The Iraq thread 3

[denoir 0]

You may say beheadings is just cruel and not a way of defense, but if it stops attacks, it sure is.

What makes you think that it would stop the attacks? Isn't it more likely that they would just gain more popular support?

How did you react after the 911 attacks? Those attacks weren't unprovoked either - they were revenge for US involvment in the Mid East. Did you remove your troops from Saudi Arabia as they wanted? Or did you seek counter-revenge? And what happened then? Whoa, what a surprise, they started a counter-counter-revenge. Do you really think you would solve anything by a counter-counter-counter-revenge?

The reason why you can't get them is not because you're not cruel enough, but because they have enough support from the civilian population to blend in and stay out of sight. The only way you can get them is if you are willing to murder a lot of innocent civilians per each enemy. And that would put you on the same level as the terrorists that you describe as "not human beings, but worse than animals". Do you wish to fall into that cateogry?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]How did you react after the 911 attacks? Those attacks weren't unprovoked either - they were revenge for US involvment in the Mid East. Did you remove your troops from Saudi Arabia as they wanted? Or did you seek counter-revenge? And what happened then? Whoa, what a surprise, they started a counter-counter-revenge. Do you really think you would solve anything by a counter-counter-counter-revenge?

I agree that will just should of acted like pussies and got out the ME (and tell Israel go fuck themselves). Furthermore, Bush should of invited Bin Laden to a dinner and tell him thank you for what he did......

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]How did you react after the 911 attacks? Those attacks weren't unprovoked either - they were revenge for US involvment in the Mid East. Did you remove your troops from Saudi Arabia as they wanted? Or did you seek counter-revenge? And what happened then? Whoa, what a surprise, they started a counter-counter-revenge. Do you really think you would solve anything by a counter-counter-counter-revenge?

I agree that will just should of acted like pussies and got out the ME (and tell Israel go fuck themselves). Furthermore, Bush should of invited Bin Laden to a dinner and tell him thank you for what he did......

He didn't say it was justified, he said that there was provocation. There's a crucial difference between the two. To say the attacks were moral is idiotic. To say they happened because someone out there didn't like American policies is not. You have to understand that in the game of politics and terrorism, perception is nine-tenths of reality*. In a relativistic world full of absolutists, anyone can find sufficient justification in their eyes for nearly anything.

*of course, the remaining one-tenth has veto power

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

You may say beheadings is just cruel and not a way of defense, but if it stops attacks, it sure is.

What makes you think that it would stop the attacks? Isn't it more likely that they would just gain more popular support?

How did you react after the 911 attacks? Those attacks weren't unprovoked either - they were revenge for US involvment in the Mid East. Did you remove your troops from Saudi Arabia as they wanted? Or did you seek counter-revenge? And what happened then? Whoa, what a surprise, they started a counter-counter-revenge. Do you really think you would solve anything by a counter-counter-counter-revenge?

The reason why you can't get them is not because you're not cruel enough, but because they have enough support from the civilian population to blend in and stay out of sight. The only way you can get them is if you are willing to murder a lot of innocent civilians per each enemy. And that would put you on the same level as the terrorists that you describe as "not human beings, but worse than animals". Do you wish to fall into that cateogry?

Thats not the only reason they attacked us there good buddy. Yes I do think being like the enemy would help, if we were ruhtless with them, then I think they would start fearing what we might do. Now they know what to expect, but if we became the enemy then, In my opinion, the war could be won much sooner, and cost fewer American, and civilian lives.

Also Denoir to say the attacks on 9/11 were provoked is just makes me sick. Never could an attack like the be provoked! It is something that is full of evil and thought up by the scum of the earth. You know, nobody out there, but maybe Israel(and they have it worse) honestly understands what we go through, and the dangers Americans face, and until it comes to your country, and God forbid it does, you will not know what it is like.

Quote[/b] ]Quote

I would not attack somebody else unprovoked, and I would not wish them to do that to me. SO if they attack first, then NO WHERE in the Bible does it say not to defend yourself!

That´s exactly what the Iraqis do

Oh my...

I think you are mistaking my dear friend.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]He didn't say it was justified, he said that there was provocation. There's a crucial difference between the two. To say the attacks were moral is idiotic. To say they happened because someone out there didn't like American policies is not. You have to understand that in the game of politics and terrorism, perception is nine-tenths of reality*. In a relativistic world full of absolutists, anyone can find sufficient justification in their eyes for nearly anything.

