naturally you try to spin the discussion in some other direction "well, yeah, but why didnt the US then invade this or that nation who ALSO supports terrorism"...predictable and pointless.
Pongo, you have to (try) to separate between "palestinians" and "palestinian terrorist organizations" I know its hard, because they are practically synonymous....but anyway, you have to try.
When the US and Israel are negotiating with the palestinians, they are not negotiating with the Hamas or the Hezbollah or the Al Acqsa martyrs brigades, instead they are negotiating with the Palestinian Authority.
Naturally it is a tad complicating when Arafat is both the leader of the PA and the innoficial leader of the Al Acqsa martyrs brigades...but this is a fact that most westerners in general, and the pacifist anti-Israel lefties in particular, conveniently overlooks all the time, so maybe you could too.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No critical error in logic exists, I was pointing out that no evidence proves nothing. I have been consistant on this regardless of issue. I was pointing out a flaw in the logic of those advocate the 'hang him because he lied' point of view, that no evidence proves their point as well.
While oddsmakers probably lean heavily in one direction, the only logical point of view presently on this particular issue is one of agnosticism. It cost nothing, and one who waits and sees is standing on firm ground.
Not entirely true - One could adopt the legal stance of "innocent until proven guilty", where the prosecution failing to produce evidence means you're not guilty of the accusation. That logical rule allegedly works well for a lot of legal systems. The legal systems use it because of practicalities. Your agnostic method never resolves itself except with positive evidence: if nobody ever finds any evidence because it really doesn't exist, using the agnostic method one can always argue that the evidence exists, but nobody has found it yet. Thus you can wait and see for all eternity.
-
Preferred point of view and practical method don't necessarily mirror each other.
-
Originally posted by moot
Preferred point of view and practical method don't necessarily mirror each other.
No argument there, just pointing out it's not the only logical point of view, and that as a view it's heavily loaded in favour of the accusation of WMDs - in that the only way to resolve it at all is to find WMDs.
-
ok.