The Iraq Thread 2

[Scorpio 0]

I think it goes without saying that some posts are not even worth replying to.

anyone posting here, please do not get lured into flamebait.

Very true. I've read a lot of pretty bias, pointless, rediculous and mindless posts in this thread, and it's not worth replying to since you'll probably be ending up in an argument.

[bn880 5]

Did Chill just get all those warning levels for that post?

[Schoeler 0]

Please tell me that your're joking. Or that you are drunk or something. Or that FSPilot has hacked your account. This piece of text is without a doubt the most silly thing I've ever seen you post.

No, I wrote that completely sober, and neither am I joking.

Quote[/b] ]Freedom fighters refers to people fighting for freedom from something. In this case freedom from the US occupation. Iraq as a country has losts its political freedom and sovereignty. And that's the freedom that the Iraqi resistance are fighting for.

If the Iraqi resistance is fighting for freedom from the U.S. occupation, then they are either extremely stupid, or badly misguided, as the U.S. occupation was always intended to be temporary, and the longer they resist, the longer it will take to establish an independent Iraqi government. Iraq has no sovereignty at the moment because it has no organized government. Until they can peacefully establish their own government, they will not have sovereignty. So the longer the resistance fights for its "freedom", the longer it will take for them to have it.

Quote[/b] ]Terrorism refers to the methods they are using. "Terrorist" is today a very negatively charged word, but the fact is that many respected governments today have come to power through the use of terrorism.

I'm hoping that something got lost in the translation here Denoir. Please tell me you aren't equating terrorism with rebellion. They are quite different things on fundamental levels. Terrorists target the innocent, they target soft civilian targets with the aim of maximizing terror. Rebels attack military targets with the aim of eliminating foreign occupiers from their territory by destroying their morale and fighting ability.

Quote[/b] ]A good example of successful terrorists are your own founding fathers.

Our founding fathers were rebels, not terrorists.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]A good example of successful terrorists are your own founding fathers.

Our founding fathers were rebels, not terrorists.

They were rebels and they were terrorists.

"Rebel" equals somebody revolting against something

"Terrorist" equals somebody who uses methods that maximize the terror of the opponent.

The founding fathers systematically assasinated British officials, both civilian and military. They started their little revolution by attacking soft commercial targets, killing innocent civilians.

If anybody should have some understanding of terrorism, you should, as your country emerged from a revolution. And when you are fighting a superior enemy, you can't meet them face to face since you'll get slaughtered. That leaves guerilla warfare as the only means of fighting. And all  guerilla warfare is founded in terrorism. You don't beat the enemy, you make it uncomfortable for him to stay. And that is and always has been achieved through assasinations, sabotage and hitting soft targets.

The Iraqi rebels are doing it now just as the American rebels did 200 years ago, just like rebelling slaves did in Rome 2,000 years ago. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your brand of terrorists were any different.

Quote[/b] ]If the Iraqi resistance is fighting for freedom from the U.S. occupation, then they are either extremely stupid, or badly misguided, as the U.S. occupation was always intended to be temporary, and the longer they resist, the longer it will take to establish an independent Iraqi government. Iraq has no sovereignty at the moment because it has no organized government. Until they can peacefully establish their own government, they will not have sovereignty. So the longer the resistance fights for its "freedom", the longer it will take for them to have it.

Yeah, that's like asking why there was a French resistance when the Vichy government was French.

[Chill 0]

I didnt flamebait! Whats wrong with you?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I didnt flamebait! Whats wrong with you?

Please read the board rules. If you have a comment regarding a mod's decision, contact that mod directly.

[Chill 0]

Thankyou I will, and I will forwarding a formal complaint.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]A good example of successful terrorists are your own founding fathers.

Our founding fathers were rebels, not terrorists.

They were rebels and they were terrorists.

"Rebel" equals somebody revolting against something

"Terrorist" equals somebody who uses methods that maximize the terror of the opponent.

The founding fathers systematically assasinated British officials, both civilian and military. They started their little revolution by attacking soft commercial targets, killing innocent civilians.