I did not say he said it was justified.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Quote[/b] ]He didn't say it was justified, he said that there was provocation. There's a crucial difference between the two. To say the attacks were moral is idiotic. To say they happened because someone out there didn't like American policies is not. You have to understand that in the game of politics and terrorism, perception is nine-tenths of reality*. In a relativistic world full of absolutists, anyone can find sufficient justification in their eyes for nearly anything.

I did not say he said it was justified.

Your posts always seem happy.....why is this?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your posts always seem happy.....why is this?

I can be mad.... .....if something pisses me of.....

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I did not say he said it was justified.

No, you just sarcastically implied that we should have responded to the attacks as if they were justified. Same diff.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Imretty angry right now, I just read were the killed another American Soldier over there. A captive! These people are cowards, and no they are NOT animals, they are worse! If you think American policy is why people target us, then you are as stupid as the crap in my gut.

I see,so you are proposing to destroy all your nuke arsenal,air power,ground power,economy thus becoming like the countries the "terrorist" live in(weak,unable to fight back) and after you will resort to their unconventional attacks(strap a belt to yourself and commit suicide for what you thing it`s the better of your country),right?

Quote[/b] ]Imretty angry right now, I just read were the killed another American Soldier over there. A captive! These people are cowards, and no they are NOT animals, they are worse! I

The same thing goes for the americans who sufocated the Iraqi general and murdered 6 other captives in Abu Gharib,right?

[theavonlady 2]

The same thing goes for the americans who sufocated the Iraqi general and murdered 6 other captives in Abu Gharib,right?

I'm sorry to say but I haven't seen anyone arguing about that point here. Did I miss a post?

[quicksand 0]

Duke of Ray was implying that terrorists are inhuman beasts drawn from the deep roots of evil who perform their attacks out of pure black heart and US should start beheading suspected terrorists or something among this lines,I am merly explaining that violence triggers more violence and that you can`t put only one face on your enemy.

[theavonlady 2]

and US should start beheading suspected terrorists

No.

But Afghans are doin' it:

Quote[/b] ]Afghans behead Taliban in revenge for beheadings

22 Jun 2004 16:46:13 GMT

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, June 22 (Reuters) - Afghan soldiers beheaded four Taliban fighters after guerrillas cut off the heads of an Afghan interpreter for U.S.-led forces and an Afghan soldier, a government commander said on Tuesday.

The interpreter and the soldier were beheaded after becoming separated from a patrol of Afghan and U.S.-led foreign troops in the Arghandab district of Zabul province on Monday night, Namatullah Tokhi, commander of the government's 27th division in the province, told Reuters.

He said government troops later captured and killed four Taliban guerrillas in the same way. "They cut of their heads with a knife, so when our forces arrested four Taliban, we cut off their heads too."

I wonder if it will act as a deterrent. Doubtful. Maybe someone will take a poll.

[Badgerboy 0]

Considering that portion of 'terrorists' are willing to die for their cause by detonating explosives carried on their person, do you really think the risk of beheading is worrying to them?

I'm sure the 11/9 hijackers would be too scared to fly their 'mission' if the US beheaded terrorists. I'm sure they were worried if they survived the intial impact, explosion, fire, and collapse of the building, they would be dragged out to be executed!

Considering these are the fella's that cause most of the maiming/killing you succeed in becoming a complete bastard, with no real effect. You can't scare these people, they believe in what they are doing too much. You have to attack the cause of the problem. Stop them from having to become terrorists in the first place.

And no, they are not attacking US interests because they 'hate freedom, and are jealous of your way of life'

Christ how many times have I heard that bandied around!?

[theavonlady 2]

Iran reveals the truth about the dreaded beheadings!

