Fallujah

[segovius]

Well, they would never have done it before the election but it looks like they're not wasting any time now. Seems like it's going to kick off any minute and it won't be pretty.

They can't just bomb indiscriminately anymore from above - it didn't work. They're going to have to put troops on the ground and that's going to mean street to street fighting.

I suppose the rebels will have booby trapped the whole city as far as possible and of course they have the advantage anyway being the defending guerilla force in a city.

The military seem prepared for massive casualties. From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3985493.stm):

US and Iraqi officials say there are several thousand fighters holed up in the city, 50km (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

The Iraqi authorities say the fighters are highly organised and led by former army officers from Saddam Hussein's army.

The combat hospital at the main US base near Falluja has set up a morgue and doubled medical staff and supplies in preparation for an expected stream of casualties, AP reports.

Now is a good time to take a look at the hypocrisy of this before the killing starts and people get too excited.

1) The 'Zarqawi' ultimatum. This is a crock of BS. Even if he was there (which he isn't due to the fact that he is dead) then how could the populace hand him over ? If it takes massive battalions of Marines to take him out and the biggest assault of the war - htf are unarmed civilians who have been living under siege and been bombed to bejeezus every night for months supposed to do it ?

So the 'ultimatum' is really just a justification for murder.

2) In the quote above the military claim the targets are 'Saddam loyalists'. So not Zarqawi then. Get it straight if you're going to lie, always a good policy.

3) The civilians of the city have been under bombardment and being killed for months. Those that haven't have tried to escape. Some have succeeded. Even more are trying to escape now that the attack is imminent. Why don't they let them out ??????

Thus US is constantly parroting that Alawi is in charge of this operation - and maybe he is - not that that's any consolation as the puppet is an ex-Saddam executioner. Most likely this is why they stress his role, so the US can distance themselves if and when it gets messy.

People need to see this - however it pans out. This is what they voted for, they should sit and watch.

[segovius]

Ok - so they just told civilians to flee the city (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=229224) - that's good. Scrub point 3 but the rest still stand.

[MarcUK]

whoops, should read article before posting.!

WOW, how they gonna differentiate between an innocent male civilian and an insurgent male dressed in plain clothes?

I bet alot of civilians end up in Guantanamo.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
And all the insurgents put down their arms, flee with the civilians and regroup somewhere else.

Way to go US military planning.!

Apparently many have already done that over the past month or so. But I think there are still a hardcore group who aren't going anywhere and are ready for a ruck.

[Gene Clean]

the US is talking about "groups" and "remnants", but those groups are thought to have at least 12,000 fighters.

we'll have to wait and see the next bloodbath of bushzilla and unocal advisors allawi + chalabi (although he is not very visual these days; keeping a low profile).

[segovius]

The 'rebel city' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3986085.stm)

When I hear bombs falling around my neighbourhood, I keep thinking - any moment now, I could be killed. It is worst during the night, when the bombardment is most intense.

If a big bomb lands somewhere nearby, you often hear crying and wailing afterwards. It is a very strange feeling because in between the screaming, there is the sound of more missiles flying. That is when I think - I could be next.

Another sound you hear during the bombing is that of prayers. People pray loudly because they are so scared. Sometimes, you hear people say quite unusual things - they improvise, making up their own prayers.

We followed the US elections very closely from Falluja. It was a matter of life and death. Many people were hoping John Kerry would win because they felt he would not have allowed our city to be attacked like this.

Of course, we also know that the US policy in Iraq at large is not going to change. We do not forget that George Bush and John Kerry are two sides of the same coin. Still, as far as our city is concerned right now, a Kerry victory would have brought some hope.

I left my old house in the north of the city a month ago, when the Americans began bombing that area all the time. Now I live with a small group of friends near the centre of Falluja.

We are just men here. All our wives and children have left the city - some we sent to Baghdad, others to quieter areas closer by. We cook and eat together and spend most of our time in the house.

If you want to leave the house, the safest time to do so is between seven in the morning and one in the afternoon, when the Americans take a break from the bombing.

The souk [market] in the centre of Falluja is open from morning to midday and, fortunately, it has not run out of food so far. But I can't see how long the supplies will last - two days ago, the government said it was cutting off the roads from Falluja to Baghdad and Ramadi.

I don't know what we will eat then. I guess we might still be able to grab hold of some meat - I've seen a lot of goats in the city.

There is only one road out of the city that is still open now - but it runs through a checkpoint manned by US soldiers. We think they're going to cut this route off quite soon as well.

This used to be a city of 500,000 people. Now, my guess is there are about 100,000 still here. The hospitals I have seen are full of people but empty of supplies and medicine. The erratic electricity also makes operating difficult.

Ten to 18 new cases are brought in every day. The injured know they won't get much treatment. They come just to be near the doctor, to hear the doctor talk to them.

[Yevgeny]

Thank goodness the attack on Fallujah that *everyone* has been talking about for the last two months is going to start. Hopefully the foreign insurgents either die or are betrayed by the locals who don't particularly want a bloodbath.

Folks, please remember that it is ok to kill terrorists. Esp, terrorists who seem to delight in killing Iraqis.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Thank goodness the attack on Fallujah that *everyone* has been talking about for the last two months is going to start. Hopefully the foreign insurgents either die or are betrayed by the locals who don't particularly want a bloodbath.

Folks, please remember that it is ok to kill terrorists. Esp, terrorists who seem to delight in killing Iraqis.

Yeah, thank goodness.

Like you'd know what that is.

:no:

[Beige_G3]

I saw this image in a BBC article about the preparations for Fallujah. I think it says it all.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40494000/jpg/_40494283_soldier_body_ap.jpg

This one is just disturbing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40494000/jpg/_40494049_blood_index_ap.jpg

Now that the election is over, we are going to see a major get tuff policy. The administration pretty much has a free hand at this point. Of course, this mission is being controlled by the Iraqis and we are just helping out where we can.....

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Thank goodness the attack on Fallujah that *everyone* has been talking about for the last two months is going to start. Hopefully the foreign insurgents either die or are betrayed by the locals who don't particularly want a bloodbath.

Folks, please remember that it is ok to kill terrorists. Esp, terrorists who seem to delight in killing Iraqis.

WOW!

.
.
.


Thank God indeed.
:no:

[MarcUK]

WRONG WAR

WRONG PLACE

WRONG TIME

I hope you're all fucking PROUD of yourselves.

[Stoo]

Hopefully the foreign insurgents either die or are betrayed by the locals who don't particularly want a bloodbath.

Remember that the civilian populace are the ones without guns. This may make handing the insurgents over rather tricky for them. :???:

[groverat]

Where are they supposed to go?

How do you kick rebels out of your city?

God fucking damnit.

:mad:

[addabox]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Thank goodness the attack on Fallujah that *everyone* has been talking about for the last two months is going to start. Hopefully the foreign insurgents either die or are betrayed by the locals who don't particularly want a bloodbath.

Folks, please remember that it is ok to kill terrorists. Esp, terrorists who seem to delight in killing Iraqis.

Jesus. And you're the guy giving advise to the democrats about how to win elections.

You forgot to include "the democrats need to be more blood thirsty and in favor of indiscriminate killing of people who can be blithely written off as "terrorists" without having the faintest idea of who they actually are, because, like Jesus, the majority of Americans are sexually aroused by the idea of slaughter. This is what it truly means to be an evangelical christian. For the fatherland. For the folk. For the leader."

[talksense101]

U.S. warplanes pounded Fallujah late Friday in what residents called the strongest attacks in months, as more than 10,000 American soldiers and Marines massed for an expected assault.


Military planners believe there are about 1,200 hardcore insurgents in Fallujah — at least half of them Iraqis. They are bolstered by insurgent cells with up to 2,000 fighters in the surrounding towns and countryside.



This is a massacre of civilians who are opposed to American occupation of Iraq. They are not terrorists. This exercise is an attempt to put fear and awe into the populace (which is not going to work).


terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]


Who is the terrorist in this situation?

---------

I am sure that the promise of a free and fair election in January will pacify the tax payers funding this mass murder.

If only the US media had the courage to show real war footage and the truth instead of what the army wants to show you, the boob tube addicts will be enlightened. That won't happen this time around. :(

edit: linky1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3987641.stm) linky2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3986085.stm)

[bunge]

Unfortunately for conservatives there are no Terrorists in Iraq. There are foreign fighters fighting on the side of the Iraqi insurgents, but they're welcome and supported. They're not terrorists. They're not causing terror among the Iraqi civilians, they're fighting a war. The only people in Iraq that can be considered terrorists are people attacking Iraqi civilians, the rest of the people (military) are fair game. Our military are fair game, and those killing them are not wrong to do so.

[segovius]

News coming in (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm) - looks like they've completely totalled a hospital run by a charity.

As usual no reports of casulaties.

So much for 'targetted precision bombings'. You've got to wonder whether or not they have a clue what they're doing ....and which is worse

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by bunge
Unfortunately for conservatives there are no Terrorists in Iraq.

Not a single one, eh? Did the pied piper come through with his flute and lead them into Syria? Must be even safer than the USA then.

Don't say none. It just make your response look like knee-jerk wishful thinking with a political agenda.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Not a single one, eh? Did the pied piper come through with his flute and lead them into Syria? Must be even safer than the USA then.

Don't say none. It just make your response look like knee-jerk wishful thinking with a political agenda.

If I understand Bunge correctly he was drawing a distinction between 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' and technically he is correct.

All the insurgency groups in Iraq are united in their aim of removing the Americans. Whilst some of these groups may have engaged in 'terrorism' elsewhere (al Qaeda for example in the west) they cannot be said to be engaging in 'terrorism' in Iraq according to the definition of what terrorism is - ie causing terror and trauma amongst a civilian population for a political end.

In fact, the only people doing that in Iraq are the US.

Of course one could argue that they are still terrorists even if not actively involved in terrorism in the present instance but that's not what I understood Bunge to be saying.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Not a single one, eh? Did the pied piper come through with his flute and lead them into Syria? Must be even safer than the USA then.

Don't say none. It just make your response look like knee-jerk wishful thinking with a political agenda.

Then don't be an ass about semantics.

I considered not using the term because it's an absolute, but I didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to take it as such. Obviously there are terrorists everywhere, in every country, including the U.S. When we use language we don't have to qualify everything we say because if we did every conversation would take a month to complete. Instead we use generalities that everyone understands and accepts.

Like the word "none". Obviously there are terrorists everywhere, in every country, including the U.S., so the term "none" will always be wrong in this situation. But because we all already know that by default it's "wrong", impossibly inaccurate, we accept the term as an exaggeration rather than a fact and we all read and comprehend the underlying meaning of the complete statement rather than the dictionary definition of the individual terms used.

It's called communication.

[bunge]

Originally posted by segovius
If I understand Bunge correctly he was drawing a distinction between 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' and technically he is correct.

All the insurgency groups in Iraq are united in their aim of removing the Americans. Whilst some of these groups may have engaged in 'terrorism' elsewhere (al Qaeda for example in the west) they cannot be said to be engaging in 'terrorism' in Iraq according to the definition of what terrorism is - ie causing terror and trauma amongst a civilian population for a political end.

In fact, the only people doing that in Iraq are the US.

Of course one could argue that they are still terrorists even if not actively involved in terrorism in the present instance but that's not what I understood Bunge to be saying.

Thums up.

[segovius]

Looks like it's kicked off (http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=5674).

This bit is reassuring:

Colonel Gary Brandl of the United States Marine Corps commented:_
"The enemy has a face. It is Satan's. He is in Fallujah, and we are going to destroy him."

:no:

[iPoster]

Originally posted by bunge
Unfortunately for conservatives there are no Terrorists in Iraq.

Huh? :???:

11/3/2004: Terrorists took hostage 4 Jordanians in Iraq.

11/2/2004: Terrorists blew up an Iraqi oil ministry official.

11/2/2004: Terrorists blew up more than 12 people in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

11/1/2004: Terrorists blew up 15 people staying at a hotel in Tikrit, Iraq. 8 people were injured.

10/31/2004: Terrorists took hostage three election workers in Afghanistan.

10/31/2004: Terrorists blew up 7 people in a car bombing in Baghdad, Iraq. 19 people were injured.

10/30/2004: Terrorists beheaded a Japanese hostage in Iraq.

10/30/2004: Terrorists took hostage a Polish woman in Iraq.

10/18/2004: Terrorists beheaded 2 Macedonian hostages in Iraq.

10/18/2004: Terrorists blew up 12 people in two days in Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq.

10/11/2004: Terrorists blew up 2 Iraqis in Mosul, Iraq.

10/11/2004: Terrorists beheaded 2 Turkish contractors in Iraq.

10/10/2004: Terrorists blew up more than 10 people in Baghdad, Iraq. More than 15 were injured.

10/10/2004: Terrorists beheaded a British hostage in Iraq.

Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda’s suicide bombing campaign. Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely, than American soldiers, to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. The interim government is trying to convince the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah to back a military operation in the city to clear out the various al Qaeda, criminal and Baath Party gangs. But the gangs of Fallujah are quick to threaten any local leader that shows signs of supporting the government. While the Fallujah leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, and are providing information to the coalition, which has led to attacks, with smart bombs or coalition and Iraqi troops, on buildings used by al Qaeda, or other gangs, as headquarters.

In the interest of a 'fair and balanced' view:

With increased bombing of soft targets and daily killings of US troops, the Bush administration characterizes the Iraqi armed resistance as a terrorist phenomenon. Although this has emerged as a major obstacle to reconstruction in Iraq, the reality is too much more complex and dangerous to simply broad-brush it all as "terrorism."

Armed resistance in Iraq represents a broad spectrum of political and ideological forces that need to be understood individually before they swell, coalesce, and become a major threat. The perception in Washington that attacks against US forces and other targets are conducted mainly by hardened elements of the old Saddam Hussein regime - along with Ansar al-Islam, a small fundamentalist Kurdish group with no proven ties to Hussein - is dangerously myopic.

Though elements of the Hussein regime predominate, other important groups - whose interests converge with those of the old regime - play vital roles. Secular Baathists, indigenous Iraqi fundamentalists, Arab Islamists, and dissatisfied Iraqis all resist the US occupation.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by iPoster
Huh? :???:





In the interest of a 'fair and balanced' view:


Are you just reciting what Bush and his Neo-Cons are blathering? That's a very objective side of an argument, as Bush and his Neo's ain't engaging in a war with them so-called insurgents, therefore have no reason to label people terrorist as to justify their occupation and destruction of a sovereign country.

Oh how typical.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Are you just reciting what Bush and his Neo-Cons are blathering? That's a very objective side of an argument, as Bush and his Neo's ain't engaging in a war with them so-called insurgents, therefore have no reason to label people terrorist as to justify their occupation and destruction of a sovereign country.

Oh how typical.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It comes down to semantics. Are some in Iraq employing terrorism? Yes. Are they all resistance fighters fighting for their homes against an evil occupier? No. Obviously Bush Co. is going to label them all 'terrorists' so their war is noble and just, but on the other hand, there are some fighters over there who don't give a damn about Iraq or it's future, as long as they get to kill the infidels.

Not everything is black and white in war, just many shades of grey...

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by iPoster
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It comes down to semantics. Are some in Iraq employing terrorism? Yes. Are they all resistance fighters fighting for their homes against an evil occupier? No. Obviously Bush Co. is going to label them all 'terrorists' so their war is noble and just, but on the other hand, there are some fighters over there who don't give a damn about Iraq or it's future, as long as they get to kill the infidels.

Not everything is black and white in war, just many shades of grey...


All I saw in your post was what Bush and his Neo-Cons are saying. It wasn't exactly gray.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
All I saw in your post was what Bush and his Neo-Cons are saying. It wasn't exactly gray.

Apparently you didn't bother to read the last part of my post. It is the exact opposite of BushCo.'s position.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by iPoster
Apparently you didn't bother to read the last part of my post. It is the exact opposite of BushCo.'s position.

No, I did read it, but that did not present anything new to the argument. Calling people religious fundemntalists just because they oppose the occupation ain't exactly presenting a different view.

But, I guess that that is a subjective matter as well. Nothing personal intended. I apologize if I was too harsh.

[segovius]

I'm hearing that there is fighting already. Details unclear but apparently the insurgents have blown up a bridge.

I guess we'll hear soon. Or perhaps not. Apparently it may have been going on since this morning.

[Gon]

If anything, I'm surprised the guerrillas are not doing more damage than what they do at present. Not in Falluja though - IMO if they have a brain they will flee Falluja along with the civilians, what's the point of fighting a fair fight even if you'd get to be the defender?

In the areas where the US has less battle-ready presence than in Falluja, they could be sniping, assassination style. This needs very little training, just a normal rifle like the AK, few times to the range and a bit of common sense (tactics). You could work in two man teams with no external information source, hit an average of a couple random uniformed people every day and have very, very little risk of getting caught. Consider how difficult it was in the US, a relatively stable society whose citizens will readily help the police, to catch a single rifleman a little time ago. For a number of reasons, I don't think they are in a position to do much detective work in Iraq. To get caught, the shooter would basically have to run into the police, National Guards or US troops while still holding a rifle.

I wonder, are the US troops simply not making patrols that would expose them, is such activity happening but not made public, or what is the reason there isn't more of this happening?

Both in Falluja and elsewhere, they could be making booby traps wherever they think US soldiers might storm a house. How do you avoid a run-of-the-mill handgrenade-string trap even if you know to expect one? Every door, every window can be rigged up to explode when you open it, which you need to do in order to search the area. I'm not sure even bomb experts with plenty of time and equipment could do this with certainty. A tired Marine clearing the sixth house in a row, ready to face gun-toting insurgents? I don't think he has a chance.
Again, we're talking about one handgrenade, some string or fishing line, and a little bit of common sense.

[New]

Originally posted by Gon
If anything, I'm surprised the guerrillas are not doing more damage than what they do at present. Not in Falluja though - IMO if they have a brain they will flee Falluja along with the civilians, what's the point of fighting a fair fight even if you'd get to be the defender?

In the areas where the US has less battle-ready presence than in Falluja, they could be sniping, assassination style. This needs very little training, just a normal rifle like the AK, few times to the range and a bit of common sense (tactics). You could work in two man teams with no external information source, hit an average of a couple random uniformed people every day and have very, very little risk of getting caught. Consider how difficult it was in the US, a relatively stable society whose citizens will readily help the police, to catch a single rifleman a little time ago. For a number of reasons, I don't think they are in a position to do much detective work in Iraq. To get caught, the shooter would basically have to run into the police, National Guards or US troops while still holding a rifle.

I wonder, are the US troops simply not making patrols that would expose them, is such activity happening but not made public, or what is the reason there isn't more of this happening?

Both in Falluja and elsewhere, they could be making booby traps wherever they think US soldiers might storm a house. How do you avoid a run-of-the-mill handgrenade-string trap even if you know to expect one? Every door, every window can be rigged up to explode when you open it, which you need to do in order to search the area. I'm not sure even bomb experts with plenty of time and equipment could do this with certainty. A tired Marine clearing the sixth house in a row, ready to face gun-toting insurgents? I don't think he has a chance.
Again, we're talking about one handgrenade, some string or fishing line, and a little bit of common sense.