If anybody should have some understanding of terrorism, you should, as your country emerged from a revolution. And when you are fighting a superior enemy, you can't meet them face to face since you'll get slaughtered. That leaves guerilla warfare as the only means of fighting. And all  guerilla warfare is founded in terrorism. You don't beat the enemy, you make it uncomfortable for him to stay. And that is and always has been achieved through assasinations, sabotage and hitting soft targets.

The Iraqi rebels are doing it now just as the American rebels did 200 years ago, just like rebelling slaves did in Rome 2,000 years ago. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your brand of terrorists were any different.

Quote[/b] ]If the Iraqi resistance is fighting for freedom from the U.S. occupation, then they are either extremely stupid, or badly misguided, as the U.S. occupation was always intended to be temporary, and the longer they resist, the longer it will take to establish an independent Iraqi government.  Iraq has no sovereignty at the moment because it has no organized government.  Until they can peacefully establish their own government, they will not have sovereignty.  So the longer the resistance fights for its "freedom", the longer it will take for them to have it.

Yeah, that's like asking why there was a French resistance when the Vichy government was French.

I'm not deluding myself at all, and I am familiar with American history. How you can compare rebels fighting a guerilla war against a foreign military and an unwelcome occupying government (sounds like Iraq doesn't it?) to terrorism is beyond me. True, its closer to terrorism than it is to outright traditional military action, but it isn't terrorism by my definition, and I'd be willing to bet, a lot of other people's as well. Terrorists focus on non-military targets, they strike terror into the hearts of ordinary citizens. Our rebels fought a guerilla war until the Continental Army was organized and properly led, then they switched to a traditional military campaign. While British officers and politicians were assasinated, the average citizen was not. We are talking about a bunch of farmers with muskets fighting an army with artillery and naval power, they were hardly like Al-Qaeda or any modern terrorist group. If the Iraqi resistance focused on strictly military targets, then I wouldn't brand them terrorists, but rather rebels. Instead, they attacked the U.N., whose sole purpose was to provide humanitarian assistance. This is a significant non-military target, and it makes them nothing but common killers and terrorists, to be hunted down and executed after a brief trial before the eyes of the world.

[denoir 0]

I'm not deluding myself at all, and I am familiar with American history.  How you can compare rebels fighting a guerilla war against a foreign military and an unwelcome occupying government (sounds like Iraq doesn't it?) to terrorism is beyond me.  True, its closer to terrorism than it is to outright traditional military action, but it isn't terrorism by my definition, and I'd be willing to bet, a lot of other people's as well.  Terrorists focus on non-military targets, they strike terror into the hearts of ordinary citizens.  

Quote[/b] ]ter·ror·ism

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Like the Boston Tea Party? Or your niffty little pirates (privateers) that continued to terrorize commercial vessles well after the revolution (that would be state-sponsored terrorism)? Not to mention the assasination of local British representatives. What makes you think it is any different between what your revolutionaries did to what ETA does today when they strap a bomb under the hood of a car of some local politician?

Quote[/b] ]Our rebels fought a guerilla war until the Continental Army was organized and properly led, then they switched to a traditional military campaign.  While British officers and politicians were assasinated, the average citizen was not.

Those that collaborated with the British were. And the British stationed in the colonies were targeted as well - customs officials were very popular targets if my memory serves me well. Just because there were few non-separatist civilians to harass does not mean you did not harass those that were there. British civilian commercial interests were the first ones to be hit, followed by British civilian political interests.

Quote[/b] ]We are talking about a bunch of farmers with muskets fighting an army with artillery and naval power, they were hardly like Al-Qaeda or any modern terrorist group.

Yeah, as opposed to those Al-Qaeda types that grew up in terrorist families. Their parents taught them the art of suicide bombing as soon as they could walk. Then they went to terrorist elementary school, terrorist high school and finally graduated from the famous Terrorist Academy. Only the top percentage of each class got to be international terrorists!

Quote[/b] ]Instead, they attacked the U.N., whose sole purpose was to provide humanitarian assistance.  This is a significant non-military target, and it makes them nothing but common killers and terrorists, to be hunted down and executed after a brief trial before the eyes of the world.

Yes, it was an act of terrorism, just like many other such acts that are typical for guerrila warfare. American revolution not excepted.

You were just lucky that your population was all basically for a separation and that the British weren't more interested in keeping their colonies.

Btw. If you want attacks on innocent civilians, check out a history book about the massacres of Delaware Indians in 1782 as retaliation for their support of the British.

War is nasty. Guerilla war is nastier. It's a fact. When you are fighting a superior enemy, you must play dirty. In practice this means hitting soft targets. That was true in 1775 and that is true in 2003. Is it good? Is it justifiable? Impossible to answer.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Yahoo news

Quote[/b] ]U.S. Officials Reject Iraq Reinforcements

By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Top U.S. officials oppose sending more troops to Iraq, citing better intelligence and increased cooperation with Iraqis as keys to countering the rising number of terrorist attacks that have hampered rebuilding efforts.

<snip>

Bremer told "Fox News Sunday" it was "hard for me to see how the U.N. itself can play a further military role because the U.N., in my experience, normally insists on commanding its own troops."

At least some U.N. control is a condition that France, India and other nations have insisted on before sending troops. Bremer said all military forces should remain under command of the U.S.-led coalition, although "the U.N. clearly has a vital role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq."

Yahoo news 2

Quote[/b] ]U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s

<snip>

U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs — and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

[Scorpio 0]

I laugh.

Quote[/b] ]People have to see the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Of course. We know the difference. Although if you think those that are killing US/UK soldiers are "freedom fighters" then you're wrong completely. Why would anybody want to fight for freedom from US "oppresion"? They are treating the Iraqi people exceptionally well. They are instead either terrorists or bastards loyal to Saddam.

Quote[/b] ]USA invaded Iraq with the blessings of Israel.

WHAT!? "Blessings"!? What Israel? Israel had nothing to do with it.

Quote[/b] ]No matter what Saddam was like is irrelivant

Kill me.

Nobody wants a bastard like Saddam who FYI neglected the Iraqi people, their goodness and their country, tortured and killed people for nothing or for them not wanting to follow him and his ways, including women and children. So before you go chatting your ignorant mouth off, try actually listening to an Iraqi who has been through all the shit and troublesome times of Saddam Hussein. If you would of been through all that shit you would definitely change your opinion. I'm discusted how most people just listen to their shit-filled news and especially the arab countrie's news such as Jordanian and Saudi Arabian news...and then they think they know all the truth so go shout their mouths off thinking they know whats actually going on.

Quote[/b] ]the blood of all killed will be on both the people o the USA and its leaders.

"All people killed".........you do understand that in war people die, don't you?

Quote[/b] ]Iraq will be the new Palestine for the USA

I wouldn't think so...it's more like... Iraqi people want to freed from a dictator so USA and its allies come and save the day for them.

Sorry to be so....what's the word.....truthful, but I just felt I had to correct someone very much.

[denoir 0]

Why would anybody want to fight for freedom from US "oppresion"? They are treating the Iraqi people exceptionally well.

Indeed they are. Who needs water, electricity, medicine and security anyway? The main thing is that now they can freely go and demonstrate. Of course, some of them get shot by US troops, but that's irrelevant. The main thing is that they are legally allowed to speak their mind now. That's what matters, not crap like a decent quality of life or even survival.  

Quote[/b] ]I'm discusted how most people just listen to their shit-filled news and especially the arab countrie's news such as Jordanian and Saudi Arabian news...and then they think they know all the truth so go shout their mouths off thinking they know whats actually going on.

Oh, the irony...

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't think so...it's more like... Iraqi people want to freed from a dictator so USA and its allies come and save the day for them.

