The Iraq thread 4

[EiZei 0]

i reckon to fight terror u gotta use terror. u gotta make ur enemy sick of war and blood.

u.s. still uses minimal restraint . i reckon take no insurgency prisoners and kill everyone in the insurgency to freaken scare the crap out of them. kill the family members of the insurgency so that there is terror for terror. do what they did with pablo escobar!! insurgents, kill 4ppl, 1 insurgent captured 5 of his family members die right in front of him and then kill him.

terror for terror is the answer. those beheading make my blood boil.

So let me get this straight.. you want a war that would kill even more people and cause unprecedented economic damage because few people got beheaded?

either the two main islamic groups join together and declare war on the insurgency

or u.s. will have to play loosely within the rules but loose aint enuff

and doesnt matter if its a few beheadings, i would rather die by a bullet than my throat cut like a steak with me knowing its coming blind folded. look at the prisoner abuses, its bad but at least theyre still alive. im not claiming some of them didnt dissappear but come on, at least they got a mercy from a bullet.

terrorist deserve to die!!! if they have the balls to attack theyre own religion kill innocent ppl everyday of most which half of them is not their country, i believe u have to pay the ultimate price. i did go overboard with the kill his family members aswell. but if it could save lives by VALUABLE informatrion from the terrorists to save lives then so be it. i dont think anyone is willing to sacrifice their family members unless they are purely crazy. even people like pablo escobar and carlos the jackal had their soft spots.

So why are you talking about terrorists in an iraq thread? Am I the only one missing something here?

Quote[/b] ]

well its working for the terrorists

look how much enlisting has dropped in the u.s

Probably more to do with the fact that people are not really keen on getting shipped to some desert hellhole for the next 1.5 years and getting shot at. Beheaded persons have mainly been civilian contractors.

But seriously, is beheading THAT much worse than.. say.. getting burnt alive by a US bomb and I am pretty sure that many many more people have been killed that way than beheaded.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Quote[/b] ]i reckon to fight terror u gotta use terror

So basically you're saying that if the US wants to get rid of insurgents in Iraq it must lower itself to a level of brutality beyond that of the Regime they just took down and occupied?

So, instead of having a cruel run government under the hands of Saddam a western one will be set up?

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]At least it wasn't caused by insurgents.

R.I.P. 31 marines  

In my opinion that's even worse. Death by accident/negligence is worse than death by someone who's actually trying to kill you.

It's like that football player who quit to join the military and was killed in a friendly fire incident. What a pointless death.

Still, this incident just ratifies my belief now that helicopters are just whirling deathmachines, capable of killing it's occupants as much if not moreso than killing enemies.

Quote[/b] ]well its working for the terrorists

Yeah. People who murder and perform acts to terrorize or coerce civilians or governments are terrorists.

So you're basically saying the U.S should drop any facade whatsoever of being judicious in it's use of force and just kill them all? Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist. Are you so bigoted that you could justify one nation engaging in such acts but not another?

Quote[/b] ]terrorist deserve to die!!!

If you could understand the irony of your statement I think you'd be embarrassed.

[bonko the sane 2]

Quote[/b] ]Wednesday's incidents brought the U.S. death toll in the war to 1,418

add aprox. X10 maimed and wounded and its becoming very clear that things are NOT working out well for the invading forces.

in Iraq, no WMD, no Al-qaeda, lots of money being made by contractors and "friends" of the U.S. president, what a sham this war on terrorism is, all this over the blood of whoever is naive enough to enlist and the vast majority of civilian inocents that die everyday.

the iraqis are not feeling very thankfull for being forcefully "liberated" ...i wonder why

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]the iraqis are not feeling very thankfull for being forcefully "liberated" ...i wonder why  

Thankful or motivated, and I can see why.

I mean they know the U.S just wants to set up a sweet deal for oil/pro-U.S government and then bugger off. I'm sure some of them out there might see it as an opportunity for free and democratic society, however you know many of them are just sick of U.S forces accidentally killing them if they don't follow instructions/demands (or do nothing at all in particular) and insurgents trying to kill them if they do.

