Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Heracles 417]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

We use several thousand feet of air and drop bombs from the safety of a plane, whats the difference? Shouldn't we be facing them man to man on a battlefield?

The two armies meeting on a battlefield style of fighting has pretty much died out. Does technology make us cowards?

Give me a break. Over 150,000 American soldiers are on the ground waiting to fight hand in hand. At least they do not come out and commit atrocities. Then run and hide amongst innocent people. The cowards also did this in Lebanon and then accused Israel of being animals because there where civilian casualties.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I think what we are seeing here is the inability of some people to see beyond their established ideological world view. People tend to react badly when the root foundation of their beliefs is being challenged. Perhaps not unsurprisingly you see the same thing with religious extremists (of all faiths).

well, i think that everyone gets that really annoyed feeling when a good argument (that was not previously thought of) is made for the other side of a debate...i know i do, but nobody should take it personal, or make it personal....because, its not

[smoke20 0]

I started this thread. It's mine. Ya'll hear me? It's MINE! Now behave yo damn selves or I'll have it locked, ya'heard?

Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

& this is exactly what you were looking for. thats why you start 1/2 the thread you do. to start sh!t.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I started this thread. It's mine. Ya'll hear me? It's MINE! Now behave yo damn selves or I'll have it locked, ya'heard?

Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

& this is exactly what you were looking for. thats why you start 1/2 the thread you do. to start sh!t.

Only 1/2? Oh c'mon, it can't be that low!

[Scott & Lai 12]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

We use several thousand feet of air and drop bombs from the safety of a plane, whats the difference? Shouldn't we be facing them man to man on a battlefield?

The two armies meeting on a battlefield style of fighting has pretty much died out. Does technology make us cowards?

no it doesn't. using a child as a shield make them cowards.

Which again depends on how you interpret the context of a given situation. You are saying that all fighters who use guerila tactics are cowards?

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

[Peikko 1,575]

Give me a break. Over 150,000 American soldiers are on the ground waiting to fight hand in hand. At least they do not come out and commit atrocities. Then run and hide amongst innocent people. The cowards also did this in Lebanon and then accused Israel of being animals because there where civilian casualties.

I don't think any American soldier is looking forward to fighting hand to hand (I assume that is what you mean as you put hand in hand, which doesn't make any sense) they would have to be slightly insane to wish that and I don't actually think most soldiers are insane. As for their not ever committing 'attrocities'...you can't be serious.

[Heracles 417]

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

wow that made me want to vomit

you are proud that you live in a country where everything you say and do can be viewed by the government, does that make you feel safer from terrorists?

you are now implying that one should fear speaking out against government action...i thought that is supposed to be one of the rights we are proud to possess in this fine nation...am i mistaken?

Smoke20 doesn't believe in the freedom of speech if he doesn't agree with whats being spoken.

The idea that the authorities would be interested in a theoretical discussion is rather laughable. Pointing out the grey areas of urban warfare and different ideological perceptions pertaining to groups who practice guerila warfare hardly amounts to support for Bin Laden.

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

wow that made me want to vomit

you are proud that you live in a country where everything you say and do can be viewed by the government, does that make you feel safer from terrorists?

you are now implying that one should fear speaking out against government action...i thought that is supposed to be one of the rights we are proud to possess in this fine nation...am i mistaken?

Smoke20 doesn't believe in the freedom of speech if he doesn't agree with whats being spoken.

The idea that the authorities would be interested in a theoretical discussion is rather laughable. Pointing out the grey areas of urban warfare and different ideological perceptions pertaining to groups who practice guerila warfare hardly amounts to support for Bin Laden.

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

[Caladan 19]

The US has no where near enough men to take control of a country with 25 million people, standard militry doctrine will tell you that, you need half a million soldiers at least

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

I don't believe there's a military doctrine calculating x soldiers per x*n population... That said, te first time, in 1991, that we went into Iraq we did it with 600,000 soldiers. Shinseki (the guy who resigned rather than preside over a disaster) argued that in order to take Iraq and ensure that it stayed relatively peaceful, he needed 500,000. This war doesn't look like one that was planned with regards to the aftermath of a regime change, and that, to my mind, is criminal.

[Peikko 1,575]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

Thank you for the rules of engagement. I am sure these will prove extremely useful. Seriously, people are fighting for things they fundamentally believe in. As I am not on the ground in Iraq, I have no idea how often this happens, but it doesn't sound very likely (I don't expect civlians wander around waiting to be 'human shields').

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

or, in a nation like the US, also called a representative democracy, one can try to change the policies of the government under which they reside...has that become a ridiculous concept? we are simply to agree with everything the government does, or leave? for one, not everyone has the means to do so, and for two why live in a democracy if change is not possible? no, we dont live under communism , thats why we should be able to voice our difference in opinion and strive to improve the state of our nation

[Peikko 1,575]

If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism

So much? Disagreeing with certain aspects of American foreign policy doesn't exactly equate to 'so much'. As for we aren't under Communism, exactly, so we can have differing opinions and even change goverment to operate along different lines if that's the opinion of the majority.

[smoke20 0]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

and you're cutting the post he was reponding to to fit your need. if the pussies run & hide where children are or shoot from behind a child is no different. chicken sh!t coward is chicken sh!t coward.

& a fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot.

[Ban Hammer 14,275]

First of all the usa started an ILEGAL war or have you forgotten that, over lies proclaiming sadam Hussain had WMD's.

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

The child mortality rate is now as it was in the 60s due to the lack of medical care and babies are being born deformed because of the spread of Uranium from US weapons.

i'd like to see something that backs that up. the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

Chemical weapons used in Fallujah with 50,000 civillians in there was not by the book, rapes of Iraqi girls is not by the book.

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

You occupied a country with no plan, did you people pay no attention to history Algeria, vietnam, ireland...

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

The US has no where near enough men to take control of a country with 25 million people, standard militry doctrine will tell you that, you need half a million soldiers at least

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet,

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

the US has never ever won a gorilla warfare and you just dont have the stomach for it.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

well you obviously still beleive they had WMD's even though condelezza rice admitted they didnt in 2000. not really worth continuing with you D**b A$$. Learn something and come back to me. My sources are from british generals coming back from the war, the british broadcasting association and the associated press and the dozens of other news agencies I utilise on a daily basis.

apparently you're unable to carry on a civil dialogue. when you can post some sort of proof to the above rather than cheap personal attacks, then we can talk.

[smoke20 0]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

Thank you for the rules of engagement. I am sure these will prove extremely useful. Seriously, people are fighting for things they fundamentally believe in. As I am not on the ground in Iraq, I have no idea how often this happens, but it doesn't sound very likely (I don't expect civlians wander around waiting to be 'human shields').

when armed gunmen run in your home to hide from the fight they're in you don't have to wander around waiting to be a shield.the coward just made you one.