A.A. Drive by on Insurgents

[DenisRUS 10]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c3_1268254931

[R] but very good footage anyway

[ProfTournesol 956]

Reminds me of some Black Hawk Down scenes.

[echo1 0]

What a pointless waste of life... Someone really needs to give those people something to do and be proud of.

[DenisRUS 10]

ch_123 i didnt get you. You are talking about yanks? They defending themself.

[echo1 0]

No. I was talking about the imbeciles who opened fire on them...

[vilas 477]

No. I was talking about the imbeciles who opened fire on them...

eee ???

so bad evil Iraqi attecked US soldiers on US territory ?

not imbeciles - but people who protect they own fatherland against other invaders

if soldier of country XYZ is on territory of country ABC (cause they have oil for example) and kills people there - he is f*** invader and agressor (like Hitler was)

people of the world cannot sleep peacefully cause if in their land oil will be found, next day they can die by US bomb or tank or idiots who watched too much Rambo

westernians have "weird" morality "if we invade and kill it is freedom and good, if they invade it is evil and homicide"

it is visible from colonialism of XIX century (France, UK, Holand etc.) , by Vietnam, to Iraq

people should realize and wake up that "on your territory is your home but not far away from your house is your land"

those who defend own land (no matter what is name of it) are defenders (not terrorists), cause defend OWN land where they were born , where born was father, grandfather and his grandfather

Edited March 12, 2010 by vilas

[Zipper5 74]

Many of them didn't care that Americans were on their land to begin with. In most cases you will find that it was an act of terrorism or insurgency that, in one way or another, drove them to fight the Americans. Best way to stop it from happening again is to help remove their reason for it, yes? Many of them have little to live for as well, or said act of terrorism/insurgency could have killed their family, friend, etc. They are easy picking for those who want to brainwash them.

Contrary to common belief, the majority of the Iraqis agree with the Americans being in their country, and most of the Arab world supports it as well.

[echo1 0]

I think everyone is missing my point in a pretty gigantic way.

eee ???

so bad evil Iraqi attecked US soldiers on US territory ?

not imbeciles - but people who protect they own fatherland against other invaders

Anyone who runs out and shoots at an armored convoy with an AK is an idiot, no matter how good his cause is.

And enough of the anti-American shite. I don't agree with the Iraqi invasion as much as the next guy, but people running around with guns and bombs killing everything in sight is the very reason why the Americans are still there. They wanted to be out of Iraq long before now, but found out that invading countries wasn't as fun and easy as it used to be in Kuwait, Grenada, Yugoslavia and others...

The fact is, the insurgents are not freedom fighters. They are not like the French resistance or the Polish Underground - they deliberately kill more of their own people than foreign troops. Ever notice the disproportionate number of attacks on mosques and markets and other civilian places? If I was a disaffected Iraqi looking to bag me some cracker ass, a Mosque would be the last place I'd put my Semtex.

The fact is that there's a lot of people who'd use their guns and bombs to become the next Saddam Hussein. To them, the Americans are just another obstacle to taking power - no more so that the elected government, people who don't support them or rival rebel groups. That doesn't justify the things the US have done, or their invasion, but if you really think that the Iraqi insurgents are fighting the 'right fight', then you are as much of an idiot as the guy who runs out in front of a Humvee with a gun to die for whichever crooked religious nut who brainwashed him.

Edited March 12, 2010 by echo1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

eee ???

so bad evil Iraqi attecked US soldiers on US territory ?

not imbeciles - but people who protect they own fatherland against other invaders

if soldier of country XYZ is on territory of country ABC (cause they have oil for example) and kills people there - he is f*** invader and agressor (like Hitler was)

people of the world cannot sleep peacefully cause if in their land oil will be found, next day they can die by US bomb or tank or idiots who watched too much Rambo

westernians have "weird" morality "if we invade and kill it is freedom and good, if they invade it is evil and homicide"

it is visible from colonialism of XIX century (France, UK, Holand etc.) , by Vietnam, to Iraq

people should realize and wake up that "on your territory is your home but not far away from your house is your land"

those who defend own land (no matter what is name of it) are defenders (not terrorists), cause defend OWN land where they were born , where born was father, grandfather and his grandfather

Vilas, the majority of the fighters in Iraq are not Iraqi; they are not defending "their" land, and they are killing more Iraqis than we ever have. What now?

Anyways, this is an old video. Woodland IBAs, 3-color Desert uniforms, etc.

[vilas 477]

problem of that region is "religion"

if other nations come here - they come cause they want fight "not-believers"

maybe those people would best wash laundry themselves ?

of course control of atom-weapons should be by UN

but this "the" war (not A-stan) is for oil

A-stan war is due to Talibs, but Iraq not

i judge those 2 wars different, i don't equalize Talib-war with Oil-war

one (drugs, talibs) had some "justification", but this one seems not to have such

for those fighters US is "symbol" of interventionism and pro-Israel

i think that half or Arab-countries vs. US/UK is due to Israel / Palestine case

and if you say that they are not Iraq .. than why 200 000 Iraq lost life in this war ?

you know what can be dangerous ?

