Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

[Dan J 277]

If you want to go to war with guerrilla fighters you can. But don't expect them to follow your rules. Considering they have a significant technological disadvantage they will likely use whatever means they have available to them to fight.

I suppose you want them to line up on the battlefield, where they wont even stand a chance.

If the US wants to fight guerrilla fighters, it will need to adopt tactics that work against this kind of enemy. One of the most effective tools, having the civilian population on your side. And the US has done a poor job of that. With everything from killing civilians in bombings to a complete disrespect of the culture.

You don't win wars, by making more enemies.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

you did see that pic matt posted of a medivac helo that was shot up? the insurgents violate the law of land warfare probably on a daily basis.

[smoke20 0]

yes it was directed at you & dan. if you don't understand the correlation between "strapping babies & running to hide behind them" you are blind.

I understand it in theory - but as other have pointed out, applying it practically to the chaos of an urban battlefield is rather difficult. That's not difficult to see is it?

its what happens. its not a theory its a damn fact. can you not see that. quit the BS "other side of the arguement" #######. you know they do it.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

If you want to go to war with guerrilla fighters you can. But don't expect them to follow your rules. Considering they have a significant technological disadvantage they will likely use whatever means they have available to them to fight.

I suppose you want them to line up on the battlefield, where they wont even stand a chance.

If the US wants to fight guerrilla fighters, it will need to adopt tactics that work against this kind of enemy. One of the most effective tools, having the civilian population on your side. And the US has done a poor job of that. With everything from killing civilians in bombings to a complete disrespect of the culture.

You don't win wars, by making more enemies.

not "our rules" but internationally agreed upon rules of warfare. violating them can lead to prosecution for war crimes.

[Dan J 277]

yes it was directed at you & dan. if you don't understand the correlation between "strapping babies & running to hide behind them" you are blind.

I understand it in theory - but as other have pointed out, applying it practically to the chaos of an urban battlefield is rather difficult. That's not difficult to see is it?

Having a bunch of people or babies strapped to you would make you easy to find, not mention hard to get away.

[Heracles 417]

First of all the usa started an ILEGAL war or have you forgotten that, over lies proclaiming sadam Hussain had WMD's. The link to al queda was a lie too, infact sadam and Osama hated each other because sadam was too unislamic. It's because of the ILEGAL invasion that has caused the chaos and the civil war in that country. 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. So maybe not all bombs are hitting civillians but you sure the hell get the medal for the cause. Also it is not INSURGENTS that are fighting the US but the IRAQI people themselves are fighting to get you US out of their country. The massacre in Fallujah testified to that, they found only 120 foreign fighters out of the 50,000 that stayed in the city before the US flattened the whole city. US fighting this by the book is a joke, they are in an ILEGAL war according to the UN how can they be fighting by the book. Abu Gharaib was not by the book, 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.

You destroyed a sovereign country, the people testify themselves they are worse off now then they ever were with Sadam. No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up. Is the world safer... give me a break, this done nothing but fueled Radical islam Alqueda is stronger because of the war in Iraq, they have more men and a more reason to take revenge on the US, you idiots played right in the hands of Osama, he couldnt have planned it any better.

You occupied a country with no plan, did you people pay no attention to history Algeria, vietnam, ireland... hellooooo, did you think you will go in there without the Iraqi people fighting back, you tried to take a land thats unpredictable and highly intolerant of americans and the more people you kill the more you will inspire!

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 after 4 years you still only control 40% of Baghdad with the fighters just moving around when you move in their area. You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet, the US has never ever won a gorilla warfare and you just dont have the stomach for it. This will be another shameful defeat just like vietnam only this time they wont stop as you have inspired Al Queda with more men and more reason, you will get payback and you have put the world in a more dangerous place.

PS The UN is a failed concept anyone as we cannot remove country's individual agendas and personal interests from the equation. For example, any country with a dictatorship is clearing going to back other similar governments.

Plus I also wonder what you have to say to the 500,000+ people killed under Sadam's regime.

[Caladan 19]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

you did see that pic matt posted of a medivac helo that was shot up? the insurgents violate the law of land warfare probably on a daily basis.

That doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to conduct the war well, and unfortunately, we're bombing that test pretty spectacularly.

[Dan J 277]

If you want to go to war with guerrilla fighters you can. But don't expect them to follow your rules. Considering they have a significant technological disadvantage they will likely use whatever means they have available to them to fight.

I suppose you want them to line up on the battlefield, where they wont even stand a chance.

If the US wants to fight guerrilla fighters, it will need to adopt tactics that work against this kind of enemy. One of the most effective tools, having the civilian population on your side. And the US has done a poor job of that. With everything from killing civilians in bombings to a complete disrespect of the culture.

You don't win wars, by making more enemies.

not "our rules" but internationally agreed upon rules of warfare. violating them can lead to prosecution for war crimes.

Well, I don't think our enemy was a party to the making of those rules. We can follow them (we have had some messy mistakes), but they are sure as hell not going to.

[smoke20 0]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

[Caladan 19]

If you want to go to war with guerrilla fighters you can. But don't expect them to follow your rules. Considering they have a significant technological disadvantage they will likely use whatever means they have available to them to fight.

I suppose you want them to line up on the battlefield, where they wont even stand a chance.

If the US wants to fight guerrilla fighters, it will need to adopt tactics that work against this kind of enemy. One of the most effective tools, having the civilian population on your side. And the US has done a poor job of that. With everything from killing civilians in bombings to a complete disrespect of the culture.

You don't win wars, by making more enemies.

not "our rules" but internationally agreed upon rules of warfare. violating them can lead to prosecution for war crimes.

That's the thing... all of the ways we understand warfare apply to STATES making decisions, and we're really not sure how that applies to terrorism. E.g., if we were calling them state actors, then the Gitmo prisoners would be POWs and entitled to more rights than we're giving them. But we're not saying they're prisoners of war because they're stateless as far as we're concerned.

It's a whole bloody mess.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

Well, I don't think our enemy was a party to the making of those rules. We can follow them (we have had some messy mistakes), but they are sure as hell not going to.

neither did hitler and crew, and you saw what happened at nurmburg.

[smoke20 0]

yes it was directed at you & dan. if you don't understand the correlation between "strapping babies & running to hide behind them" you are blind.

I understand it in theory - but as other have pointed out, applying it practically to the chaos of an urban battlefield is rather difficult. That's not difficult to see is it?

Having a bunch of people or babies strapped to you would make you easy to find, not mention hard to get away.

oh but shooting from inside a school or a mosque & claiming "victim" when you get smoked is hard to find?

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

That doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to conduct the war well, and unfortunately, we're bombing that test pretty spectacularly.

correct. nor did i say that it did.

That's the thing... all of the ways we understand warfare apply to STATES making decisions, and we're really not sure how that applies to terrorism. E.g., if we were calling them state actors, then the Gitmo prisoners would be POWs and entitled to more rights than we're giving them. But we're not saying they're prisoners of war because they're stateless as far as we're concerned.

It's a whole bloody mess.

they could always be tried and shot as spies as they have no discernable uniform.

[Heracles 417]

If you want to go to war with guerrilla fighters you can. But don't expect them to follow your rules. Considering they have a significant technological disadvantage they will likely use whatever means they have available to them to fight.

I suppose you want them to line up on the battlefield, where they wont even stand a chance.

If the US wants to fight guerrilla fighters, it will need to adopt tactics that work against this kind of enemy. One of the most effective tools, having the civilian population on your side. And the US has done a poor job of that. With everything from killing civilians in bombings to a complete disrespect of the culture.

You don't win wars, by making more enemies.

Which works in theory but not in practice. Any informant there knows they will be killed if they open their mouth. The problem with guerrilla warfare is that you cannot win when an army plays by the rules while the other side piss on the Geneva convention.

The enemy can be weakened and wiped out. It is not the first guerrilla warfare this world has seen neither the last. The only difference is back in the days the other army had no rules to follow themselves. Therefore any guerrilla tactics just angered the army even more. Anyone read up on what the Spanish did to the American Indians while the American / British troops where busy playing by the rules..

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!