Quote[/b] ]U.S. Beheaded Them Hostages in the Middle East

The editor of the Iranian conservative daily Kayhan, Hossein Shari'atmadari, who is close to Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei, wrote in an editorial that the true perpetrators of the decapitations of foreign hostages are none other than the Americans themselves. The following are excerpts from his article on June 24:

"Some armed men whose faces are completely covered stand beneath a length of fabric hung behind them, on which is written in bold letters, 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet.' This picture implies the masked men's allegiance to the motto written behind them. If the observer does not conduct a careful examination, there is no doubt that the masked men are extremist Muslims! At their feet, on the chair, sits Nicholas Berg, a 26-year-old American trader, bound hand and foot. The masked men threaten that if America does not meet their demands by the time the ultimatum expires, they will behead the trader. The ultimatum expires; America does not comply with the masked men's demand, and Nicholas Berg is beheaded.

"A few days later, Nicholas's body is found, but except for a single video clip there is no document about how he was murdered, or about the murderers' identity and motive. This video clip was aired by some television networks subject to or close to the American and British occupation forces.

"Who slaughtered Nicholas? According to what is implied by the video clip, the murderers … were Muslims from among the opponents of the American and English occupation of Iraq. But where did the video clip come from? So far, no reasonable explanation has been given, and no answer showing even in the most basic sense that this document is authentic. There is no answer about the identity of the masked men and their citizenship, nor about dozens of other logical questions connected to this affair."

'Following Extensive Publicity of the Slaughter … Senior American Officials' Feel Relief

"The item on the slaughter of this 26-year-old American trader and this video clip are being aired and published in the wake of the exposure of the barbaric and terrible torture of the Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghureib prison. Thus America and its allies face the greatest disgrace and the most shameful crime that they ever committed in their despicable lives. Likewise, world public opinion is very disturbed and angered by the terrible and repulsive crimes.

"Following the extensive publicity of the slaughter of Nicholas Berg, senior American officials feel they have been extricated from the feeling of strangulation. Based on the murder of the American trader, they are accusing the Islamic world of barbarism! And of the loathsome murder of innocents!

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan attributes the murder of Nicholas to the Muslims and threatens that the perpetrators of this crime will be hunted down and punished…"

'Who Believes Muslims Were the Ones Who Beheaded the Three Hostages?'

"On Friday, June 18, a month and eight days after the murder of Nicholas Berg, another video clip with the same characteristics is aired. This time, the armed masked men about whom it is said that they are Al-Qa'ida members threaten the Riyadh government so it will release the Al-Qa'ida detainees held in Saudi Arabia. And here they slaughter Paul Johnson, an Apache helicopter pilot who was previously captured by them.

"On Tuesday, June 22, that is, four days after the slaughter of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia, another video clip is aired, with the same characteristics, and this time it is said that people from an Al-Qa'ida group slaughtered a South Korean citizen captured by them, Kim Sun-Il, and threw his body into the street…

"Indeed, who believes, or permits himself to believe, that Muslims were the ones who beheaded the three hostages? Based upon what reasons, documents, or testimony can their murder be attributed to Muslims? Can a video clip, made by an unknown person, and the pictures of some armed masked men of unknown identity constitute reasonable [grounds] for attributing these murders to Muslims?"

'Nicholas Berg was Slaughtered at Abu Ghureib Prison by the Americans'

"A few days after the publication [of the news] of the murder of the American trader, a U.S. security official, Joseph Robinson, presented a shocking and documented report showing that Nicholas Berg was slaughtered by American military hangmen and that the place where the video clip was filmed was Abu-Ghureib prison.( [4] ) In a section of Robinson's report published in the Kayhan newspaper on May 23, 2004, it is seen that Nicholas is wearing exactly the same orange garment worn by the Abu Ghureib detainees. The yellow wall shown in Nicholas's video clip is the same yellow wall of the Abu Ghureib prison, clearly seen in the published pictures about the tortures at Abu-Ghureib. The tiles shown in the pictures of the tortures of the Abu Ghureib detainees are the same tiles shown in the pictures of the slaughter of Nicholas Berg. The white chair on which Berg sat and which is shown in the video clip is of the same kind as the chairs shown in the pictures of the tortures from Abu Ghureib prison. The armed masked men standing behind the American merchant are husky and white, and wearing bulletproof vests designed for American soldiers.

"Further on in his report, Robinson refers to Nicholas Berg's previous arrest by American soldiers and an interview with his parents. He stresses that these corroborations were sufficient for us to know that Nicholas Berg was slaughtered at Abu Ghureib prison by the Americans. And that those who killed him constructed the arena for the incident so we would think that terrorists slaughtered Nicholas Berg."