It's a shitty situation and I can see the people reverting to psychological coping mechanisms that they used when Saddam was in power. They're used to surviving in oppressive conditions and it's what the people of Iraq know best. The country's security situation is essentially turning it into the same shit but in a different pile than the pre-invasion years.

People are still dying, only now it's collateral damage or terror attacks.

[Frisbee 0]

The Vatican. But sure, why not.

You didn't think I'm a christian or that I have any sympathies for the US religious right, did you?

I meant to say the Vatican.

Good to see you dislike everything equally.

[Ares1978 0]

I meant to say the Vatican.  

Good to see you dislike everything equally.  

Yeah, I could never live in the US. The country is always run by either liberal tree hugging hippies or right wing religious imperialist nazis. There doesn't seem to be any moderates.

Shit, off topic again.  

[Bordoy 0]

Just read this on BBC online...... a shoe in for OFP 2? ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4199935.stm

A few problems with that. Lack of mibility is one thing.

Also just like any PS2 or X-Box, FPS shooter games, it is very hard to aim unlike with a mouse on and computer. It say's it uses something abit like a gameboy. So as the machine gun is attacjed to this unit, there shouldn't be too much recoil. So this means it would be extremely hard to hit anyone with it. Unless the going to hire PS2 geeks to do the job.

Would be useful as a suppressing tool, but to it anything, no.

I just thought, how would it reload?

[Baphomet 0]

We discussed that earlier. The robots that is.

Good god why get rid of a joystick and add a controller?

Jesus fuck.

"Let's make aiming more difficult than it should be".

It'll improve gross motor control for movement but fine tuned aiming will suffer, unless yeah. They hire console geeks to drive these things. Even then a control pad cannot be compared to a keyboard/mouse or even joystick setup. Heh.  

[Ares1978 0]

They hire console geeks to drive these things. Even then a control pad cannot be compared to a keyboard/mouse or even joystick setup. Heh.  

That's the future of warfare. The soldiers will be replaced by machines controlled by nerds.

[EiZei 0]

The Vatican. But sure, why not.

You didn't think I'm a christian or that I have any sympathies for the US religious right, did you?

I meant to say the Vatican.

Good to see you dislike everything equally.

Considering most of the militant loonies are hardcore protestants that quite often dislike catholicism and sometimes even harbour elders of zionesque conspiracy theories about vatican (see jack chick tracts about catholicism).

Personally I think that kind of tactics would be ineffective, these people already believe that end of the world is at hand, there is afterlife and such.

[theavonlady 2]

From Iraq, yesterday, Wed., January 26

[Bordoy 0]

They hire console geeks to drive these things. Even then a control pad cannot be compared to a keyboard/mouse or even joystick setup. Heh.  

That's the future of warfare. The soldiers will be replaced by machines controlled by nerds.

Naaa, it will be in space, or on top of the the very tallest mountains.

[theavonlady 2]

They hire console geeks to drive these things. Even then a control pad cannot be compared to a keyboard/mouse or even joystick setup. Heh.  

That's the future of warfare. The soldiers will be replaced by machines controlled by nerds.

Naaa, it will be in space, <span style='color:red'>or on top of the the very tallest mountains</span>.

Which will be?

[Bordoy 0]

They hire console geeks to drive these things. Even then a control pad cannot be compared to a keyboard/mouse or even joystick setup. Heh.  

That's the future of warfare. The soldiers will be replaced by machines controlled by nerds.

Naaa, it will be in space, <span style='color:red'>or on top of the the very tallest mountains</span>.

Which will be?

Bloody global warming. It needs to be sorted out NOW. Average temperaures of the Earth could rise by an average of 11C, not the previuosly stated 2C. In Britain it could be worse with 20C higher.

[EiZei 0]

They hire console geeks to drive these things. Even then a control pad cannot be compared to a keyboard/mouse or even joystick setup. Heh.

That's the future of warfare. The soldiers will be replaced by machines controlled by nerds.

Naaa, it will be in space, <span style='color:red'>or on top of the the very tallest mountains</span>.

Which will be?

Bloody global warming. It needs to be sorted out NOW. Average temperaures of the Earth could rise by an average of 11C, not the previuosly stated 2C. In Britain it could be worse with 20C higher.