Err... I'm hearing reports of dead GI's and massive numbers of dead iraqi police and soldiers every day. Are you not getting these news?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3990141.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3989671.stm

[Gon]

Originally posted by segovius
All the insurgency groups in Iraq are united in their aim of removing the Americans. Whilst some of these groups may have engaged in 'terrorism' elsewhere (al Qaeda for example in the west) they cannot be said to be engaging in 'terrorism' in Iraq according to the definition of what terrorism is - ie causing terror and trauma amongst a civilian population for a political end.

In fact, the only people doing that in Iraq are the US.Technically, I think there is a degree of "terrorism" in about all public military action, because there is an implicit possibility of death and damage to civilians and property. If the military is the one acting and not the police, that alone implies there is going to be more use of force.

Furthermore, the insurgents are not just fighting Americans. They are fighting the US-instated temporary government and its officials, like the police, politicians and IIRC office clerks as well. These are all civilians in theory and more or less civilians in practice. All this is terrorism.

Though the Iraqi police and administration officials are civilians, I find it understandable that they are under attack along with the National Guard. They are a part of the local power structure the US set up. They are used against the insurgents, because what the insurgents are doing are technically crimes under the laws, again set up by the US, while in the insurgent mindset the temporary government is illegimate.

The US is making an important tradeoff here: how much to defend the officials from the insurgents, which would position the US troops as much easier targets, which might shift the majority of attacks from the civilians on US troops. I think the US values its troops far above protecting the officials and keeping the peace, effectively when not explicitly using the locals as cannon fodder. This might prove to be a mistake. Think about it, what message does it send? If it is easy for would-be Iraqi politicians to arrange "terrorist attacks" on their political opponents, will a government built under such conditions end up a democracy? Will the ones in charge be the ones that got the rest killed? Or are the lower echelons all dispensable, and the higher ups under US' wing?

[Gon]

Originally posted by New
Err... I'm hearing reports of dead GI's and massive numbers of dead iraqi police and soldiers every day. Are you not getting these news?I am getting the news and I have looked at the statistics. I'm astonished of how few the US soldier fatalities are. The way I picture things, just a couple of insurgents with rifles and a brain should manage this much a day. There are supposed to be massive amounts of insurgents and they definitely have explosives and equipment, yet they are not making a dent in US forces. As a soldier in Iraq, you are not statistically under much of a risk of being shot to death. IIRC, less so than in some of the bigger cities back home in the US.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Gon
I think the US values its troops far above protecting the officials and keeping the peace, effectively when not explicitly using the locals as cannon fodder.

I think you meant "while not explicitly" not "when", but I've been saying this since Afghanistan and all of the conservatives here have been saying the millitary has done everything possible to save civilians. I think someone has to have on serious blinders to think we're doing everything possible to save the civilians or officials.

[New]

Originally posted by Gon
I am getting the news and I have looked at the statistics. I'm astonished of how few the US soldier fatalities are. The way I picture things, just a couple of insurgents with rifles and a brain should manage this much a day. There are supposed to be massive amounts of insurgents and they definitely have explosives and equipment, yet they are not making a dent in US forces. As a soldier in Iraq, you are not statistically under much of a risk of being shot to death. IIRC, less so than in some of the bigger cities back home in the US.
True, They are probably very well protected. Because the insurgents are slaughtering the local police.

[Gon]

Originally posted by bunge
I think you meant "while not explicitly" not "when", but I've been saying this since Afghanistan and all of the conservatives here have been saying the millitary has done everything possible to save civilians. I think someone has to have on serious blinders to think we're doing everything possible to save the civilians or officials. I meant what I said, though maybe the gov't would have to print "bomb me" on the policemen's uniforms to make the cannon fodder status explicit.

The US military is correct when they say they have done their part to minimize civilian casualties. When they say that, they mean they do their best not to shoot or bomb a civilian to death. This is the extent of their responsibility. The US politicians are the ones responsible for not doing more, and issuing the military orders to protect the US-friendly locals from attacks. It's their decision. Please blame the right people.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by segovius
If I understand Bunge correctly he was drawing a distinction between 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' and technically he is correct.

No, there can be freedom fighters AND terrorists, but the extreme left-wingers and right-wingers here see only black and white.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
No, there can be freedom fighters AND terrorists, but the extreme left-wingers and right-wingers here see only black and white.

But someone in Iraq fighting with Iraqi insurgents and attacking U.S. soldiers is not a terrorist.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Gon
The US politicians are the ones responsible for not doing more....

Certainly. I don't think I've implied anyone else is to blame.

[segovius]

http://www.alkaemia.com/pics_blog/cross.jpg

This is not a Crusade or war against Islam. No way.

:no:

[johnq]

Originally posted by segovius
Looks like it's kicked off (http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=5674).

This bit is reassuring:

--
Colonel Gary Brandl of the United States Marine Corps commented:_
"The enemy has a face. It is Satan's. He is in Fallujah, and we are going to destroy him."
--

:no:

Can't demonize the enemy much more than that. :wow: Too much Jack Van Impe Ministries for Col. Brandl.

Well, we've been called the Great Satan for so long, so nyah-nyah, no you're Satan.

I hate humans. When do the cats and bunnies take over?

[ast3r3x]

Originally posted by segovius
http://www.alkaemia.com/pics_blog/cross.jpg

This is not a Crusade or war against Islam. No way.

:no:

I've agreed with you about everything up to this point. The individual soldiers are not on a crusade, they are just following orders of the retards. I believe that cross on the tank is more about protection/luck then anything else.

It could do just as well on the inside though.

[segovius]

Originally posted by ast3r3x
I've agreed with you about everything up to this point. The individual soldiers are not on a crusade, they are just following orders of the retards. I believe that cross on the tank is more about protection/luck then anything else.

It could do just as well on the inside though.

Apologies, it didn't convey yhe meaning I intended, probably bad idea - actually I posted it in the wrong thread (meant the Theocracy) but it wouldn't let me edit -- database problems. Seems to happen a fair bit.

Anyway, let me make one thing clear. My argument is not that the troops are fundies but that they are being targetted by the fundies. And if you're in a situation where you might die any minute - well, who can blame you taking a bit of religion.

BUT the same religious nutters that are blighting the landscape back home are at it in Iraq. THE GOVERNMENT are turning this into a religious crusade/war, not anyone else.

It is also a deliberate policy imo.

[Common Man]

The city is overrun by terrorists. It must be cleaned out for Iraq to move further. How far out of touch can the left be?

[segovius]

Reports are coming in that 35 US soldiers have been captured (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/08/content_2191504.htm) by the Iraqi resistance fighters.

[groverat]

God fucking damnit! Fucking chickenhawk bastards.

How do Republican voters live with themselves?

[segovius]

It's starting to stink real bad.

The US have targetted the main hospital and arrested Doctors and staff - preventing them from attending to any casualties that will undoubtedly occur.

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/313/world/U_S_forces_storm_into_northern:.shtml)

One main goal for taking the hospital first was likely to control information. The facility was the main source of Iraqi death tolls during the first U.S. siege of Fallujah in April, and U.S. commanders accused doctors there of exaggerating numbers, fueling public outrage that eventually forced the Marines to pull back from the city at that time.

The U.S military said Monday that insurgents controlling the hospital were ''forcing the doctors there to release propaganda and false information.''

My bold. This is a new low. Taking out the hospital so it cannot report casualty figures.

:no:

More on this outrage at Under the Same Sun (http://www.underthesamesun.org/content/2004/11/index.html#000271).

[Common Man]

"Your job is to arrest the killers but if you kill them, then so be it "

Allawi, in an address to Iraqi troops

[durin oakenskin]

Originally posted by segovius
It's starting to stink real bad.

The US have targetted the main hospital and arrested Doctors and staff - preventing them from attending to any casualties that will undoubtedly occur.


Isn't it against the Geneva Convention?

How far will they go?!

:no:

(Unfortunately, there is no "Smiley" with tears in its eyes... :( )

[sammi jo]

1/3/2004: Terrorists took hostage 4 Jordanians in Iraq.

11/2/2004: Terrorists blew up an Iraqi oil ministry official.

11/2/2004: Terrorists blew up more than 12 people in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

11/1/2004: Terrorists blew up 15 people staying at a hotel in Tikrit, Iraq. 8 people were injured.

10/31/2004: Terrorists took hostage three election workers in Afghanistan.

10/31/2004: Terrorists blew up 7 people in a car bombing in Baghdad, Iraq. 19 people were injured.

10/30/2004: Terrorists beheaded a Japanese hostage in Iraq.

10/30/2004: Terrorists took hostage a Polish woman in Iraq.

10/18/2004: Terrorists beheaded 2 Macedonian hostages in Iraq.

10/18/2004: Terrorists blew up 12 people in two days in Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq.

10/11/2004: Terrorists blew up 2 Iraqis in Mosul, Iraq.

10/11/2004: Terrorists beheaded 2 Turkish contractors in Iraq.

10/10/2004: Terrorists blew up more than 10 people in Baghdad, Iraq. More than 15 were injured.

10/10/2004: Terrorists beheaded a British hostage in Iraq.



What about the American terrorists and war criminals who have murdered 100,000+ Iraqi civilians in the last 18 months? Oh...they do it for the benefit of big corporations...so thats just fine.

15,4. 2, 10.....that is certainly 15,4,2, and 10 too many. But I thnk 100,000 is 100,000 too many. Unless Iraqi civilians are lesser human beings, and deserve to die because (a) they don't have a Christian or Jewish label (b) they have brown skin (c) they dont consume many US products? What is the BushCorp justification for this new holocaust?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Common Man
"Your job is to arrest the killers but if you kill them, then so be it "

Allawi, in an address to Iraqi troops

Why are you quoting Allawi? The man is a known terrorist. Oh, perhaps thats why he has found favor amongst his Bushite terrorist colleagues.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by ast3r3x
I've agreed with you about everything up to this point. The individual soldiers are not on a crusade, they are just following orders of the retards. I believe that cross on the tank is more about protection/luck then anything else.

It could do just as well on the inside though.

I agree with it being 'wrong' to display the cross on the outside of the vehicle, just as it's unauthorized to wear any religious device on the outside of your uniform.

But I got a chuckle out of him being upset with his view of it being a 'Crusade', but aparently it's OK for Imans to openly call for a 'Holy Jihad' against the US and other western countries.

:mad:

[segovius]

Originally posted by iPoster
but aparently it's OK for Imans to openly call for a 'Holy Jihad' against the US and other western countries.

Actually theologically it IS ok.

The issue here is a hypocrisy I am objecting to rather than a religious teaching.

Islam teaches that if someone attacks you you can fight back, This is the literal translation of the Arabic word 'jihad' - ie 'struggle' not 'war'. It is used in the sense of 'overcoming an obstacle'. The word for war is 'harb' which is from a quite different root.

So the point is the Imams seem to be acting in accordance with their scriptures.

Now let's look at Christianity, where the teaching of Jesus on what you should do if attacked is also clearly outlined:

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39)

So even if you like to throw around the 'evil' canard (as so many do - it's the new black) then to be a Christian then you must not resist an evil person

So the issue is one of hypocrisy.

It is also one of unprovoked aggression.

[Common Man]

Does your Bible have an Old Testament segovius? It still counts.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Common Man
Does your Bible have an Old Testament segovius? It still counts.

Actually it doesn't. The NT is quite clear that JC brought a New Covenant that replaces the old:

Heb 8:6-9 (KJV):

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

For finding fault with them, he saith, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord...."

In that he saith, "A new covenant," he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

[iPoster]

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ji·had
Variant(s): also je·had /ji-'häd, chiefly Brit -'had/
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic jihAd
1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
2 : a crusade for a principle or belief

Cambridge International:
Definition
jihad __[Show phonetics]
noun
1 [C or U] a holy war which is fought by Muslims against people who are a threat to the Islamic religion or who oppose its teachings

2 [C] a spiritual fight against the evil in yourself


Muttaqun Online Islamic Dictionary:
Jihad: To fight and kill in the path of Allah, the enemies of Allah, for the cause of Allah. _It can also be used to mean to strive in the path of Allah.

[Rick1138]

Like the signature iPoster, nothing like spreading a little more hate to make the world better.

[segovius]

Originally posted by iPoster
Merriam-Webster: Cambridge International: Muttaqun Online Islamic Dictionary:

This is plainly incorrect.

Arabic, as you may know, is a root language with no vowels. The vowels are inferred by context.

Accordingly, the roots generally relate to similar matters. That is to say, Jihad is spelled JHD and the vowels inferred. words in this family mean things along the lines of the following: struggle, labour, fatigue etc.

They are all spelled JHD and none of them mean war - war is not related to struggle, labour etc.

The Arabic for war is 'harb' - the HRB root. Words with this root (which interestingly does not occur in the Qur'an) are along the lines of fighting.

The word for holy war is harb-e-maqadas.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Rick1138
Like the signature iPoster, nothing like spreading a little more hate to make the world better.

Looks like we've got a live one in iPoster.

You can always tell where they got their quotes and what they believe. This is a cut and paste from:

Deception in the Church (http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html) (that title is probably the only true statement on the site).

It's quite a classic actually - starting off like this:

UNHOLY QUOTES FROM THE KORAN THAT PROMOTE TERRORISM

Warning: The following quotes are blasphemous. They are taken from the Koran (translated by N.J. Danwood). By reading these quotes you will have a basic understanding of the Muslim religion, the wars and tension in the Middle East, and the terrorism on September 11:

The ignorance and intolerance of this poisonous little number - which is unfortunately representative of a widespread and increasing attitude - is aptly demonstrated by the 'quotes' (none of which relate to terrorism as claimed) and some of which are manifestly incorrect - both theologically (in interpretation) and in translation.

Another laughable apology for information is the story below the 'terrorist quotes' at that link where the author displays an complete incomprehension of basic Arabic and his own religious tradition that is hysterical to anyone remotely familiar with the region and its cultures - Christian or Muslim.

The word 'Allah' is the Arabic word for God - it is not a proper name as (say) Jehovah. Even the Arab speaking Christians use it for God. Understandably since it is the Arabic word for God

How can people so intolerant and ignorant as the 'thinkers' who churn out this hate-literature not be totally discredited ? It's unbelievable - medieval even.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by Common Man
Does your Bible have an Old Testament segovius? It still counts.

Originally posted by segovius
Actually it doesn't. The NT is quite clear that JC brought a New Covenant that replaces the old:

Whoa, whoa... Hold the phone book. You mean the Bible contradicts itself? :wow: :devil:

[New]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Whoa, whoa... Hold the phone book. You mean the Bible contradicts itself? :wow: :devil:

well, it's true. The whole point is that the of laws in the old testament, applies to jews, while christianity after Paul was open to gentiles (everyone), and so they did not have to follow the mosaic laws...

Interestingly enough, the more fundamental christians seem to prefer the old testament best...

[MarcUK]

DHM

DHM

DHM

[MarcUK]

Why do the fundies support a war for the freedom and salvation of Muslims anyway?

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Why do the fundies support a war for the freedom and salvation of Muslims anyway?

They don't.

[MarcUK]

sorry seg, I was missin' a ';)'

[iPoster]

Originally posted by segovius
Looks like we've got a live one in iPoster.

You can always tell where they got their quotes and what they believe.

Hmmm, I probably got that from the site you mentioned; after a discussion in another thread about the Koran, I did a Google of 'Koran quotes', I would guess about 80% of the sites that came up held the same views.

Have I ever read the Koran? No, but I've never read all of the Bible either. (I'm an atheist if you must know) I have been to the Middle East on a number of occasions, and am intelligent enough to know that the majority of muslims are just like the majority of any other religious group. (peace-loving, just want to have a decent job and raise a family, etc.) But is seems like Islam is the one religion easily interpreted to be a violent, vengeful one. If that quote is misinterpreted, along with the many others along the same vein, what is the correct interpretation of it?

Basically, am I an ignorant racist who thinks all Muslims should be dragged behind a pickup or shot? Not at all, but I do think Islam, as it is presently interpreted by many, is a 'broken' religion...yes.

BTW, I would like to know what you think of this (http://www.truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm) site? Not as biased as the other one mentioned.

[Rick1138]

No, but I've never read all of the Bible either.

You should read Kings and Chronicles. All of the major religions have their share of prejudice and hatreds - even the peace loving Buddhists - but it helps little to fan the flames higher than they already are.

[segovius]

Originally posted by iPoster
But is seems like Islam is the one religion easily interpreted to be a violent, vengeful one. If that quote is misinterpreted, along with the many others along the same vein, what is the correct interpretation of it?

Basically, am I an ignorant racist who thinks all Muslims should be dragged behind a pickup or shot? Not at all, but I do think Islam, as it is presently interpreted by many, is a 'broken' religion...yes.

BTW, I would like to know what you think of this (http://www.truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm) site? Not as biased as the other one mentioned.

Well, firstly I should apologise for my earlier prejudging of you and assuming you had some agenda. So...apologies.

Re the first point: Islam can be portrayed as the negative things you say - and guess what, it's right-wing fundamentalist Christians who are doing it.
That is to say: they have an active campaign to spread negative (and false) propaganda.

Why should this be ? Why are they so intolerant ? Islam accepts Christianity and Judaism. You won't find such propaganda from the Islamic side - not against the religion itself.

So, no - Islam is not 'broken'. It is portrayed as that by people who have a mission to do so. That's not to say there aren't some 'nutters' in Islam or equivalents of the fundies but we are talking about the religious doctrine when we say Islam - otherwise we must say Muslims, and 'some' Muslims at that.

This second site is a bit better - still biased though but we can work with it ;)

Firstly - we can discount Khomenei. Shi'i Islam is a schismatic sect that represents less than 5% (possibly a bit more) of Islam. It is heterodox and even within it Khomenei is more or less acknowledged as a deranged maniac - which he was.

Using him as 'evidence' for their argument is not only lame it shows a lack of other avenues of attack and little knowledge of what Islam actually is.

The quotes -let's take a few:

There shall be no compulsion in religion.

This one blows their whole argument out of the water ! The first one !

Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.

What's the problem with this ?

The 'kill them where you find them' lines following are out of context - they were addressed in a full-on war situation.

As to the quotes at the bottom from people claiming the Qur'an is a rehash of Hagarene texts - this is really a joke. It misses the point entirely - it is not a question of whether the Qur'an is from God or Muhammad, it is a work of art. It is never viewed in this way for 2 reasons:

1) the west cannot evaluate it as such because they do not use Arabic
2) the Muslims in general have played this down because of the legalistic aspects of the Qur'an which are (to them) more important.

But it revolves just the same - literary scholars are unanimous taht it is an epic poem and one of the world's masterpieces of poetic expression (content aside). Whoever wrote it was a literary genius and as such it is hardly likely to be a compendium of past pre-Islamic juridical texts.

This site is biased unfortunately, in fact, most of the people who create sites such as this are really non-thinkers rather than those who have an agenda (though they exist too unfortunately) - if they were scholars or wanted the truth of the matter they would have found all this out for themselves. But they don't care.

One more thing: 'unbelievers' in Arabic (and 'infidels' if you must) refer very specifically to people who do not believe in God. You would be classed as one for example. :D

The term does not, cannot and never has applied to people who hold a religious belief. The Qur'an is quite explicit that Jews and Christians (some of them - just like only some Muslims) will go to 'heaven'. Jews and Christians are believers. Unbelievers are atheists.

Similarly, idolaters are idol-worshippers of a specific kind - basically the Meccan cult of Muhammad's time.

I find it strange that it is the rabid fundie Xians who hate Islam so much (just like they hate gays and God knows what else) - Islam has always been accepting of Judaism and Christianity (in the sense it accepts them as TRUE), I need to say that again actually: Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as true religions.

Muhammad learned all his religious teaching from Christians before his foundation of Islam at age 40. That's 20 years of hanging out and talking to Christian monks before he himself taught a thing.

Of course they were real Christians in that instance and unfortunately they would also be labeled as heretics or 'evil sinners' by the current crop, bit like Jesus himself really.

[segovius]

Back on topic - looks ike the US are using cluster-bombs and nail-bombs again. :mad:

Oh and guess what ? Zarqawi isn't in Fallujah.

Sick :no:

Raed (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/)

Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)

[stupider...likeafox]

Foreign Terrorists Running Fallujah (http://www.jluster.org/entry/thugs)

I thought that was a nice summary of events leading up to Fallujah today.

[segovius]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Foreign Terrorists Running Fallujah (http://www.jluster.org/entry/thugs)

I thought that was a nice summary of events leading up to Fallujah today.

It's pretty much right-on.

The only issue I'd have personally is with the 'thugs' angle. While undoubtedly there ARE a large number of thugs - Wahabis, Kuwaitis and Osama wannabees roaming around, I am wondering if the line that 'they are all thugs' is not a tad too Bushian.

Put it this way: in addition to the 'thugs' and foreign Jihadis - there MUST at some point also be a resistance by the ordinary Iraqis. To suggest otherwise is to believe they support the occupation or are too lame to attempt to do anything about it - neither are true.

Perhaps that resistance hasn't started - but personally I find that difficult to believe. I think it is there but does not distinguish otself from the 'thugs'. And it is not in the Bush admin's interest to make this distinction either.

[Mac on a Mac]

segovius-- I have started to read River's Blog. Do you know anything more about the author than is obvious on the page? I'm just curious about who she is.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
segovius-- I have started to read River's Blog. Do you know anything more about the author than is obvious on the page? I'm just curious about who she is.

I don't know much about her other than what she occasionally says - basically that she used to be a computer programmer, lives in Baghdad and is about 25 etc....

Sorry, I'm not much help there.

[Mac on a Mac]

Thanks segovius. I will keep reading. Her accounts are eye opening.

[New]

18 dead and a 100 heavy wounded american soldiers so far... That's more than I had expected...

I'm not looking forward to the resistance and civilian numbers.

[Mac on a Mac]

In interviews on US television, Gen Myers said: "We hope that in the next few days we'll be able to return Falluja to the citizens there without the intimidation that the insurgents brought."

I love this. What are they supposed to return to????

[New]

The numbers of casualties got me thinking. With only about 130.000 troops in Iraq. And at the moment 200 wounded to 18 dead US soldiers in falluja the last three days. The insurgents have made quite an impact in the occupying force.
There are fresh soldiers replacing the ones who come home, no doubt.

But the If you go by a 100 to 10 wounded dead ratio. Then there are actually over a 1000 dead and 10.000 wounded US soldiers from iraq right now. This constitutes about 10% of the US force deployed.

If it's right, then this is quite a number actually... just food for thought.

[Gon]

Originally posted by New
The numbers of casualties got me thinking. With only about 130.000 troops in Iraq. And at the moment 200 wounded to 18 dead US soldiers in falluja the last three days. The insurgents have made quite an impact in the occupying force.
There are fresh soldiers replacing the ones who come home, no doubt.

But the If you go by a 100 to 10 wounded dead ratio. Then there are actually over a 1000 dead and 10.000 wounded US soldiers from iraq right now. This constitutes about 10% of the US force deployed.

If it's right, then this is quite a number actually... just food for thought. 1% dead and 10% wounded are minuscule losses. Furthermore, half of the wounded return to action in 72 hours (DoD), so really only 5% is wounded in a remotely serious fashion. This in a period of over one and a half years, so dead and seriously wounded per year = about 4%. In the US, mortality rate in the general population is close to 1%. I'd say the US troops are very, very safe by any objective measurement.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Gon
1% dead and 10% wounded are minuscule losses. Furthermore, half of the wounded return to action in 72 hours (DoD), so really only 5% is wounded in a remotely serious fashion. This in a period of over one and a half years, so dead and seriously wounded per year = about 4%. In the US, mortality rate in the general population is close to 1%. I'd say the US troops are very, very safe by any objective measurement.

Not according to this article. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1349402,00.html)

Two aircraft carrying 102 injured soldiers arrived yesterday. Another 125 injured arrived earlier in the week and more were expected today.

Only seriously injured soldiers are evacuated from Iraq to Landstuhl, the biggest American military hospital outside the US.

"This is one of our peak periods," a hospital spokeswoman, Marie Shaw, told Reuters. "We are very busy. It is more than we have seen in the last couple of months because we used to admit about 30 patients a day."

So only seriously injured troops ever get taken to Landstuhl and the hospital normally (ie since operations began NOT since the escalation of the past few months) sees 30 casualties per day.

That's 800 plus per month SERIOUS (ie not the 'patch-em up and send -em back out' type) injuries before the current escalation which is evidently far worse because the spokeswoman claims they are 'very, very busy' as opposed to previously - that is: much, much busier than 800 very serious injuries that necessitate removal from the theatre per month.

[Gon]

Originally posted by segovius
So only seriously injured troops ever get taken to Landstuhl and the hospital normally (ie since operations began NOT since the escalation of the past few months) sees 30 casualties per day.

That's 800 plus per month SERIOUS (ie not the 'patch-em up and send -em back out' type) injuries before the current escalation which is evidently far worse because the spokeswoman claims they are 'very, very busy' as opposed to previously - that is: much, much busier than 800 very serious injuries that necessitate removal from the theatre per month. This doesn't invalidate the numbers I posted... just goes to show things are escalating fast right now. The heated-up situation clearly hasn't continued long enough to make a dent in the one-and-a-half year average.

[Gon]

This is what I mean when I say I'd expect insurgents to be able to do much more damage per fighter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/international/middleeast/11snipers.html?ex=1101173825&ei=1&en=b33e20d7f56307e1

The US troops know the precise building the fire is coming from. They have their own snipers in position. They bombard the building several hours and they do not manage to kill the sniper(s).

If the insurgents did this constantly in areas that are not active battlefields, the US troops wouldn't have that kind of alertness, fire support, medevac that they now have in an active battlefield like Falluja, so there would be basically no chance to catch the insurgents. The insurgents could switch position at will by blending into the civilians.

[pfflam]

Here is a good article that covers the depth of the need for serious diplomatic, strategic and tactical work in Iraq.

It is thoughtful and well written . . . I was reading it and was impressed, then I saw who wrote it and was not surprised.

Clark on Fallujah and Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47034-2004Nov12.html)

[New]

And here is an interactive list of every dead US soldier.

Every one... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm)

It's worth a minute of your time...

I'm having some problems with the flash in safari, but reloading the pages seems to fix things.

[Gene Clean]

For the worlds mightiest military, its not showing a great deal of mighty-ness in Iraq. It can't capture a city from people with snipers.

What a load of crap.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by New
And here is an interactive list of every dead US soldier.

Every one... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm)

It's worth a minute of your time...

I'm having some problems with the flash in safari, but reloading the pages seems to fix things.

Thanks for that link. Theirs is a destiny that doesn't include happy-endings..

[addabox]

So we go through this exercise that gets a lot of people killed and from what I can make out almost nobody thinks it's really of any use.

Attack Fallujah, insurgents leave (or as the SCLM would have it, "slip away" AKA "walk out".

Leave Fallujah, insurgents return. Stay in Fallujah, get slowly ground down by snipers and bombs. Push Iraqi "security forces" to the front and watch them disappear/run away/get killed.

Meanwhile, continue to fuel Iraqi resentment at the American occupation. Kill more civilians. Prattle on about getting "the bad guys". And when it's all said and done, Iraq is not in the least more secure.

Same goes for the other hot spots starting to flare up. There just aren't enough troops to take and hold 3 or 4 or 5 Iraqi cities, and an ongoing massive city by city military occupation doesn't make any sense anyway.

And yet somehow this never gets mentioned in the press. It's all Bush talking points, about "flushing out the resistance" and "torture houses" and "foreign fighters" and "turning the corner" and "liberating the city" and "the coming elections".

As if something were being accomplished. As if things were being managed. As if this were a step on the way towards some goal, instead of just more thrashing in the quagmire. How many "pivotal moments" and "windows of opportunity" does this make now? After the invasion. After Saddam is caught. After electricity is restored. After the provisional government is set up. After schools are built. After the "dead enders" are rounded up. After Chemical Ali is caught. After sovereignty is handed over. After elections are scheduled. It will never end. At some point somebody will have to say "good enough" and we will depart in a haze of cliches and grotesque lies.

Hey, mom and dad, thanks for the life of your son. Didn't mean shit. He died for a slogan in the mouth of an opportunistic dumb-fuck.

[talksense101]

Falluja insurgents fighting to the end (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0NQUUMVQFKR5GC RBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=621201&section=news)

Dum de dum. Unless the US kills every Iraqi, this isn't going to end. Another hot spot will flare up after this city. The US forces need to realize that they cannot put fear into the local populace and force them into submission. The citizens of Iraq are a proud lot.

Whatever happened to diplomacy and common sense? :(

"Some of the bodies we found had been eaten by stray dogs and cats. It was a very painful sight."But a U.S. Marine commander, Colonel Mike Shupp, said he had not heard of any Iraqi civilians trapped inside.

"There is no need to bring supplies in because we have supplies of our own for the people. Now that the bridge is open, I will bring out casualties and all aid work can be done here," he said from Falluja's hospital.The Falluja offensive has fuelled violence across Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, especially in the northern city of Mosul, where gunmen roam some districts following an uprising.

Insurgents overran a police station in Mosul on Sunday and U.S. troops, backed by Iraqi security forces, battled for two hours to retake it, the U.S. military said. At least four explosions shook the city on Monday, residents said.

The U.S. general in charge of security there, Brigadier General Carter Ham, said the situation was tense and he expected it to take some time to quell the insurgency.

There were also heavy clashes between U.S. troops and insurgents in Baquba, about 40 miles north of Baghdad on Monday, after militants attack several police stations.

U.S. helicopter gunships and tanks battled militants in Baiji, 125 miles north of Baghdad, on Sunday, and fighting continued in the town of Ramadi, to the west of Falluja, which has been a hotbed of insurgency for the past year.:\

[segovius]

More freedom brought to the evil scum by forces of good: (http://www.rense.com/general59/app.htm)

Hussein moved from house to house " dodging gunfire " and reached the river.
_
"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."
_
He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."
_

[pfflam]

sadness

[segovius]

Pictures from Fallujah: (http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/) what's the fucking point of all this madness ?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
For the worlds mightiest military, its not showing a great deal of mighty-ness in Iraq. It can't capture a city from people with snipers.

What a load of crap.

Except that we lost 38 men to their 1200, and we took over an entire city inside a week's time.

[New]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that we lost 38 men to their 1200, and we took over an entire city inside a week's time.

Guess these numbers still somehow makes your proud... right?

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that we lost 38 men to their 1200, and we took over an entire city inside a week's time.

Because the insurgents have relocated.

Gonna need to flatten some more cities and civilians soon.

[giant]

The focus on territory is just like wiping your nose to cure a flu.

[SDW2001]

What's the point you say? I have a better question: What should we be doing instead of fighting? Should we allow the city to remain under rebel control? After all, you could continue to use it as a political football.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
What's the point you say? I have a better question: What should we be doing instead of fighting? Should we allow the city to remain under rebel control? After all, you could continue to use it as a political football.

There's a question before that: why are there rebels present that can control anything ?

Or if you like: what are they rebelling against ?

And please don't say 'freedom'. I just couldn't take it.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by segovius
Pictures from Fallujah: (http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/) what's the fucking point of all this madness ?

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.

~Robert E. Lee

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
There's a question before that: why are there rebels present that can control anything ?

Or if you like: what are they rebelling against ?

And please don't say 'freedom'. I just couldn't take it.

But that question doesn't do anything to solve what problems there are. We are in Iraq whether you like it or not, and now we must do whatever it takes to win. If you ask me, it's about time we staged this kind of offensive. We can't just sit back and allow a terrorist insurgency to take hold.

Right or wrong, the situation is what it is. You can't just criticize US actions without offering some real alternative.

[Gon]

Originally posted by SDW2001
What's the point you say? I have a better question: What should we be doing instead of fighting? Should we allow the city to remain under rebel control? After all, you could continue to use it as a political football. I understand that was a rhetorical question but I can't help answering it.

Get out of the whole country at once. It's up to the Iraqis how they rule themselves. If they are not prepared to stand for what they believe in, there would be no democracy in US-occupied Iraq, no matter what the US did. OTOH, a lot of the fighting will die down with US gone, since a large part of the insurgence is a part of it simply to oppose the occupation. Any fighting that still goes on after that is for the control of Iraq, and that fight is simply unwinnable for a handful of foreign extremists in a relatively secular country like Iraq. Whether democratic or not, the new government would be Iraqi.

The path to Falluja is decades long and paved with blunders. The US has to publicly acknowledge that. That is the first in a series of many steps to prevent the same bullshit from happening again, and to convince at least Osama's secular collagues if not Osama himself to cease hostilities towards the US. Certainly their recruiting will get harder if the would-be recruits haven't heard of a US bombing or Israeli assassination that week, that month, that year...
The "world police" power trip has got to go. No more funding crackpot dictators and installing puppet governments. No more arms deals with anyone who is the aggressor in a recent or ongoing war, or is likely to use those weapons against their own civilian population.

What the US does not need to do is to fix what they broke in Iraq. Whatever "impartial help" the US government wished to provide, it would prove to be like a glue addict sent to an aerosol can factory for rehabilitative work. If history is any judge, the Iraqis are better off with US taking off and not coming back. If you still feel guilty after five years, there is probably some form of government in place in Iraq by then. Just send that government a pile of dollars, no strings attached, if you're honest about giving and not just looking for an excuse to throw some second-hand pork to US businesses.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that we lost 38 men to their 1200, and we took over an entire city inside a week's time.

Except that the military was fighting against 'thugs' and 'insurgents' as you call them. They don't have any preperation, and the most advanced weapons they have are RPGs.

Try and fight against, oh say, China and we'll see how many men we lose and many they lose. When you call it the world mightiest military, you don't mean that the world is the US and Falluja only, do you?

There are a lot of armies out there in the world that can crush this resistance in Falluja in 2 days with 2-3 lost men. But we're the best and strongest and most clever and __ and __ and __ (you fill in the blanks).

Its a damn shame, that's all. Damn shame.

[Scott]

Gotta love these internet armchair generals.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
Gotta love these internet armchair generals.


Yeah, they're a real Royal Pain in the Ass.

[Ra]

U.S. Marine Kills Wounded Iraqi (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=255312)
A U.S. Marine shot and killed a wounded and apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, according to dramatic pool television pictures broadcast Monday. A Marine spokesman in Washington said the shooting was under investigation.:no:

[pfflam]

What the fuck!!!

How much of this sort of thing is going on?!?!

This is very very very bad!!!

That Marine just shot down our 'good-will' forever in the eyes of the Muslim world!

[tonton]

Originally posted by pfflam
What the fuck!!!

How much of this sort of thing is going on?!?!

This is very very very bad!!!

That Marine just shot down our 'good-will' forever in the eyes of the Muslim world!

Believe me. It's been shot for a long time.

[Mac on a Mac]

This is pathetic. I think we have to add someone to the axis of evil. This is no Christian nation.

[New]

Originally posted by pfflam
What the fuck!!!

How much of this sort of thing is going on?!?!

This is very very very bad!!!

That Marine just shot down our 'good-will' forever in the eyes of the Muslim world!

Makes you wonder why de the US dead/wounded ratio is 200/40 while the insurgents is 1200/?

kill, kill, kill...

[talksense101]

U.S., Iraqi Troops Begin Mosul Operations (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

:) Fallujah is old news. NEXT!

[bryan.fury]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I have a better question: What should we be doing instead of fighting?

ahhh!
so, now the bitter reality of the situation is slowly beginning to sink in, eh? there aren't many options now.
before the invasion everyone who warned about this very exact situation was put off as being weak and what else ... remember powell: "you break it, you own it." well, that's what we got now, and the only options are "fight, fight, fight".
why do you think that all the people who opposed this war are so exasperated? because they knew that once you go in, the way the coalition of idiots did, your options tend to be reduced to "fight, fight, fight".
and then you and the other warmongers on this forum have the gall to demand that we come up with alternative plans.
You can't just criticize US actions without offering some real alternative.
we had an alternative but you didn't want to listen. you got us into this mess, you fucked up. you had a chance on nov. 2 - but you fucked up that opportunity as well.
so now that your line-of-thinking has gotten us into this hell without alternatives, you tell us that we can't critisize the US without any alternatives?
if it weren't so sad, i would admit to the brilliance of your tactics. next thing you know, it will be "the arrogant liberal elite that got us into this mess".

hey, you should apply for a job in this administration, i hear there are some vacancies there ...

:mad:

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that we lost 38 men to their 1200, and we took over an entire city inside a week's time.

Fallujah 2004, New York 2001. International terrrorism is alive and well, under the auspices of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, who join the ranks of the most evil intentioned and despicable bunch of slimeballs to disgrace the human race.

I wish someone was able to conduct citizens' arrests upon these international outlaws, these icons of cowardice, deception, murder and mayhem. I wish every other nation in the rest of the world could be on the side of humanity, rather than appeasing these current masters of terror, and warn these people "do not ever ever visit here, or you will be summarily arrested, charged with war crimes and locked up". Its time the world did something en masse, and stopped these lunatics, who now represent the greatest threat to civilized values since their mentor in the 1930s in Europe.

The only appropriate places for Bush and his out-of-control band of butchers are prison cells, and for the rest of their lives. It is the only way that the United States can regain the degree of respect and standing that has now been lost to 90% of the rest of the world, and for many many reasons.

I hold little hope. :(

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
Gotta love these internet armchair generals.

Gotta love it too...especially coming from someone who appeases terrorists.

:mad:

[addabox]

Originally posted by bryan.fury
ahhh!
so, now the bitter reality of the situation is slowly beginning to sink in, eh? there aren't many options now.
before the invasion everyone who warned about this very exact situation was put off as being weak and what else ... remember powell: "you break it, you own it." well, that's what we got now, and the only options are "fight, fight, fight".
why do you think that all the people who opposed this war are so exasperated? because they knew that once you go in, the way the coalition of idiots did, your options tend to be reduced to "fight, fight, fight".
and then you and the other warmongers on this forum have the gall to demand that we come up with alternative plans.

we had an alternative but you didn't want to listen. you got us into this mess, you fucked up. you had a chance on nov. 2 - but you fucked up that opportunity as well.
so now that your line-of-thinking has gotten us into this hell without alternatives, you tell us that we can't critisize the US without any alternatives?
if it weren't so sad, i would admit to the brilliance of your tactics. next thing you know, it will be "the arrogant liberal elite that got us into this mess".

hey, you should apply for a job in this administration, i hear there are some vacancies there ...

:mad:

Well said and thank you.

[crazychester]

Originally posted by pfflam
That Marine just shot down our 'good-will' forever in the eyes of the Muslim world!
Did they show the footage of this on US television? Anybody who hasn't seen it should go watch it. In case you can't find it, I'll describe it for you.

The mosque is a semi ruin. Inside, rubble, fallen masonry and twisted metal litters the floor. Several figures are huddled against the wall. One is lying under a blanket in the middle of the floor near a pillar.

Clearly, they're all either injured or in bad shape. The Marines enter, shouting and hollering, high on adrenalin and testosterone. One approaches one of the figures slumped against the wall. He yells something at him. The person doesn't appear to move. Then the Marine takes aim, the barrel of his gun a mere 2 or 3 feet from the unmoving figure. They stopped the footage there on the nightly news but the soundtrack continues. A shot rings out.

I remember a not dissimilar incident from the Vietnam War but that guy could still stand up.

Now Margaret Hassan has been shot dead. For those of you who want to follow your warped interpretation of an eye for an eye, it looks like your wish is coming true.


And I think to myself, what a wonderful world
Yes I think to myself, what a wonderful world...........

[rageous]

You forgot the part where the Marine shouts "He's faking dead" before he shoots the guy.

Was the guy laying there wounded? Was he laying there to ambush them? Who knows... give the situation a little time to become more clear.

[New]

pleease...

[rageous]

Please what? Maintain a level head and not assume I know what happened, when it's certain nobody here does?

No thanks...

[NaplesX]

It's funny how you libs are all over the place. It wasn't long ago when you were all suggesting that the US take on N. Korea. Or even Iran.

You guys really can't pick a position can you?

Was it not your side that suggested a draft? Replacing volunteers with forced foot soldiers.

Wasn't it your side that continues to suggest that the world would be better off with SH and his criminal friends in power?

Wasn't it the libs that continually propped up the corrupt UN that may be ultimately responsible for letting this whole thing happen?

Isn't it the libs that praise and wish to reward France, Russia and Germany for cowardly acts like selling banned weapons to Iraq under the very sanctions that they put in place?

And now after all of the irresponsible and short sighted, if not treacherous decisions made by these countries and entities, you want to cry because negotiations that were never designed to work, didn't and now force is the only option.

I think it may be time to reevaluate your world view, the left's is failed and will certainly come back to bite us, IMO.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's funny how you libs are all over the place. It wasn't long ago when you were all suggesting that the US take on N. Korea. Or even Iran.

You guys really can't pick a position can you?

Was it not your side that suggested a draft? Replacing volunteers with forced foot soldiers.

Wasn't it your side that continues to suggest that the world would be better off with SH and his criminal friends in power?

Wasn't it the libs that continually propped up the corrupt UN that may be ultimately responsible for letting this whole thing happen?

Isn't it the libs that praise and wish to reward France, Russia and Germany for cowardly acts like selling banned weapons to Iraq under the very sanctions that they put in place?

And now after all of the irresponsible and short sighted, if not treacherous decisions made by these countries and entities, you want to cry because negotiations that were never designed to work, didn't and now force is the only option.

I think it may be time to reevaluate your world view, the left's is failed and will certainly come back to bite us, IMO. I hate to interupt this rant but you are TRULY full of shiit and absolutely, incomparably, miasmatically screwed up . . .

you are just saying whatever bullshiit crosses your mind . . . . what a buffoon!

*to mods: sorry folks . . ban away if need be

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's funny how you libs are all over the place. It wasn't long ago when you were all suggesting that the US take on N. Korea. Or even Iran.

You guys really can't pick a position can you?

Was it not your side that suggested a draft? Replacing volunteers with forced foot soldiers.

Wasn't it your side that continues to suggest that the world would be better off with SH and his criminal friends in power?

Wasn't it the libs that continually propped up the corrupt UN that may be ultimately responsible for letting this whole thing happen?

Isn't it the libs that praise and wish to reward France, Russia and Germany for cowardly acts like selling banned weapons to Iraq under the very sanctions that they put in place?

And now after all of the irresponsible and short sighted, if not treacherous decisions made by these countries and entities, you want to cry because negotiations that were never designed to work, didn't and now force is the only option.

I think it may be time to reevaluate your world view, the left's is failed and will certainly come back to bite us, IMO.

Drugs?

I have never heard anyone but the nutters on the right think that bombing Iran was a good idea.

Would the world be better off it Saddam (murderous piece of shit that he is) was still in power? Why, of course, yes. Only a delusionist would think otherwise.

Do the Iraqis consider themselves better off? Only the ones on Fox. They hate you, and it's America / Britain's fault.

The UN made this happen did it? Forced America to invade Iraq? Uh huh. I seem to remember the security council thinking invading Iraq was a fucking dreadful idea and giving you the finger. WE TOLD YOU SO.

And stop with the shrill-o-whine about Germany and France. This 'the left is failed' gubbins shows you've mistaken the life of the US for the life of the rest of the planet. We've just not got fundamentalists taking over all branches of the government and a staggeringly sucessful propaganda machine making believe that our friends are actually our enemies. So things look a bit different.

That includes Britain too, baby. When's Blair's gone things will be different because popular thought here is the same as over the channel.

These Euro-states are just as disfunctional as any rapacious capitalist state has ever been, America included. No more evil.

Just calm down.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
Drugs? Nope.

Originally posted by Harald
I have never heard anyone but the nutters on the right think that bombing Iran was a good idea. To the contrary. It was said that in order for Bush's decision to be considered legitimate and consistent, he would then have to attack Iran and N. Korea. Have you forgotten these infamous arguments

Originally posted by Harald
Would the world be better off it Saddam (murderous piece of shit that he is) was still in power? Why, of course, yes. Only a delusionist would think otherwise.
Do the Iraqis consider themselves better off? Only the ones on Fox. They hate you, and it's America / Britain's fault.Approx. 1400 people slaughtered each month for the last 30 years at the hand of SH would disagree with you. Thats the ones we know about. But I am sure you're right.

Originally posted by Harald
The UN made this happen did it? Forced America to invade Iraq? Uh huh. I seem to remember the security council thinking invading Iraq was a fucking dreadful idea and giving you the finger. WE TOLD YOU SO.Once again, your probably right. But this article would disagree with you.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1320532004

The number keeps growing and growing as time goes bye.

The UN was not deterring Iraq in any way whatsoever.

And now the UN is refusing to cooperate in the investigation.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1405/5087715.html

HMMMM.....?

Originally posted by Harald
And stop with the shrill-o-whine about Germany and France. This 'the left is failed' gubbins shows you've mistaken the life of the US for the life of the rest of the planet. We've just not got fundamentalists taking over all branches of the government and a staggeringly sucessful propaganda machine making believe that our friends are actually our enemies. So things look a bit different. Well...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/12/iraq.equipment/
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
and...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16142-2004Oct7.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,716376,00.html
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm

I could go on and on but that would be silly, you have invoked the "fundamentalist" label and therefore it must be true, and if I disagree, I must be one. Sooooo..... Moving along.

Originally posted by Harald
That includes Britain too, baby. When's Blair's gone things will be different because popular thought here is the same as over the channel.

These Euro-states are just as disfunctional as any rapacious capitalist state has ever been, America included. No more evil.

Just calm down. Heh?

[Gon]

I'm taking a look at NaplesX' second to last post.

First, he says "you libs". Then it's "you guys". Then "your side". Then "the left".

Who is he talking to, actually? Presumably some people on this thread, except no one here supports half of the things he's ranting against. Generic "liberals", then? Sounds like modern day's version of "witch" - you are a witch if accused, and you are evil if you are a witch. "Liberal" like NaplesX uses it for anyone disagreeing with him, is just as useful a label as "witch" in civilized discussion. "The left"? Yeah, that narrows it down real much, thank you.

So his rant is not really aimed at anyone in particular, but he leaves most readers with a slight possibility that he's actually talking to them, though he logically shouldn't be. (1)

"UN may be ultimately responsible for making this whole thing happen." It's usually the case that there may be this and may be that, yeah. "Ultimately", so even if "may be", it can't be known or debated at this point. It's not clear what "this whole thing" is, either. Could be anything from the War on Terrorism to the topic of the thread.

There isn't outright lying in the post, but all of it has been written in such a general, roundabout fashion the individual points are not easy to challenge in the first place and can be redefined to mean whatever he needs them to mean to win an argument if questioned on them. (2)

Throughout the post, the technique in (1) is also used to further the same goals than (2) because the imaginary addressees are also the actors in most of his "points". The action becomes obfuscated indeed when it's not clear who the actors are. (3)

Because of (2) and (3), the information content in the post is roughly zero. (4)

Besides facts or factual arguments, there isn't any positive opinion in there. The only content is negative opinion, ranting against things. (Nothing wrong about that, except the honest way to do it would be to say "I think ...".) (5)

The tone is condescending and derogatory. (6)

All of 1-6 do not get combined at random in a heated rant. It's purposeful trolling. Is that something that warrants moderator action in AppleInsider?

[giant]

I honestly don't understand why anyone tries to take anything he says seriously. How many threads over how many months do you guys have to help him derail and kill by feeding him before you realize it's going absolutely nowhere?

[tonton]

The NeoCon stuff I can deal with. After all, we get more of the same from (relatively) more respected members like Scott, SDW, Trumpt etc. It's the homophobic bigotry that makes me want to rip his throat out.

[Ra]

All you liberals just hate Freedom. Get over it. We're bringing Freedom to Fallujah and all of Iraq whether you like it or not.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Ra
All you liberals just hate Freedom. Get over it. We're bringing Freedom to Fallujah and all of Iraq whether you like it or not.

:)

[Gon]

Originally posted by giant
I honestly don't understand why anyone tries to take anything he says seriously. How many threads over how many months do you guys have to help him derail and kill by feeding him before you realize it's going absolutely nowhere? What pfflam did (display of anger and frustration) feeds the troll. What Harald did (reply on the same level of discussion) feeds the troll.

The only right thing to do is to point out the troll as a heads-up for others, and if the warning is already out, not to clutter the thread with another one. I did that, and more: dissected the post so it's easier to point at in the future, and the mods have an easier time taking action as well when the reasons are well established. Fact is, the only efficient way to get rid of the core problem are warning/temp ban/ban.

Then if the troll returns under a different alias, it's usually easy to tell because they 1) are still trolling, 2) fail to contribute to regular discussion, in this case Mac stuff, or 3) generally have enough in common with one of the known asshats.

Of course, they can just stop stirring up trouble. Most intelligent people do once the jig is up.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gon
I'm taking a look at NaplesX' second to last post.

First, he says "you libs". Then it's "you guys". Then "your side". Then "the left".

Who is he talking to, actually? Presumably some people on this thread, except no one here supports half of the things he's ranting against. Generic "liberals", then? Sounds like modern day's version of "witch" - you are a witch if accused, and you are evil if you are a witch. "Liberal" like NaplesX uses it for anyone disagreeing with him, is just as useful a label as "witch" in civilized discussion. "The left"? Yeah, that narrows it down real much, thank you.

So his rant is not really aimed at anyone in particular, but he leaves most readers with a slight possibility that he's actually talking to them, though he logically shouldn't be. (1)

"UN may be ultimately responsible for making this whole thing happen." It's usually the case that there may be this and may be that, yeah. "Ultimately", so even if "may be", it can't be known or debated at this point. It's not clear what "this whole thing" is, either. Could be anything from the War on Terrorism to the topic of the thread.

There isn't outright lying in the post, but all of it has been written in such a general, roundabout fashion the individual points are not easy to challenge in the first place and can be redefined to mean whatever he needs them to mean to win an argument if questioned on them. (2)

Throughout the post, the technique in (1) is also used to further the same goals than (2) because the imaginary addressees are also the actors in most of his "points". The action becomes obfuscated indeed when it's not clear who the actors are. (3)

Because of (2) and (3), the information content in the post is roughly zero. (4)

Besides facts or factual arguments, there isn't any positive opinion in there. The only content is negative opinion, ranting against things. (Nothing wrong about that, except the honest way to do it would be to say "I think ...".) (5)

The tone is condescending and derogatory. (6)

All of 1-6 do not get combined at random in a heated rant. It's purposeful trolling. Is that something that warrants moderator action in AppleInsider? You have a lot of good points. And I can even see how you might read into it what you do.

However, the reason that I use generalities is so not to upset the thin-skinned among us. I have been called every name in the book and quickly grew tired of the "attack-counter-attack" games that most like to play. So, my attacks are on ideas rather than people. Granted things are more general as not to personally attack, rather I prefer to attack the liberal ideas I disagree with.

I know when those attacks hit their mark when the usuals start to call names. As I've said before it is really pretty predictable.

As a matter of fact, I just came up with a great idea for a thread:

"Names I have been called by a liberal in Political Outsider (formerly AO)'

It might be quite entertaining and enlightening, methinks.

EDIT: Troll is a little worn out, don't you think?

[Harald]

Why don't you start a 'Things I Have Got Completely Wrong' thread at the same time?

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's funny how you libs are all over the place. It wasn't long ago when you were all suggesting that the US take on N. Korea. Or even Iran.

You guys really can't pick a position can you?

Was it not your side that suggested a draft? Replacing volunteers with forced foot soldiers.

Wasn't it your side that continues to suggest that the world would be better off with SH and his criminal friends in power?

Wasn't it the libs that continually propped up the corrupt UN that may be ultimately responsible for letting this whole thing happen?

Isn't it the libs that praise and wish to reward France, Russia and Germany for cowardly acts like selling banned weapons to Iraq under the very sanctions that they put in place?

And now after all of the irresponsible and short sighted, if not treacherous decisions made by these countries and entities, you want to cry because negotiations that were never designed to work, didn't and now force is the only option.

I think it may be time to reevaluate your world view, the left's is failed and will certainly come back to bite us, IMO.
You are so full of it, i don't even know where to begin.
Because the 'libbies' pointed out that Iran and Korea were and are a much greater threat than Iraq, and because the 'libbies' pointed out that if Bush would be consequent he should attack them, too, and because 'libbies' conclude that this illustrates the madness of preemptive war, YOU conclude we suggested to attack Iran and Korea also. HA! :lol:
Because 'libbies' point out that Bush's irresponsible rush to an unnecessary war leaves the US vulnerable when another conflict should pop up, especially after bullying away you allies, YOU suggest it is US who propose a draft, while all we do is warning for one. Damn you must be stupid. Or malicious. Probably both.
Hey, and Saddam out of power is nice, but at what cost? (see the two previous points for illustration).
And the UN ultimately responsible? That's so laughable... Thanks to UN sanctions Saddam didn't have any WMD's *whatsoever*. UN sanctions worked astonishingly well, and the US should be glad they did, cause it's the only reason they had a swift and easy 'victory'. The UN already finished the job before your president rushed in. Think about it.
Btw, wanna compare numbers of illegal trade with Iraq? Oh, that's right, the US numbers are not available. So, a big fuck you to anybody who messed with the oil for food program, but you still look stupid discrediting a program that actually worked.
So it's your logic and worldview that is so twisted it doens't even come close to reality anymore. But hey, at least freedom is on the march in Iraq! :smokey:

Edit: Gon, i'm sorry i didn't see your post first, next time i'll try to refrain from feeding the troll ;)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by SpcMs
You are so full of it, i don't even know where to begin.
Because the 'libbies' pointed out that Iran and Korea were and are a much greater threat than Iraq, and because the 'libbies' pointed out that if Bush would be consequent he should attack them, too, and because 'libbies' conclude that this illustrates the madness of preemptive war, YOU conclude we suggested to attack Iran and Korea also. HA! :lol:
Because 'libbies' point out that Bush's irresponsible rush to an unnecessary war leaves the US vulnerable when another conflict should pop up, especially after bullying away you allies, YOU suggest it is US who propose a draft, while all we do is warning for one. Damn you must be stupid. Or malicious. Probably both.
Hey, and Saddam out of power is nice, but at what cost? (see the two previous points for illustration).
And the UN ultimately responsible? That's so laughable... Thanks to UN sanctions Saddam didn't have any WMD's *whatsoever*. UN sanctions worked astonishingly well, and the US should be glad they did, cause it's the only reason they had a swift and easy 'victory'. The UN already finished the job before your president rushed in. Think about it.
Btw, wanna compare numbers of illegal trade with Iraq? Oh, that's right, the US numbers are not available. So, a big fuck you to anybody who messed with the oil for food program, but you still look stupid discrediting a program that actually worked.
So it's your logic and worldview that is so twisted it doens't even come close to reality anymore. But hey, at least freedom is on the march in Iraq! :smokey:

Edit: Gon, i'm sorry i didn't see your post first, next time i'll try to refrain from feeding the troll ;) Whatsoever is mighty strong when many people in the know think that those weapons are in Syria right bow, possibly even in Sudan - all with a little help from Russia right before the war.

There are also indicators that some WMD or WMD components went to N. Korea.

We know right now. that 11 BILLION went directly to SH as a result of UNOFF. They are still discovering where that money went to. It's no big surprise to me that France and Russia are right there in the mix.

And you say that UNOFF worked? Really, people in Iraq say they were jipped. Broken machinery was delivered, spoiled medication, rotten food. SH built himself how many dozen palaces during that time? That is what you call a 'working' program.

As I predicted before the UNOFF was the fuel for the fire. SH was helped not hindered by the very people that objected to the war in Iraq. They even told SH that he needn't worry because they would obstruct the UNSC and prevent the US from stepping in! Every day new details about the UNOFF program are trickled out, of course making your type look even more foolish and short-sighted.

Meanwhile Kofi Anon hides under his desk with his son and many other UN officials as their facade of decency and benevolence crumbles around them, along with the credibility of anyone that put faith in that corrupt and greedy band of thieves.

I believe the numbers you mention ARE public and they are dwarfed by the amount of moneys funneled through... wait for it... France, Germany, Russia among other sad excuses for governments.

But who am i to say you're wrong? I'm just a lying, racist, neocon, bigoted, sociopath troll. :smokey:

[bryan.fury]

sorry, i don't get it:

are you saying now that the corruption in the UN is the reason why the US invaded iraq?

:???:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bryan.fury
sorry, i don't get it:

are you saying now that the corruption in the UN is the reason why the US invaded iraq?

:???: You see, that first statement is a perfect summary of the current liberal mindset.

I'll expand for those with brian.fury syndrome:

1.) Liberals/Democrats/Globalists have been putting their faith and trust in the UN to solve world issues. SH saw that and exploited it with the help of prominent nation-states. I really don't think I need to name them anymore.

These nations and the UN erred in favor of money over global stability or what was right. They obstructed and even helped SH (self proclaimed enemy of the US and it's allies) grow more powerful, all while extending the hand of friendship to US. In actuality it was the finger.

2.) The US was trying to work within global law set forth by an entity that neither enforces or obeys its own mandates and laws, essentially making it a corrupt judge or peacemaker.

3.) Our Liberal/Globalist lawmakers insisted that this president work through the UN. This president complied, for whatever reason, thus being forced, for a while to comply to it's rules, that we now know are/were worthless.

Am I saying the UN caused this war? No. Am I saying that if they would have applied there vert own credo, they could have sopped this war? Perhaps. Am I saying that there is blood on their hands? Unquestionably, YES.

As a matter of fact, if there was an award for contributing to an environment where war was the only choice, they would win. Hands down.

[bryan.fury]

You see, that first statement is a perfect summary of the