'Why Did Americans Slaughter Their Citizens and the Citizens of America's Allies?'

"Why did the Americans slaughter their citizens and the citizens of America's allies [so] horrifyingly and terribly…? [Why] do they construct ridiculous scenery and attribute the slaughter of the hostages to Muslims when their ugly and repulsive faces are exposed as a result of the crimes they committed and the massacre of innocent civilians and the barbaric tortures of the detainees and captives?

"The answer to this question is too clear for us to explain and analyze in depth… With these terrible crimes, the Americans aspire to attain the following goals:

1. "To present a hate-inspiring image of Islam and of the Muslims and to justify barbaric military attacks on them – that is, exactly the same goals as when they established the Taliban and the Al-Qa'ida group…

2. "To respond to public opinion, particularly that of the U.S. and England, which sees the invasion of Iraq as unjustified, aggressive, and entangling and demands that the occupiers leave Iraq. In this way, America seeks to justify the continuation of the occupation of Iraq and the attack on the rest of the Muslim peoples. America is doing it under the cover of a struggle against peoples – which, it claims, know no humanity and commit various types of crimes.

3. "Some of the countries that sent forces to Iraq, such as South Korea, are facing harsh protests by their peoples. By slaughtering hostages and attributing it to Muslims, America sows the seed of hatred and loathing of Muslims in the hearts of these peoples, and encourages their governments to continue cooperating with it.

4. "Among the Americans' main goals in organizing the ridiculous and certainly terrible performance of the slaughters is the distracting of public opinion from America's and England's barbaric crimes against the Abu Ghureib detainees."

More entertaining Iranian news dispatches in this MEMRI article.

[Placebo 28]

Tex [uSMC] -

1. Posting a pic saying "I'm with stupid" is flame baiting, don't do it please.

2. Posting a pic only with a "joke" message is spamming, don't do it please.

Duke_of_Ray -

1. Quoting an image is against the forum rules, don't do it please.

2. IIRC it's mainly this thread that contributed to your past perm ban, common sense would see you staying away from the "scene of the crime", I see you slipping back into a pattern that got you perm banned. I can't force you not to contribute to certain threads but I think for some people it's best to avoid certain types of threads, otherwise, don't come crying when the milk is spilt

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]You know, nobody out there, but maybe Israel(and they have it worse) honestly understands what we go through, and the dangers Americans face

IRA? Iparetarak? ETA? Wake up! US is the LATEST state to have known about terrorism, don't come crying no one understands you! These mornings in the subway were you watch people, thinking "he could be the one who planted the bomb yesterday", do you think only Us citizens know them?

Europe has been the second target of terrorist groups in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, after Israel. I recon Israel situation is 10x, 100x worst than anywhere else, but saying they are the only one able to understand the "danger Americans face", this is BS. They face way way way stronger danger you can even imagine. And European countries have faced terrorism LIKE YOU NOW for decades.

Read what Badgerboys wrote, very good insight of what terrorists are, and why they are so hard to fight. They won't fear being beheaded, in fact they will have won in these cases, in their mind.

They'd probably have more fear of perpetual emprisonment.

[theavonlady 2]

I recon Israel situation is 10x, 100x worst than anywhere else

I cna't number it but the situation here has greatly improved over the last year or so.

And I think that Iraqis are having it much worse than we ever had it.

edit: Also, DOR's remarks about what America is going through are quite reasonable when referring to US soldiers in Iraq. And it's not so absurd if you're counting bodies as an indicator, if you just consider the Twin Tower attacks alone.

But he sounds like he's referring to attacks on troops in Iraq, where both the quantity of attacks and of casualties are high.

[denoir 0]

I think that Avon and others make a big mistake in lumping all the attacks in Iraq together. I'd say there are the following categories:

1. Religious violence (Sunni blowing up Shia and vice versa, different Shia militias etc)

2. Violence against the new government/collaborators

3. Violence against US soldiers

4. Hostage takers/killers

5. Generic violence against random civilians

Number 1. is an internal matter that is bound to be more and more problematic. Iraq has dozens of well-armed militias representing various religious and political factions. The Al-Sadr militia is just one of many.