.. and you supported bush?

[denoir 0]

From Iraq, yesterday, Wed., January 26

While it's an interesting read, boy do you know how to pick your sources:

Quote[/b] ]

With Us

All Coalition Members

Australia

Britain

Israel

Regime Change Iran

Human Rights/N.Korea

Current Terror

Quote[/b] ]

Against Us

Al-Jazeera

Al-Gore

France

Houston Chronicle Editors

Hamas

Republic of North Korea

TX Assoc. of Counties

United Nations

Or how about this poll:

Quote[/b] ]

Results:Is Afghanistan better or worse off now than before the American invasion?    

Better  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 45 %

Worse  | 1 %

About the same  | 1 %

Better, worse, I really don't care, just as long as we killed a bunch of bad guys  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 53 %

[maximilien 0]

from"http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,1631,0,0,1,0"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The gunfire came from houses and a Mosque. It was a well planned and sizeable ambush – the enemy knew they were coming. The Marines had sustained two KIA’s (killed in action)– one had died on the battlefield – the other at this facility on the table. They would be transported later. The young Marines I spoke to described the battle like a scene from Star Wars – bullets, RPG’s, return fire – a huge fire fight. They got the bad guys – but it came with a price[/b]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

My "stupid" point of view :

These marines have a sci-fi film "Starwar" as military reference to describe an intense firefight.

Well it's a good metaphore of diverse concepts.

1) An unbelievable fight

2) This war is science-fictionesque : they never see a real battle only by TV screen and simulation or behind the technologic warafare

3) The movie concept of the situation, they are overrun.

Being agnostic, I see this document like a "shamanic" view

of this conflict.... Anthropologicaly the priest act like a shaman for the "Corps"...

Its a little schyzo : a) High tech starwaresque conflict - b) Shamanesque vision of the world and ugly deads....

"Warhammer 40K" where are you ?

Sorry for my bad english

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Results:Is Afghanistan better or worse off now than before the American invasion?    

Better  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 45 %

Worse  | 1 %

About the same  | 1 %

Better, worse, I really don't care, just as long as we killed a bunch of bad guys  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 53 %

Well a stupid option in there, but Afghanistan is better off. Ther is now 2 or 3 safe spots.But the rest is countryside with warring lords.

[ruff 102]

Yeah. People who murder and perform acts to terrorize or coerce civilians or governments are terrorists.

So you're basically saying the U.S should drop any facade whatsoever of being judicious in it's use of force and just kill them all? Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist. Are you so bigoted that you could justify one nation engaging in such acts but not another?

Quote[/b] ]terrorist deserve to die!!!

If you could understand the irony of your statement I think you'd be embarrassed.

use terror on terrorists

not kill civillians!!!!!!!!!!!

and What facade are talking about? r u saying the U.S. are killing anyone anyway but using some kind of cover???

don't freaken think so!!!!!!!!!! if they really wanted to kill everyone it freaken takes one nuke

do u think very black ops missions or covert missions are not doing whatever it takes to win?

why is it u like terrorist to live? if u release them theyll just join another group, and iraq does not want terrorists, look at all the attacks by terrorist, its only iraqis that get killed out of 4 iraqis die, 1 soldier gets killed

terrorist are the reason y islam is being judge by alot of people negatively in the whole world in the first place, they use islam as a weapon

common man wake up to yourself, half the times here u try to justify what terrorist do, u reckon america is Evil and iraqis LOVED saddam.

and why should i be embarrassed with my opinion?? its like how most countries have death penalties in the first place!!!!!!!!! islamic or not islamic, death penalties are in most countries so why not apply it to terrorists when they break the law.

"Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist"

so its like saying if a cop kills a criminal, his a criminal also just because criminals kill also? u see whats wrong there? by that statement there was no explanation of why he shot the criminal. there could be lots of reasons!!!!!! kill a terrorist to stop him from killing!!!!!!!!!! 1 billion more reasons to use terror against terrorist

the only terrorist that should live are the ones to be interrogated because they have lots of information.

using terror on TERRORISTS i believe will deter them to continuem, and if they stop before they get killed or arrested then they live, one reformed terrorist = one less terrorist to fight

and whatever u say u cant prove any other treatment works. and nor can i

but thats my OPINION , like u always seem to SAY.

[Ares1978 0]

"Perhaps this doesn't work out logically in your brain, but performing terrorist acts makes you a terrorist"

so its like saying if a cop kills a criminal, his a criminal also just because criminals kill also?

No, it's like saying that if a cop kills a killer, he's a killer too.

btw, are you saying that it is legal for cops to kill criminals?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]use terror on terrorists

not kill civillians!!!!!!!!!!!

And how do you propose to distinguish between a "terrorist" and a civilian when the "terrorist" blends into the crowd?

Quote[/b] ]r u saying the U.S. are killing anyone anyway but using some kind of cover???

don't freaken think so!!!!!!!!!! if they really wanted to kill everyone it freaken takes one nuke

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you are saying what with all the "r" and "u" (is it so hard to type two more letters?) and the excessive amount of exclamations, but I shall endeavor to reply.

The U.S., despite their press conference's to the contrary, are doing little to minimize civilian casualties, or at the least, not trying hard enough. How many times were Tomahawks and iron bombs dropped in packed, usually poorly constructed residential neighborhoods, often to kill one man, or small group of men? Where are the black op and special forces that you asked about then?

Quote[/b] ]why is it u like terrorist to live? if u release them theyll just join another group, and iraq does not want terrorists, look at all the attacks by terrorist, its only iraqis that get killed out of 4 iraqis die, 1 soldier gets killed

Who said they wanted "terrorists" to live? All I see is people saying that the U.S. should not behave like the "evil" that they claim they are trying to save the Iraqi's from.

Also I point you to the Iraqi Internal Ministry report stating that the Allied Coalition has killed over double the Iraqi's that the "terrorists" have.

Quote[/b] ]so its like saying if a cop kills a criminal, his a criminal also just because criminals kill also?

Actually yes. Even if the police officer was defending himself, there is still an investigation. If the cop kills a criminal because it is a criminal, the cop then has broken the law has he not? That makes him a criminal.

Quote[/b] ]1 billion more reasons to use terror against terrorist

You seem to labor under the delusion that "terrorists" stay in neighborhoods labeled "Terrorist Neighborhood" or in camps that are easy to find with signs pointing the way. "Terrorists" almost always are a part of the populace (ever wonder why they wear masks alot?). In order to "use terror on terrorists" you would have to either A) have definitive intelligence/proof of a "terrorists" identity and/or location or B)use terror on the very populace in which the "terrorist" is hiding, in effect, making you a "terrorist," as has been pointed out.

Quote[/b] ]using terror on TERRORISTS i believe will deter them to continuem, and if they stop before they get killed or arrested then they live, one reformed terrorist = one less terrorist to fight

Israel seems to think so also. It has not helped their situation much has it? The more hardline a government becomes, the more hardline the "terrorist" becomes.

Quote[/b] ]and whatever u say u cant prove any other treatment works. and nor can i

but thats my OPINION , like u always seem to SAY.

As stated above, there is ample evidence that taking a hardline stance with "terrorists" only brings about more terror and death (again...look at Israel). Negotiation, as with any fighting force, can bring about an end. Again look at Israel, where Sharon himself today said that "conditions are ripe for a historic breakthrough." How? Because both sides drew back from their hardline stance.

[quicksand 0]

Iraqi Resistance Group pledges Not to Target Elections

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, January 27 (IslamOnline.net) – Three days ahead of the controversial vote, a leading Iraqi resistance group vowed not to target polling stations or attack innocent Iraqis, saying the real battle is against the occupiers.

In a statement, a copy of which was obtained by IslamOnline.net, the Salah Al-Din Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Front for Resistance, said they would not be dragged into a battle against their own people.

The group pledged to avoid targeting polling stations or being involved in spilling the blood of innocent civilians.

“We are keen not to harm the lives of all Iraqis regardless of their sects and races -- that is an order for the armed wing of the group to follow,†said the two-page statement.

“We should not be dragged into side battles which do not affect the true struggle with the enemy occupiers,†it added.

The announcement runs in the face of threats by Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who declared an all-out war on the vote and those who participate in the process.

Al-Zarqawi’s militants on Thursday posted a video on the Internet of their murder of Salem Jaafar al-Kanani, a candidate from the party of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

At least 30 people were killed Thursday in intensified attacks on Iraqi and US targets as election workers started distributing ballot boxes for the vote.

Sunday's elections are widely expected to be marred by bloodshed and violence after some groups threatened voters with death.

Around 14 million Iraqis are eligible to cast ballots at some 5,700 polling stations to elect a 275-seat National Assembly that will in turn choose a Presidency Council and draft the country’s constitution.

The constitution must then be ratified through a national referendum – scheduled to take place at the end of 2005.

“Legalizing Occupationâ€

In its statement, the Iraqi resistance group dismissed the elections as a purely American demand that would help not resolve the Iraqi dilemma.

“It is meant to legitimize the occupation and turn it into a fact on the ground,†it added.

The Islamic Front for Resistance warned that the National Assembly would be used to rubberstamp all security and economic agreements with the occupation forces.

Analysts have said that conditions for Sunday's vote, the first open election in 50 years, will be far from perfect, as three main governorates and parts of the capital Baghdad would be excluded from the vote for security reasons.

Only three days away from the elections, voters still do not know exactly who is running for the seats, where they can cast ballots or even how they will get to the polls because of all the security precautions in place.

Moreover, several Iraqi and foreign analysts agree that the elections alone are not going to stem the violence that has plagued Iraqi society over the past year.

The White House acknowledged on January 13 that the controversial election would be flawed because of raging insecurity in the war-torn country.

Such is the diverse nature of the Iraqi Resistance,this article only outlining one of the less mediatised wing.

This also helps explain how come  over a thousand US soldiers fatalities went unclaimed by resistance groups and unfollowed by footage or brandashings of the "Kalashnikov that killed two Marines,the RPG that shot down a Blackhawk in the Al-Anbar province etc".

While the military experienced groups preffer to be secretive,Zarqawi and his murederous campaign of indiscriminate attacks gets all the media attention because he never fails to claim an attack in his weekly blog and to follow with audio or video footage painting a biased picture of the insurgency as a whole .

Bottom line is even if the resistance prevails in Iraq and by that I consider a full retreat of the US forces and the ousting of the future government,besides a possible extremly costly Shia-Sunni civil war there is also a question of how will the religious extremists and the nationalists would get along once their common enemy is gone.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]reckon take no insurgency prisoners and kill everyone in the insurgency to freaken scare the crap out of them. kill the family members of the insurgency so that there is terror for terror.

Quote[/b] ]use terror on terrorists

not kill civillians!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you conveniently forget what you previously type or do you think you have some kind of licence to be a hypocrite?

Just because someone has a family member who's a criminal doesn't mean the family member is guilty of anything or should be sent to jail. Likewise with an insurgent or terrorist.

Should the FBI have killed Timothy McVeigh's family as a preemptive maneuver to prevent any further forms of domestic terrorism?

Quote[/b] ]and What facade are talking about? r u saying the U.S. are killing anyone anyway but using some kind of cover???

don't freaken think so!!!!!!!!!! if they really wanted to kill everyone it freaken takes one nuke

The U.S forces especially towards the beginning of the occupation were so afraid of taking casualties that many innocent people were killed (checkpoints). They've not blatantly attempted to kill civilians but it's been readily apparent that they have no compunctions bombing or shooting areas known to be populated with civilians to kill insurgents, only to officially exonorate themselves of any responsibility afterwards. It's still happening. I can't say that I can honestly blame a lot of the U.S soldiers in Iraq for being very paranoid. As would I too, however. This just goes to indicate to me that their plans for occupation were not contingent upon an full-on asymmetrical conflict, which to me also implies a lack of foresight or planning.

Furthermore talk of nukes is nonsensical. You can be sure the first nuke that's tossed anywhere will have a global impact.

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, January 27 (IslamOnline.net) – Three days ahead of the controversial vote, a leading Iraqi resistance group vowed not to target polling stations or attack innocent Iraqis, saying the real battle is against the occupiers.

Anyhow. This is what I'm talking about a while back. It's very easy to take the atrocious acts of one group and attribute it to the whole, but this reinforces my belief that there are both terrorist groups and legitimate resistance fighters both working toward their own separate agenda in the country.

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]reckon take no insurgency prisoners and kill everyone in the insurgency to freaken scare the crap out of them. kill the family members of the insurgency so that there is terror for terror.

Quote[/b] ]use terror on terrorists

not kill civillians!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you conveniently forget what you previously type or do you think you have some kind of licence to be a hypocrite?

Just because someone has a family member who's a criminal doesn't mean the family member is guilty of anything or should be sent to jail. Likewise with an insurgent or terrorist.

Should the FBI have killed Timothy McVeigh's family as a preemptive maneuver to prevent any further forms of domestic terrorism?

Quote[/b] ]and What facade are talking about? r u saying the U.S. are killing anyone anyway but using some kind of cover???

don't freaken think so!!!!!!!!!! if they really wanted to kill everyone it freaken takes one nuke

The U.S forces especially towards the beginning of the occupation were so afraid of taking casualties that many innocent people were killed (checkpoints). They've not blatantly attempted to kill civilians but it's been readily apparent that they have no compunctions bombing or shooting areas known to be populated with civilians to kill insurgents, only to officially exonorate themselves of any responsibility afterwards. It's still happening. I can't say that I can honestly blame a lot of the U.S soldiers in Iraq for being very paranoid. As would I too, however. This just goes to indicate to me that their plans for occupation were not contingent upon an full-on asymmetrical conflict, which to me also implies a lack of foresight or planning.

Furthermore talk of nukes is nonsensical. You can be sure the first nuke that's tossed anywhere will have a global impact.

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, January 27 (IslamOnline.net) – Three days ahead of the controversial vote, a leading Iraqi resistance group vowed not to target polling stations or attack innocent Iraqis, saying the real battle is against the occupiers.

Anyhow. This is what I'm talking about a while back. It's very easy to take the atrocious acts of one group and attribute it to the whole, but this reinforces my belief that there are both terrorist groups and legitimate resistance fighters both working toward their own separate agenda in the country.

Quote[/b] ]reckon take no insurgency prisoners and kill everyone in the insurgency to freaken scare the crap out of them. kill the family members of the insurgency so that there is terror for terror.

i corrected myself after that post and explained more on it READ and stop using past or corrected posts to use it in your argument

"Should the FBI have killed Timothy McVeigh's family as a preemptive maneuver to prevent any further forms of domestic terrorism?"

i believe u SHOULD do it if u could PREVENT him from doing it from the first place, if they knew it was going to happen or who he was before the incident

it's like the US presidents decision to shoot down the 9/11 planes to save more lives!!

"The U.S forces especially towards the beginning of the occupation were so afraid of taking casualties that many innocent people were killed (checkpoints). They've not blatantly attempted to kill civilians but it's been readily apparent that they have no compunctions bombing or shooting areas known to be populated with civilians to kill insurgents, only to officially exonorate themselves of any responsibility afterwards. It's still happening. I can't say that I can honestly blame a lot of the U.S soldiers in Iraq for being very paranoid. As would I too, however. This just goes to indicate to me that their plans for occupation were not contingent upon an full-on asymmetrical conflict, which to me also implies a lack of foresight or planning."

well at least i agree on some points on that. but they don't intend to kill purposely. and who knows, they say that their innocent civillians but they could also be supporters (bath party) in those certain areas like the sunni triangle.

and nukes is just one example. america contains the most bombs in the world the most technological advanced. they don't need nukes to wipe out a whole bunch of people if they really wanted.

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, January 27 (IslamOnline.net) – Three days ahead of the controversial vote, a leading Iraqi resistance group vowed not to target polling stations or attack innocent Iraqis, saying the real battle is against the occupiers.

i believe thats propaganda. look how much violence. and they might be working with the other groups anyway like a COALITION of insurgents. i personally don't believe what they say.

but thats difference between our opinions.