Yeah, ungrateful bastards. Staging anti occupation demonstrations and all. Don't they know that all the terrorists that are pouring into the country is good for trade!?! Don't they understand that letting the infrastructure go to hell is good in the long run? It will be rebuilt with brand new high quality US materials! How can the Iraqis be so short-sighted? How can they complain about such petty things as water and electricity when there is a whole new era on their doorstep.

Anarchy is the ultimate form of freedom. How come the Iraqis can't see it?  

[Scorpio 0]

Ok, Mr.Anarchy man... how about the US just leave the country...then the Iraqi people will have nothing to fear! The Ba'ath party will come back into power and they'll treat the Iraqi people like gods and we'll live happily ever after for the end of our days!

[denoir 0]

Not at all. Since the occupying powers plunged the country into chaos, they have a responsibility to restore it to order.

I only hope that they will rethink their "Let's bring stability to the region by starting a war" strategy until next time..

[Scorpio 0]

Seriously though, what would you do if you were Bush?

[ran 0]

Seriously though, what would you do if you were Bush?

give full control to the UN and lick the shoes of the diplomats of german , french  and all the nationalities who were against the war in first place

*edit*

but i'm biased

[Scorpio 0]

The UN and Frenchmen ruling the world!?

Oh well...all I can say is that here's one grateful Iraqi. And denoir - I was in Iraq a few weeks ago, and didn't see any problems with supplies...the electricity was cut off only 1 hour every few days, and about the water supply...you can't give enough since the heatwaves this time of year go up to 55*C.

[denoir 0]

Seriously though, what would you do if you were Bush?

That one's easy: Commit suicide!  

No, but what would I do about the Iraq situation? Well, the problem now is that there are too few troops in place to maintain order and to protect the infrastructure. USA is both unwilling and unable to provide more troops at this time. That only leaves international support.

Now since Bush's primary occupation since he came to power has been giving the world the finger, some serious ass kissing is required. What would be required is that all political control is handed over to the UN. A joint military command would be set up that answers to the UN.

This is a system that has been used successfully in several other peace keeping operations. The UN sets the political framework and the joint military command enforces it.

[denoir 0]

Hutton Inquiry heating up

This is excellent. They've published a heap of classified documents and emails on the Hutton Inquiry Website. If you ever wanted to send email to top British officials, this is your chance. The evidence published is in raw format so all their private email addresses etc have been published

It's well worth a look. Especially of interest is Campbell's interference. Intelligence officials said that Iraq could produce nuclear weapons within five years if all sanctions were lifted. Cambell pushed it into saying two years, regardless of the sanctions.

Pity they don't have an investigation like this into the dealings of the Bush administration.

[OxPecker 0]

Ya know, Muslim extremists had very little to gain from bombing UN HQ, as the UN have been oppsed to recent US hostile actions.

Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if this attack was organized by the CIA or US govt.

World opinion towards the US and Bushbaby has been sinking lately so they needed a patsy to get the world back on the "war against terror" bandwagon.

My 2 cent conspiracy theory.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if this attack was organized by the CIA or US govt.

Bush and the rest of the TBA are nuts, but I don't think they'll go that far. For we all know, the person with the bomb might have parked in the wrong spot. That or they really were aiming for the UN. Were any US represenatives or gaurds at the place?

[red oct 2]

Only Iraqi guards were protecting the UN building at the time, 2 of whom are being questioned about invovlement in the bombing. I posted a article about it on page 127.

[Harnu 0]

Any chance it was a terrorist group that just doesn't like the UN or something along those lines?

[EiZei 0]

Yeah, the evil blue helmet imperialist infidels.

[Leveler 0]

Ya know, Muslim extremists had very little to gain from bombing UN HQ, as the UN have been oppsed to recent US hostile actions.

Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if this attack was organized by the CIA or US govt.

World opinion towards the US and Bushbaby has been sinking lately so they needed a patsy to get the world back on the "war against terror" bandwagon.

My 2 cent conspiracy theory.

It wouldnt surprise me if even 9/11 was organised by them. The evidence the government provided was pathetic anyway..