Number 2 and 3 are mostly executed by people opposing the occupation. The core was probably Baathist, but have extensive support from the population (majority thinks that killing US soldiers is ok, and a minority, but significant percentage supports the killing of Iraqis collaborating with the occupation). Now it's kiddies in Sadr-city shooting mortars at US positions. It's more of a popular uprising against the occupation. Think WW2, French resistance, Vichy government etc

Number 4 and 5 fall into the classical definition of "terrorism" and this is where we see foreign elements. This is where AQ and associates turn up. They have little political agenda for Iraq, but have a very strong agenda against westerners being in the Mid East. Snatching a civilian is easy (far easier than attacking well-armed US troops) and given the relatively few abductions so far indicates that these generic terrorist elements are fairly few in numbers.

Of course, there isn't always quite a clear line between the categories, but there is a significant difference. And the current US policy is to lob missiles at 4) and 5), while taking a non-confrontational approach with the others.

[whisperFFW06 0]

I recon Israel situation is 10x, 100x worst than anywhere else

I cna't number it but the situation here has greatly improved over the last year or so.

And I think that Iraqis are having it much worse than we ever had it.

edit: Also, DOR's remarks about what America is going through are quite reasonable when referring to US soldiers in Iraq. And it's not so absurd if you're counting bodies as an indicator, if you just consider the Twin Tower attacks alone.

But he sounds like he's referring to attacks on troops in Iraq, where both the quantity of attacks and of casualties are high.

I'm pretty sure he is referring to the terrorism menace over US of A. He was just talking about 9/11 when he wrote this.

And no, I won't count the bodies as indicator. The number of attempts is IMHO more significative, moreover when it lasts for decades.

[DracoPaladore 0]

You may say beheadings is just cruel and not a way of defense, but if it stops attacks, it sure is.

What makes you think that it would stop the attacks? Isn't it more likely that they would just gain more popular support?

How did you react after the 911 attacks? Those attacks weren't unprovoked either - they were revenge for US involvment in the Mid East. Did you remove your troops from Saudi Arabia as they wanted? Or did you seek counter-revenge? And what happened then? Whoa, what a surprise, they started a counter-counter-revenge. Do you really think you would solve anything by a counter-counter-counter-revenge?

The reason why you can't get them is not because you're not cruel enough, but because they have enough support from the civilian population to blend in and stay out of sight. The only way you can get them is if you are willing to murder a lot of innocent civilians per each enemy. And that would put you on the same level as the terrorists that you describe as "not human beings, but worse than animals". Do you wish to fall into that cateogry?

Thats not the only reason they attacked us there good buddy. Yes I do think being like the enemy would help, if we were ruhtless with them, then I think they would start fearing what we might do. Now they know what to expect, but if we became the enemy then, In my opinion, the war could be won much sooner, and cost fewer American, and civilian lives.

If you wish to act more cruel, be like the enemy, more ruthless, and have them to start 'fearing' you, then what really seperates you from the man you had just taken from power?

And how exactly are you going to sepeare the terrorists from the local population? As many have said before, they have this habit of blending in.

[theavonlady 2]

If you wish to act more cruel, be like the enemy, more ruthless, and have them to start 'fearing' you, then what really seperates you from the man you had just taken from power?

The desire to live.

[bn880 5]

If you wish to act more cruel, be like the enemy, more ruthless, and have them to start 'fearing' you, then what really seperates you from the man you had just taken from power?

The desire to live.

really?

Get it out of your heads that guerillas will fear you, they're already strapping bombs to themselves and trying to crash in planes...

[theavonlady 2]

If you wish to act more cruel, be like the enemy, more ruthless, and have them to start 'fearing' you, then what really seperates you from the man you had just taken from power?

The desire to live.

really?    

Get it out of your heads that guerillas will fear you, they're already strapping bombs to themselves and trying to crash in planes...  

I'm talking about our desire to live. The terrorists actually desire death.

[Chill 0]

How can you call the people fighting against the USA terrorist? They are defending their homeland from a USA led invasion. Big difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Iraq's are fighting for their freedom from the ivasion of iraq.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]How can you call the people fighting against the USA terrorist? They are defending their homeland from a USA led invasion. Big difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Iraq's are fighting for their freedom from the ivasion of iraq.

Sadly some of them ARE terrorists. Some are old supporters of Saddam and some are AQ cells. At any rate, I label both those groups as terrorists because their entire agenda revolves around terror.