Saddam was not religion-freak

new gov. can be such one, like other in region

changing not-religious leader to new can be dangerous in next 10 years, like those changes (supported by west / CIA) in Iran 20 or 30 years ago

Edited March 12, 2010 by vilas

[ProfTournesol 956]

In fact, calling these guys "insurgents" is a mistake, there is no "insurrection" of the people against a governement, it looks more like a civil war between very old enemies, as we have seen in former Yugoslavia after the fall of the federal state.

[echo1 0]

The current American term is "Anti-Iraqi Forces" - an example of propagandaeering that would make even Uncle Joe cringe in horror...

[SASrecon 0]

Ooh interesting thread; I got a debate about the withdrawal of British troops in Afgh.; in skwl next tuesday so I'll be taking note xD

tbh I think western countries have some justfication for invading e.g. fight war on terror, stabilise the government and cheap oil, yet imo it's a dirty war, the real reason is the oil and the territory, you can't justify killing people on foreign territory if other things can be done to stop them, e.g. better security at airports...

Edited March 12, 2010 by SASrecon

[echo1 0]

Back in my debating days in school and the start of college I did many a debate on pulling troops out of Iraq... Which side are you on? I always preferred opposing it, mainly for the above reasons... they unleashed a whole can of worms out there, they might as well stay around long enough to mop it up.

[spooky lynx 73]

people running around with guns and bombs killing everything in sight is the very reason why the Americans are still there. They wanted to be out of Iraq long before now, but found out that invading countries wasn't as fun and easy as it used to be in Kuwait, Grenada, Yugoslavia and others...

I should say that the presence of Americans is the reason of "people running around with guns and bombs killing everything in sight". They are the main reason of this conflict between different iraqi groups. "Separate and rule". So, the best way out - to go away from Iraq. Yes, there will be some years of civil war, but at the end the leading and the strongest group will be established, and it will form new more or less stable and independent state.

[echo1 0]

I should say that the presence of Americans is the reason of "people running around with guns and bombs killing everything in sight". They are the main reason of this conflict between different iraqi groups.

Bullshit. Those divisions and conflicts not only predate America's intervention - they predate the foundation of America itself!

Anyone who thinks that Iraq was a happy, peaceful country before the Americans came along should take a look at the history of pre-Saddam Iraq... The violence that we've seen over the past few years was inevitable when Saddam went, American troops or not.

Edited March 12, 2010 by echo1

[vilas 477]

I should say that the presence of Americans is the reason of "people running around with guns and bombs killing everything in sight". They are the main reason of this conflict between different iraqi groups. "Separate and rule". So, the best way out - to go away from Iraq. Yes, there will be some years of civil war, but at the end the leading and the strongest group will be established, and it will form new more or less stable and independent state.

pity that only small percent of people see "reason"

i already said once "old Polish joke"

stupid farmers sits on tree branch and cut branch from trunk

tourist say "man, you will fall down"

farmer fallen "fortune teller or what"

it is sad joke in this issue, cause they really not understand "cause, reason" and "effect" combination

3rd Newton rule says "every action has reaction"

they (i don't want to say why for 100th time) really do not understand basic thing

first they shoot someone, bombed someone , than they are surprised that people running with guns

woow, eureka

i took bath and now i must take towel to be dry, woow, what a surprise water is wet

woow, we invaded other country, woow people shooting to us, what a surprise , why they shoot to us ? we must send more troops

we could spent those taxes on schools, hospitals, highways, public transport, fighting cancer, what for, better give it to rocket that cost much than good equipped ambulance ... than fire 100 such rockets

if not those rockets their taxes could be lower, but than some "weapon factory owners" would not have so much millions , right ?

cheap oil, right, better kill 200 000 innocent people outside border than sit to 1.5 liter engine coupe instead of big truck pickup

SOAD has its lyrics "why do they always send the poor"

Anyone who thinks that Iraq was a happy, peaceful country before the Americans came along should take a look at the history of pre-Saddam Iraq... The violence that we've seen over the past few years was inevitable when Saddam went, American troops or not.

there is another country in region, which has M113, M16 , F16 etc.

do you think stoned woman are not there ?

Arab countries have own culture, religion, lifestyle and old ethnic groups, you cannot push them to live our way

they had "family clan" conflicts for 100s of years

some conflicts appeared because of colonies

cause some Arabs were "pro" some "cons" and they were fighting

look at genesis of many wars in Asia

once there was colony, than some communist movement appeared, than some of ex-colonial rich fought with communists

please find more about many wars and than take back for 1-2 generations and you will see colonialism in roots in this (Asia) region

of course Africa is other story

but there... many problems came from previous "white man" politics which started fire

[GRS 10]

If we are evil invaders there to steal oil, then why are we paying for it and why is the enemy just a small minority that you claim represents the whole nation? I'm sorry to everybody but some of you Europeans need to shut up and look at your own country's pasts and stop whining about what we do. Ethnic cleansing in Africa what? Being a dick to the middle east for YEARS before we even went there? I think so. Asia? I don't agree with a lot, I can't stand our government, but we aren't the evil, stupid, criminals you make us. Going over there was the right choice. How we went about doing things over there... not so much, since we obey too many 'rules' and the enemy doesn't. We limit ourselves. Perhaps we should not send aid to countries in need either? Get off America's case, we aren't perfect and neither are you.

[echo1 0]

As you say, a lot of problems were the fault of the white man. I don't think it's natural to look at the cradle of civilization, see that they're stuck in the medieval age and say "Well sure, that's the way they are" If we can help them along, I'd say go for it.

Cultural relativism is a philosophy I detest. If a man stones a woman to death in the US or Europe, he'll be a figure of hatred and loathing. Why should he be allowed to do that in Africa or the Middle East? Surely the same principles stand irrespective of where the person carries out the crime? I think that saying that people from other countries should be allowed to kill and torture eachother because "They believe in a different god as us" or "They aren't as advanced as us" boils down to racism at the end of the day.

[GRS 10]

Not to mention, who are they fighting for? the very people that they blow up with their suicide bombs and IED's? We leave and then what? They go kill each other more.

Edited March 12, 2010 by GRS

[Barely-injured 0]

Bullshit. Those divisions and conflicts not only predate America's intervention - they predate the foundation of America itself!

Anyone who thinks that Iraq was a happy, peaceful country before the Americans came along should take a look at the history of pre-Saddam Iraq... The violence that we've seen over the past few years was inevitable when Saddam went, American troops or not.

I am sorry to say that's not entirely true. while the modern history of Iraq does feature a healthy dose of coups and assassinations even after the end of the British colonization, the life for normal people were hardly effected beyond "a new day, and a new boss at the office".

Which gives to the notion that if they were truly concerned about Iraq or saddam and his regime then any monkey in the white house should have at least bothered to read a little about the history of Iraq. That would have stopped them from doing the endless chain of mistakes with Iraq ever since the late 80s.

It maybe too late to avert violence now but i suppose that as far as the region is concerned that violence without the American presence is better than violence with it.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

SOAD has its lyrics "why do they always send the poor"

Vilas, that song is one of the stupidest political songs I've ever heard.

"They always send the poor" because they send whoever signs up. There are people of all socio-economic class in the US military -rich, poor, middle class, whatever. Seriously, just because it's in a song, doesn't mean it's intelligent or a substitute for a real argument.

What you should really question is why the rich don't volunteer? Why doesn't SOAD go?

[ProfTournesol 956]

If we are evil invaders there to steal oil, then why are we paying for it and why is the enemy just a small minority that you claim represents the whole nation? I'm sorry to everybody but some of you Europeans need to shut up and look at your own country's pasts and stop whining about what we do. Ethnic cleansing in Africa what? Being a dick to the middle east for YEARS before we even went there? I think so. Asia? I don't agree with a lot, I can't stand our government, but we aren't the evil, stupid, criminals you make us. Going over there was the right choice. How we went about doing things over there... not so much, since we obey too many 'rules' and the enemy doesn't. We limit ourselves. Perhaps we should not send aid to countries in need either? Get off America's case, we aren't perfect and neither are you.

Well, "mistakes" of our European past don't entitle you to do the same now. But while i consider the Iraki invasion as a big mistake advertised by Bush administration numerous lies, i think Saddam was a puppet manipulated, armed and financed by a lot of occidental countries, (including mine which was a major support), because he was a rampart against Iranian influence.

As an allied of the US and of most of OTAN countries, he never had attacked Kuweit in the 90's if he hadn't received the "tacit" green light from them, or at least be persuaded (manipulated ?) that nobody will react. I hope one day we will know the exact reasons why. Irak is still suffering from those geo strategic ventures of the 90's.

[spooky lynx 73]

Anyone who thinks that Iraq was a happy, peaceful country before the Americans came along should take a look at the history of pre-Saddam Iraq... The violence that we've seen over the past few years was inevitable when Saddam went, American troops or not.

Iraq was a stable country at first. With no war between different armed groups, no everyday terrorist attacks. It was just another middel east country like Oman, Quatar, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.

Cultural relativism is a philosophy I detest. If a man stones a woman to death in the US or Europe, he'll be a figure of hatred and loathing. Why should he be allowed to do that in Africa or the Middle East? Surely the same principles stand irrespective of where the person carries out the crime? I think that saying that people from other countries should be allowed to kill and torture eachother because "They believe in a different god as us" or "They aren't as advanced as us" boils down to racism at the end of the day.

Another countries have their own way of life. Sometimes it can look just horrible for us, but it is quite normal for them. You think that stoning the woman to death is inadmissible, but citizens of that countries think the same about BDSM and some other sexual deviations which are to be "just another kind of relations between people" in US or Europe.

[-Snafu- 78]

Vilas, knows the solutions and answers to all of the worlds problems. :rolleyes: